It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by MarrsAttax
at what point does evidence turn into proof of a phenomenon?
Originally posted by MarrsAttax
reply to post by Learhoag
I guess I walked into that one with such a closed question but people should feel free to expand on their answers - this is a discussion forum after all
Personally speaking I'd go with #16 (probably no surprise to you there). For me each scenario in isolation can be discounted but when put together they become harder to ignore.
Can you think of no other scenario where you would believe other than seeing for yourself? What if members of your family told you they had seen one?
Originally posted by Learhoag
But being a skeptic automatically makes me question claims not supported by evidence. Numbers 1 to 17 are hearsay and they are, therefore, unacceptable to me to make a commitment.
11. Dragons are captured on air radar at the same time as being visually spotted by witnesses on the ground.
Originally posted by MarrsAttax
This thread is for believers and skeptics alike and is intended primarily as a bit of fun but hopefully you will see there is a serious question that I'm asking - at what point does evidence turn into proof of a phenomenon?
Imagine if you will that people have started reporting seeing dragons, previously thought to be only mythical creatures. Consider the following scenarios:
1. Someone in the pub tells you they believe in dragons because a friend of a friend has seen one.
2. Two policemen tell you how they saw a dragon fly over their squad car.
3. A policeman reports how he came across a dragon that had landed in the desert which then took off. The dragon left footprints and burned brush at the scene, which were photographed.
4. Your friend in the pub tells you he has now also seen a dragon.
5. You read a book describing how the US army captured a dragon in the fifties but covered it up. The book contains witness testimony from hundreds of people including a doctor who says he handled some of the dragon’s scales.
6. You hear of a young Australian pilot who radioed in to say a dragon was flying over his plane. The radio cut off and no trace of the pilot or his plane was ever found.
7. A picture comes to light of the US Army firing at a dragon above a major city.
8. An astronaut reveals in his biography how he personally saw dragons flying over his air base when he was an air force pilot.
9. A group of friends witness a dragon that overpowers and makes off with one of them. The poor unfortunate goes missing for 5 days after which he is found in a confused state and claims to have been taken to the dragon’s lair. The group are given polygraph exams which they all pass.
10. Thousands more people across the world claim to have been abducted by dragons.
11. Dragons are captured on air radar at he same time as being visually spotted by witnesses on the ground.
12. People in Russia report a dragon landing in their town and walking around the local park before flying off.
13. A man later elected to the office of President of the United States of America describes how he witnessed what he believed was a dragon.
14. Hundreds of pilots, both civilian and military, report seeing dragons flying in the air with them.
15. Retired military officers break silence to claim that dragons are real and that the US government is aware of the fact.
16. Several nations begin releasing previously classified files detailing encounters between military, law enforcement agents, ordinary citizens and dragons.
17. The US government announces dragons are real and show a live captured dragon on the news.
18. You see a dragon with your own eyes.
My question to you is this: at what point would you accept that dragons are real?
[edit on 9/3/2009 by MarrsAttax]
Originally posted by Xtraeme
#11 is much more than circumstantial evidence.
Certainly radar doesn't identify the object it only measures a very small set of characteristics (altitude, distance, speed, rough size approximation, etc) and confirms the existence of an airborne solid (ignoring inversions and scatter). However, if the characteristics it measures don't fit with any presently known identifiable objects it lends strong credibility to the witness's testimony.
Originally posted by Xtraeme
So really the only question left is, what the hell are these things and how can we test our hypothesis?