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.

 

When does evidence become proof?

page: 4
11
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by C.H.U.D.
reply to post by WitnessFromAfar
 


I'm sorry, I stopped reading when I got to this part:


I Absolutely Can offer you proof in the form of a Hypothesis


Keep polishing that BS. You just might get it to shine like gold with a little more elbow grease!




Wow man, I don't even have to point out your ignorance, you do it on your own! How did you get all those ATS points anyway?

You see, as I illustrated in the above links all proof begins with a hypothesis.

You learn that in like 3rd grade Science class man. Seriously. If a hypothesis scares you off, then Science my friend is certainly not for you.

Please refer to the Scientific Method, also posted and sourced for you on page 1 of this thread.


Originally posted by C.H.U.D.
Anyone else got any clever ways to try and twist the truth that they want to try out on me? Be my guest... I'll be keeping an eye on this one for the moment at least.


Keep both eyes on it. Take those eyes and re-read my posts. Then use those eyes to examine the actual evidence in the case, it exists, and you are making yourself look very foolish by ignoring it.


Originally posted by C.H.U.D.
Edit to add: Regarding the anti-aircraft barrage, they didn't do any damage because there was probably nothing there (except air) in the first place


Had you actually read the thread (or even the last page of it) you would see your theory here flatly refuted by actual evidence. You see just a few weeks ago I went out to Fort MacArthur, where they used authentic searchlights from the era to actually prove you wrong.

Searchlights shine right through smoke and fog, and that is demonstrated pictorally using the actual instruments involved in the case.


Originally posted by C.H.U.D.
, and you'd expect shrapnel from the anti-aircraft bursts as they went off as they reached the correct altitude.


You'd also (having read the thread) be aware that no anti-aircraft battery would fire over an open civilian population without a clear target in sight, and direct orders from Army command HQ. They had both, according to Army Personnel eyewitness testimony, reported in national newspapers. The Secretary of War himself verified this, and supplied multiple radar returns as evidence that the gunners were shooting at a real and solid object.


Originally posted by C.H.U.D.
You do understand that munitions used against airborne targets incorporate altitude sensitive fuses, so they don't need to hit a solid target in order to detonate?


Actually I do understand it. I understand it and I took a picture of the actual shell used. Guess what... NO FUSE MECHANISM.

But thanks for assuming what I do and don't understand without bothering to check my research.

It illustrates your willful ignorance far better than I ever could.

By the way, when were fuse mechanisms invented? And when where they first put into use? And when were they standardized?

I'll bet you won't even try to find those answers, judging by your sheer lazyness so far. But if you'd like to know, this and other actual evidence exist.

And a hypothesis that fits the observable evidence is called a proof.

Look it up.

Sheesh.

-WFA




posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by C.H.U.D.
Anyone else got any clever ways to try and twist the truth that they want to try out on me? Be my guest... I'll be keeping an eye on this one for the moment at least.


I think the issue is you don't want to commit the time to do the research. Which is understandable. There is a tremendous amount of BS out there. While we're on the subject of what makes a proof, how about this brief one? If you don't think the evidence fits the conclusions I'd be very interested to hear why you feel that way.

[edit on 11-3-2009 by Xtraeme]



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Malcram
You have the mountain of hard evidence that constitutes proof already. Much of it was alluded to in the first post in this thread.


As I said before, a mountain of BS does not equal a single nugget of gold.


Originally posted by Malcram
We have the testimony of numerous astronauts and thousands of civil and military pilots


Yes lots of evidence that people can not identify objects in the sky, even experienced pilots, etc, etc. Evidence of UFOs does not equal proof of ETs.


Originally posted by Malcram
Your last point that "people have been wrongly put to death based on 'evidence'" before is irrelevant.


I disagree. It shows that evidence can be misleading, and can lead to the wrong conclusions.


Originally posted by Malcram
Thus, society is inconsistent in it's attitude to "proof" when it comes to the UFO phenomenon.


You have no argument from me that society is inconsistent. This is true when it comes to almost anything. However, in the case of UFOs, as well as in law, something has to be "proved beyond reasonable doubt", and as long as there are reasonable doubts that what are described as UFOs can be accounted for by something other than ETs, then you can't get a conviction.



Originally posted by Malcram
So, Carl Sagan said "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". Well I disagree, I think the same criteria can and should be applied across the board to all subjects, as part of a consistent "scientific method", as Witnessfromafar highlighted. What Sagan might as well have said is "We stack the decks when it comes to UFO's". That would have been more honest. Nevertheless, the fact is that such "extraordinary evidence" is ALREADY available, both in it's magnitude and it's quantity, and it has been for a long time.


There are some extraordinary stories, and some interesting evidence I agree, but it's still a long way from being 'proof'.



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 04:46 PM
link   
Seeing is not believing for me. I've seen magicians do fascinating things, and I've been under the influence of chemicals and other stuff that made me doubt my own perceptions. I understand that I can hallucinate.

I've said before, I would like the same evidence for the existence something like aliens that I have for the existence of the Eiffel Tower. I'm pretty sure it exists, even though I've never seen it. But there are enough ordinary, everyday, people who have taken photos of it and described it, and who can do so any time they want to, that I'll go along with them and believe them when they say it exists.

So it's simple. Want to prove UFO aliens to me? Just give me the same kind of evidence that proves the Eiffel Tower exists.



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 04:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Malcram
 


Not all other subjects have the same question marks hanging over them though. In a field where hoaxing and rumor is rife, no one wants to fall for a hoax and be made to look a fool. That is part of the reason why every case will always be treated with a high degree of suspicion until such time as it can be proved without a shadow of a doubt that it's the real deal.

If it's real it should be able to withstand the most intense scrutiny, right?



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 05:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by WitnessFromAfar
Actually I do understand it. I understand it and I took a picture of the actual shell used. Guess what... NO FUSE MECHANISM.


Quality research


If a shell has no fuse, how is it supposed to detonate?

I won't even bother with the rest of your points/posts, as you've already demonstrated the type of logic you use, or rather, lack of it.



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 05:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by C.H.U.D.

Originally posted by WitnessFromAfar
Actually I do understand it. I understand it and I took a picture of the actual shell used. Guess what... NO FUSE MECHANISM.


Quality research


If a shell has no fuse, how is it supposed to detonate?

I won't even bother with the rest of your points/posts, as you've already demonstrated the type of logic you use, or rather, lack of it.


Suit yourself, but the fact that you didn't check it out doesn't make it untrue, it just means you're too lazy to check it.

And ignoring my other points is a bit weak, since you were practically begging for proof to be displayed, and frankly I did that for you.

But that's cool man, sure nothing was in the sky that night. It was all air. If that's what you want to believe, fine by me.

The fact is that I've performed actual experiments to demonstrate the physics behind my assertions.

Frankly what it would take on your part is an experiment (or even some armchair analysis) on your part to prove that my theory does not fit the observable evidence. You'd also have to submit a theory that does fit the observable evidence.

I can see that these things are beyond you. That's unfortunate.

-WFA



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 05:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by C.H.U.D.
reply to post by Malcram
 

If it's real it should be able to withstand the most intense scrutiny, right?


Frankly, the evidence provided in the battle of LA thread does stand up to the most intense scrutiny.

That's what makes it a proof.

But I guess you're ignoring the Scientific Method altogether now, since you refuse to address it.

Changed your mind about what a hypothesis is yet?

Found out when fuse detonators were invented?

Yeah, I pretty much thought not...

-WFA



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 05:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xtraeme
I think the issue is you don't want to commit the time to do the research. Which is understandable. There is a tremendous amount of BS out there.


Actually, I have committed a hell of a lot of time over the last 4-5 years looking at lots of cases. I don't know every case, and I have not gone to extreme lengths digging in most cases, but I have also come across cases which cannot be explained away so easily, but still no proof yet as far as I can see.

I come from a background as an amateur astronomer, and am more acutely aware than most as to how easy it is to fall into the traps of seeing something that is not there, or that is not what it seems to be. I've seen a few UFOs myself over the years.


Originally posted by Xtraeme
While we're on the subject of what makes a proof, how about this brief one? If you don't think the evidence fits the conclusions I'd be very interested to hear why you feel that way.


The cases have been around a while, and I'm reasonably familiar with them, but as I said above, there are cases that are unexplained, but that does not equal proof of ET. No offense, but I have better stuff to be getting on with than flogging this dead horse.



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by WitnessFromAfar
And ignoring my other points is a bit weak


Why? You did it as well. At least I gave a valid reason for doing so.



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 05:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Nohup
 


Hello Nohup
Nice to see you applying critical thinking to this debate, and properly representing the opposition argument as usual.

I would proffer that the Eiffel tower is not a great example, as anyone can go to France and see it in person, and you can't just go off to an Alien world to prove the existence of Aliens.

I would offer another, more fair comparison:

The Galactic Center.

Sure, if you get a powerful enough telescope, you can see it, but most people don't have access to such equipment.

All we have are images, radio images, and the word of Scientists who claim to have observed it.

Now, there isn't any huge question mark over the existence of the Galactic Center, is there?

Well the same standard of proof has been provided, and frankly as a skeptic myself it truly bugs me to see that standard ignored in this case, due strictly to the 'belief system' of the skeptic requiring extra-ordinary proof.

The Scientific Method does not discriminate in such ways, and true skeptics shouldn't either. Occam's Razor can be equally applied whether you're talking about something like the Galactic Center or Saturn per se, or whether you're talking about UFOs.

-WFA



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 05:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by C.H.U.D.

Originally posted by WitnessFromAfar
And ignoring my other points is a bit weak


Why? You did it as well. At least I gave a valid reason for doing so.


Actually, you gave no valid reason, as has been pointed out by others in this thread, unless of course lazyness is a valid reason.

But please point out which of your points I've ignored and I will gladly address them. In my summary review thus far, it seems I've used actual Science to defeat your arguments, and illustrated your lack of evidence while providing a mountain of my own...

-WFA



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 05:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by C.H.U.D.
I come from a background as an amateur astronomery.


Want to be a pro? Learn the Scientific Method.


Originally posted by C.H.U.D.
The cases have been around a while, and I'm reasonably familiar with them, but as I said above, there are cases that are unexplained, but that does not equal proof of ET.


It does indeed when no explain that Earth (or Terra, as in Terrestrial) has to offer fits the observable evidence. Unless/until such evidence comes forth that disproves the theory.



Originally posted by C.H.U.D.
No offense, but I have better stuff to be getting on with than flogging this dead horse.


You really have better things to do? Cause you're here at ATS in the middle of the weekday.

If you're here in the UFOs/Aliens forum, aren't you here looking for evidence? If so, why refuse to examine it?

If not, what are you here for?

-WFA



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 05:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by C.H.U.D.
The cases have been around a while, and I'm reasonably familiar with them, but as I said above, there are cases that are unexplained, but that does not equal proof of ET.


I agree. As far as what I can prove I can only say two things with absolute certainty. UFOs are a real phenomenon that appear to be intelligently guided (ruling out atmospheric phenomena) and it's unlikely that we're seeing manned secret aircraft because if that were the case it would imply a massive half-a-century government conspiracy.


No offense, but I have better stuff to be getting on with than flogging this dead horse.


I think the number one reason I'm interested in this subject is that I see a legitimate security threat. As a world, no as a species, we're remiss to ignore that fact.

[edit on 12-3-2009 by Xtraeme]



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 06:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xtraeme
I think the number one reason I'm interested in this subject is that I see a legitimate security threat. As a world, no as a species, we're remise to ignore that fact.

[edit on 11-3-2009 by Xtraeme]


The United States Armed Forces (even before the Air Force was established as a separate unit) fully agrees with this sentiment.

-WFA



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 06:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by WitnessFromAfar
All we have are images, radio images, and the word of Scientists who claim to have observed it. Now, there isn't any huge question mark over the existence of the Galactic Center, is there?


I understand that at a certain point, I have to go along with the consensus. I have to let a majority of apparently sane people accept something as real, and I'll have to go along with them. I have to accept without direct observation that we live in a spiral galaxy called the Milky Way, and there is a center to it out there. I have no direct perception of the shape of the galaxy. The only thing I know personally of the Earth in space is essentially what my ancient ancestors did 10,000 years ago. Stuff moves around in the sky.

One thing that you can kind of use as a rule of thumb about those types of things is how many people who otherwise disagree on everything else will agree on the existence of the other thing. For instance, one really sure way for me to move away from a purely skeptical viewpoint and admit and believe that UFO aliens truly exist would be for James Randi, Michael Shermer, Stanton Friedman, Steven Hawking and the Pope all to sit at the same table and say, "Yes, we all agree that we now have proof of ET life and intelligence." Who am I going to argue with at that point?

But if there are logical and reasonable arguments against something (or a clear lack of unimpeachable evidence or a clear definition for what we're even debating about, such as the divinity of Jesus Christ), then I tend not to believe, no matter how many people believe it to be true. I'll take it with a grain of salt. If I was going to be burnt at the stake if I didn't profess my belief, I'd profess it of course, but keep my personal opinion of it to myself. I'm not stupid.



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 06:53 PM
link   
reply to post by WitnessFromAfar
 




The United States Armed Forces (even before the Air Force was established as a separate unit) fully agrees with this sentiment.

-WFA



But don't you know, that's just because the Air Force is stupid enough to buy into some of the "mountain of BS" that has accrued over decades and that passes for "evidence", including the eyewitness testimony of many of their own highly trained pilots. But then, those simpletons clearly don't know a 1000 ft long cigar shaped metallic craft, pacing them just off their wing-tip, from venus or a mylar balloon. The gullible fools! What they need is a good level headed amateur astronomer of their staff to keep them honest.


[edit on 11-3-2009 by Malcram]



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 07:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Nohup
 







I understand that at a certain point, I have to go along with the consensus. I have to let a majority of apparently sane people accept something as real, and I'll have to go along with them... For instance, one really sure way for me to move away from a purely skeptical viewpoint and admit and believe that UFO aliens truly exist would be for James Randi, Michael Shermer, Stanton Friedman, Steven Hawking and the Pope all to sit at the same table and say, "Yes, we all agree that we now have proof of ET life and intelligence." Who am I going to argue with at that point?


So the earth is flat until the Popes say otherwise?


That is understandable in a time when people cannot inform themselves and avail themselves of all the evidence. But we can, IMO, at least to a sufficient degree to reach a conclusion "beyond a reasonable doubt".

[edit on 11-3-2009 by Malcram]



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 07:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by C.H.U.D.
Actually, I have committed a hell of a lot of time over the last 4-5 years looking at lots of cases. I don't know every case, and I have not gone to extreme lengths digging in most cases, but I have also come across cases which cannot be explained away so easily, but still no proof yet as far as I can see.


So if I were to classify you, you'd agree there are unexplainable CUFOs (Confirmed or Hynek UFOs), but your UFOP (UFO position) is NM-UFOP (Not Measurable)?


I come from a background as an amateur astronomer, and am more acutely aware than most as to how easy it is to fall into the traps of seeing something that is not there, or that is not what it seems to be. I've seen a few UFOs myself over the years.


I do a little bit of astronomy when I can get away from the city, but I'm just a novice with a low-to-mid end refracting scope. I've never seen a visual UFO in person, but if I did, and I couldn't identify it even after long looking, I probably wouldn't believe it unless I had other instrumentation on hand to validate the visual.

I think that speaks volumes about how cultural dogmas affect our thinking. I can state as fact that there are unexplainable CUFOs, but even then I wouldn't believe my eyes if saw one.

[edit on 11-3-2009 by Xtraeme]



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 10:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xtraeme
So if I were to classify you, you'd agree there are unexplainable CUFOs (Confirmed or Hynek UFOs), but your UFOP (UFO position) is NM-UFOP (Not Measurable)?


If you mean, do I think that there are real phenomena that people see that can not be explained by what we know currently?

Then yes, I do believe that a small percentage of sightings are of real phenomena that can not be explained by conventional means. However, that does not necessarily mean they are anything to do with ET, and that is where the proof comes in... No one has proved that connection.


Originally posted by Xtraeme
I do a little bit of astronomy when I can get away from the city, but I'm just a novice with a low-to-mid end refracting scope. I've never seen a visual UFO in person, but if I did, and I couldn't identify it even after long looking, I probably wouldn't believe it unless I had other instrumentation on hand to validate the visual.

I think that speaks volumes about how cultural dogmas affect our thinking. I can state as fact that there are unexplainable CUFOs, but even then I wouldn't believe my eyes if saw one.


Try a little "naked eye" astronomy for a change, if I may me so bold to suggest... It's refreshingly different to looking through a scope for supper faint objects etc.

I'm also stuck in a city unfortunately, although the situation could be much worse, and I try to make the most of what I've got. I much prefer to travel out of the city to do any serious observation, but it's not as often as I'd like.

I specialize in meteor observing, and trying to photograph them, so I tend to get a much less restricted view of the sky, and for much longer periods than most other astronomers (I'll often be out from the onset of dusk till it starts to get light usually during major meteor shower peaks). Once my cameras are setup and running, I can just lie back and take in the majesty of what is usually a good sized chunk of the entire sky, occasionally getting up to swap memory cards.

So far I've seen 3 UFOs that I have not been able to fully explain, two of those since I started observing just over a decade ago now.

I believe there is an excellent chance that there are or have been even more advanced civilizations than our own today, but for various reasons, I don't think it's likely that they would be visiting us.

I'm waiting for proof, and so are many others here, and I think if/when it comes, everyone here will know about it in no uncertain way.

I've pretty much said all I came here to say, and I think I've got my point across (to the displeasure of certain members here it seems), so unless you or any of the other posters here who are capable of rational/logical thought, have any other questions or comments to put to me about my stance on this issue, I'll leave you to discuss the merits of proof v evidence.

[edit on 11-3-2009 by C.H.U.D.]



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join