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 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!
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.
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
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.
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?
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.
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.
Originally posted by Malcram
We have the testimony of numerous astronauts and thousands of civil and military pilots
Originally posted by Malcram
Your last point that "people have been wrongly put to death based on 'evidence'" before is irrelevant.
Originally posted by Malcram
Thus, society is inconsistent in it's attitude to "proof" when it comes to the UFO phenomenon.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Originally posted by WitnessFromAfar
And ignoring my other points is a bit weak
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.
Originally posted by C.H.U.D.
I come from a background as an amateur astronomery.
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.
Originally posted by C.H.U.D.
No offense, but I have better stuff to be getting on with than flogging this dead horse.
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.
No offense, but I have better stuff to be getting on with than flogging this dead horse.
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]
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?
The United States Armed Forces (even before the Air Force was established as a separate unit) fully agrees with this sentiment.
-WFA
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?
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.
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
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)?
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.