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: 6
11
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 07:54 PM
link   
reply to post by C.H.U.D.
 


Hi C.H.U.D.




However I make no apologies for loosing my rag a little when I smell BS


Can I ask you what "BS" you detected in this thread? Could you be specific?

You see, when I speak of a "mountain of evidence" and specifically refer to countless examples of radar evidence and sightings by astronauts and pilots, as well as testimony from other highly credible sources, to have that type of evidence all dismissed as "a mountain of BS" - well, as far as I'm concerned, that response in itself, is BS and smacks of the same "ignorance" you claim to lament at ATS.




By the way, I was what you might call a "believer" before (when I first joined ATS), so I've also seen the other side of the fence so to speak. I was sucked into thinking there *must* be something to all these sightings, but I realized eventually that virtually every case has some flaw/hole in it.


Really? If so, I'd suggest that your original status as a "believer" was founded on scant research and investigation - which also seems evident from your posts in this thread - and so was rather easily undermined. I'd further like to suggest that if you were now to actually do thorough research and address the high quality evidence available with an open mind (which would mean not offhandedly categorizing all legitimate evidence as "a mountain of BS") then your status as "believer" would be just as easily retrievable. In fact, I suspect this would be inevitable. However, you seemed markedly unwilling to do so, judging by your responses to WFA in this thread.

I would also be interested in seeing some of your original ATS posts from your professed "believer" stage, so I guess I'll have to search for some.




[edit on 12-3-2009 by Malcram]




posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 08:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xtraeme
Before everyone jumps all over you. I'd like to ask when you say, "due to a phenomena not yet recognized," do you mean atmospheric? Could you elaborate further?


Probably, yes, although thats a loose definition... since they are usually seen "in the atmosphere", it would follow that that is probably what they are. Where they originate from, who knows...

Bear in mind we could be talking about multiple types of phenomena that have not been documented yet, in fact, I would say that there are almost certainly multiple phenomena that are either usually so rare, or so brief that we have not managed to examine/study them.

Perhaps some are just unusual forms of well known phenomena. It's difficult to speculate on what we don't know, but in times like this, I think old sayings can perhaps offer some insight. "Truth is often stranger than fiction" works pretty well here I think




Originally posted by Xtraeme
Appreciate the advice! Between you and WitnessFromAfar's suggestion I should be off to a good start. What's good on the mid-to-high end?
.


I think I would have to go with the Canon 5D MkII. Canon because if you spot a lens you like in another manufacturers line up, you can most probably find an adapter that lets you use it on your Canon. The same is not true for Nikon. Also because Canon has some amazing wide angle prime lenses, that many Nikonians lust after.

The mark II because it's got great specs, and is capable of doing just about anything anyone could want of a camera. IMO the most important things to look for are the performance at high ISO - you want very low noise, and this goes hand in hand with having a quality sensor. Good quality sensors tend to have big individual pixels, and don't cram too many into a small bit of wafer. Big wafers are still fairly expensive though.

Nikon's are no slouch either at the moment as far as I can tell (It's a while since I bought one), but for the reasons above, I would say Canon is the more versatile system overall.


Originally posted by Xtraeme
I have an altazimuth tripod. I've been heavily considering getting one of the computerized tracking mounts for just the reason you described above. Only thing that puts me off is some are a bit bulky, yet I don't want to lose out on features.

Time for me to do a bit more research me thinks

.


Big bulky mounts can hold big/heavy lenses/scopes/cameras, and the good (read expensive) ones are more accurate. I'd hold off on making a decision till you have a better idea what sort of things you'd like to try and photograph - as you say, time for more research. One thing to keep in mind, is, are you going to do a fair bit of traveling or not? If yes, then you probably want something more portable. If it's staying in your home observatory, bulk shouldn't matter so much.


Originally posted by Xtraeme
I'm inclined to believe the only media coverage that would convince people would be a live-video feed from a respected news organization displaying clear structural details such as 'ports' or 'legs.' Though I suppose there's always the 'War of Worlds' or 'The Day the World Stood Still' scenario, both of which would easily push things over the edge.


Perhaps not quite as dramatic, but I think all it would take was a UFO hovering stationary above a city for in excess or 24 hrs before leaving, and being tracked doing so - enough time to actually do some serious tests, and get some experts on the scene. That's a scenario based on my own preconceptions though. As I said before, the proof could potentially come in almost any form.


Originally posted by Xtraeme
Indeed, though that tends to be more of a deduced proof of existence which leaves most people wanting.


Agreed, and it's unfortunate, but "it is the way it is". It's the same "wanting" that possibly prompted people into filling the gap with religion in the past. Nothing much has changed apart from the belief of god being replaced with the belief in UFOs, because I think people need something to believe in, and god/religion is no longer seen to be the "cutting edge" that it once was (hmm - perhaps not the best way of putting it, but I think you can see what I'm trying to say).


Originally posted by Xtraeme
I know you're not terribly interested in digging deeper in to the subject, but if you get a moment I would very much appreciate if you'd read this particular post and offer critical analysis. It would mean a lot to me.


I'll have a look, perhaps a bit later on if I get a chance.


Originally posted by Xtraeme
Thanks again for participating in this conversation.


You're welcome Xtraeme. I enjoy participating in discussions like this one for the most part, otherwise I would not be here



posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 08:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Malcram
Can I ask you what "BS" you detected in this thread? Could you be specific?


Don't worry - it was nothing you posted/said.


Originally posted by Malcram
Really? If so, I'd suggest that your original status as a "believer" was founded on scant research and investigation - which also seems evident from your posts in this thread - and so was rather easily undermined. I'd further like to suggest that if you were now to actually do thorough research and address the high quality evidence available with an open mind (which would mean not offhandedly categorizing all legitimate evidence as "a mountain of BS") then your status as "believer" would be just as easily retrievable. In fact, I suspect this would be inevitable. However, you seemed markedly unwilling to do so, judging by your responses to WFA in this thread.


My initial reaction of belief was founded on my finding the mountain of evidence, erroneously yes, and in a moment of weakness. I'm not claiming to be even an amateur UFO researcher, but I have done enough digging to expose any holes in some cases in the past, cases that most here seem to tout as "solid evidence".

That's enough to put doubt in my mind, along with my own experience. If you don't like it, tough, but it's my opinion and I'm entitled to it, and I've gone to great lengths to explain my reasoning behind it.

As I said before, I've already flogged this dead horse long enough.

Any more questions, feel free to U2U me.



posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 09:07 PM
link   
reply to post by C.H.U.D.
 





However I make no apologies for loosing my rag a little when I smell BS - I believe that is what ATS is all about, although in practice I see ignorance being perpetuated on this forum day in day out, which is a shame.




Evidence and proof are two very different things. Evidence is evidence, and proof is proof. No amount of evidence will ever constitute 'proof'



Dictionary definitions of Proof

"proof (prf)
n.
1. The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true." - The Free Dictionary Online

1proof
1 a: the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact. - Merriam-Webster Online

proof   [proof]
–noun
1. evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth.
2. anything serving as such evidence: - Dictionary.com


Legal Definition of Proof

Proof.
The establishment of a fact by the use of evidence. - West's Encyclopedia of American Law.


So, from your very first post in this thread you were espousing a fallacy. You attempted to undermine the thrust of the OP by falsely claiming that no matter how much evidence was presented it could NEVER constitute "proof".

You claim that 'the bar is not unfairly raised' when it comes to the UFO debate and that you approach it fairly and yet you rewrite the dictionary definition in order to disbar all of the evidence in support of ET/UFO's?


You also say:




"especially when it's as weak and full of holes as most evidence for UFOs is."


Well, the key word here is 'most' isn't it? Even if that were true, as we are dealing with decades worth of reports from various sources numbering in the tens, if not hundreds of thousands, then "most" still leaves considerable room for the 'SOME evidence' that is not "weak and full of holes", which is actually of great quantity and quality. This evidence you make no mention of and are completely unwilling to address in later posts. Why, I wonder? As the Wikipedia entry for "Bogus Skepticism" notes, "Bogus skeptics cherry pick evidence on the basis of a pre-existing belief, seizing on data, however tenuous, that appears to support their position, while declaring themselves "skeptical" of any evidence, however compelling, that undermines it."

You go on to say in your second post:



Evidence is like cow manure...

You can build up a huge pile of it, but no matter how much you build up, it still won't turn into gold (proof).

The only thing you will achieve is to drive people away, since most don't like being associated with a big steaming pile of BS (at least those in their right minds).


So, now you portray those who actually pay attention to the evidence as aficionados of 'cow manure' who are not 'in their right minds', and the evidence itself as something which 'righminded' people "don't like being associated with".

Unbelievable. My friend, this is classic propaganda. If you were a paid debunker sent here to attempt to psychologically manipulate people into dismissing the UFO evidence, you couldn't have put it any better! And yet you want us to believe your approach is fair and rational?

OK, well this is just an analysis of your first two posts. In them, you have already demonstrated your use of fallacy, 'bogus skepticism' and smear tactics. And you are complaining about the "shame" of "BS" and "ignorance being perpetuated on this forum day in day out"?


[edit on 12-3-2009 by Malcram]



posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 09:22 PM
link   
reply to post by C.H.U.D.
 





If you don't like it, tough, but it's my opinion and I'm entitled to it, and I've gone to great lengths to explain my reasoning behind it.

As I said before, I've already flogged this dead horse long enough.

Any more questions, feel free to U2U me.


Sure C.H.U.D. I was simply responding to what appeared like a rather sanctimonious parting shot in your previous post here regarding "ignorance" and "BS" on ATS. I have no problem with you having your opinion, but as you said:

"I don't pull my punches any more...I make no apologies for loosing my rag a little when I smell BS - I believe that is what ATS is all about."

And I feel exactly the same way. It's nothing personal. But, IMO, we are debating one of the most important issues for mankind in which public opinion will probably play a crucial role with regard to the eventual outcome. ATS is part of that, in however small a way. So, many of us take the public debate pretty seriously. Still, I'm happy to leave it there.

Peace.


[edit on 12-3-2009 by Malcram]



posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 09:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Learhoag
reply to post by MarrsAttax
 


#18


what if i what you saw was actually an opaque non-translucent holographic image of a dragon.. and not a living, fire breathing winged reptile?

-



posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 09:55 PM
link   
reply to post by prevenge
 


Personally, I'm thinking Ghost Dragon!


Second line to point out that the first was a silly joke.


[edit on 12-3-2009 by Malcram]



posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 11:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Malcram
reply to post by prevenge
 


Personally, I'm thinking Ghost Dragon!


Second line to point out that the first was a silly joke.


[edit on 12-3-2009 by Malcram]


there's no such thing as ghost dragons.

-



posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 11:14 PM
link   
reply to post by prevenge
 


Careful now prevenge, they'll tear you apart on the ATS Ghost Dragon Board for saying that! LOL

I was - and am - being silly. Just ignore me. A sensible response will no doubt be forthcoming from other members soon. I know very little about holographic tech so can't really comment knowledgeably.

[edit on 12-3-2009 by Malcram]



posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 11:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Malcram
 


You completely missed my point.

All of the "evidence" we have, does not equal proof that we are being visited by ET.

Quote all the dictionary definitions you want, it does not change the fact.

I have not mislead anyone. You mislead yourself.

If you want to accuse me of being a "disinfo agent" or someone who spreads propaganda, you better present proof of that fairly quick or withdraw your claim.

That is something I do not appreciate, especially seeing as how open and forthcoming about myself.

[edit on 12-3-2009 by C.H.U.D.]



posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 12:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by C.H.U.D.

That is something I do not appreciate, especially seeing as how open and forthcoming about myself.

[edit on 12-3-2009 by C.H.U.D.]


Frankly I don't appreciate most you're refusing to make this connection:

A theory that fits the observed evidence is called a proof unless/until evidence comes forward to disprove the theory/hypothesis.

I think it's absolutely ridiculous that we're here in page 6 still and you can't come to terms with that.

Want people to think you're for real? Let's start there C.H.U.D.

How about being open and forthcoming?

Let's hear you say it? Here is it one more time for you, in italic:

A theory that fits the observed evidence is called a proof unless/until evidence comes forward to disprove the theory/hypothesis.

If you'd like to have a productive conversation about this, we're going to have to start at the beginning. And you're going to have to acknowledge the Scientific Method.

-WFA



posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 12:12 AM
link   
I missed your reply with your point but I'm in agreement with you and against all the opposite thinkers.

There is just not one iota of evidence supporting the reality of aliens nor for the reality of alien abductions. All we have concerning these two is simply hearsay; tales; confabulation; fantasy; a lot of faked videos some with CGI and some really poorly done. Even the ones that can be accepted as real bizarre images do not prove they're aliens or if real aliens that they are extraterrestrial.


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


You completely missed my point.

All of the "evidence" we have, does not equal proof that we are being visited by ET.

Quote all the dictionary definitions you want, it does not change the fact.

I have not mislead anyone. You mislead yourself.

If you want to accuse me of being a "disinfo agent" or someone who spreads propaganda, you better present proof of that fairly quick or withdraw your claim.

That is something I do not appreciate, especially seeing as how open and forthcoming about myself.

[edit on 12-3-2009 by C.H.U.D.]



posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 12:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by C.H.U.D.
Quote all the dictionary definitions you want, it does not change the fact.


Funny you should mention the word 'fact', it's the third key term in the definitions you didn't read in Malcram's post.


Originally posted by C.H.U.D.
I have not mislead anyone. You mislead yourself.


You do realize that you're in a message board forum, right, and that we can all just click on page 1 of the thread to 'go back in time' and actually read what you've posted.

I mean, surely you must understand that you've already been quoted misleading others, by two of us now. I'm not saying it was intentional, but I am saying that it's pretty much undeniable.


Originally posted by C.H.U.D.
If you want to accuse me of being a "disinfo agent" or someone who spreads propaganda, you better present proof of that fairly quick or withdraw your claim.


Or what exactly?

Frankly just by quoting you, the argument presented itself.

-WFA



posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 12:28 AM
link   

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


You completely missed my point.

All of the "evidence" we have, does not equal proof that we are being visited by ET.

Quote all the dictionary definitions you want, it does not change the fact.

I have not mislead anyone. You mislead yourself.

If you want to accuse me of being a "disinfo agent" or someone who spreads propaganda, you better present proof of that fairly quick or withdraw your claim.

That is something I not appreciate, especially seeing as how open and forthcoming about myself.


I didn't miss your point C.H.U.D. it's there in black and white so it's pointless denying it now:

"Evidence and proof are two very different things. Evidence is evidence, and proof is proof. No amount of evidence will ever constitute 'proof'"

And:

"Evidence is like cow manure... You can build up a huge pile of it, but no matter how much you build up, it still won't turn into gold (proof)

You explicitly said that no matter how much evidence was presented for ET/UFO's it would never constitute proof.

If that was somehow not what you meant to say then you shouldn't have said it, nor said it so explicitly! You even repeated it in another post! The proof is right there for everyone who reads the thread. Why back away from it now? You clearly said it, and meant exactly what you said, so are you prepared to retract your statement now?

And please don't try to misrepresent what I said in order to create an unnecessary and diversionary drama. I said that :"if you were [not that 'you are'] a paid debunker...you couldn't have put it better", I did not 'accuse' you of being a disinfo agent, but suggested that your use of fallacy, smear tactics and bogus skepticism - all of which I proved so am not going to retract - would make any disinfo agent proud. There is a big difference. And I stand by that. It would indeed make them proud. It's the same as if I said that "[insert name of famous debunker author here] couldn't have put it better himself!". Obviously that wouldn't mean I was claiming you were this author.

Frankly, I have no idea what your purpose is at ATS. I can only react to what you say and deal with that, which is what I have done.




Quote all the dictionary definitions you want, it does not change the fact.


What is that statement supposed to mean? What 'fact'? The definitions I posted establish the fact that your claim that "Evidence and proof are two very different things" and that" No amount of evidence will ever constitute 'proof' is utterly false! Why can't you just hold your hand up and acknowledge you were wrong?

You are being as underhand in this latest reply as you have been throughout this thread.


[edit on 13-3-2009 by Malcram]



posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 02:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nohup

I like to imagine the above aliens meeting with our leaders and being shown photos of other UFOs, and them saying to us, "You got those things flying around, too? We don't have the foggiest notion what they are, either!"

[edit on 12-3-2009 by Nohup]


Wow, this thought never occurred to me before - nohup you have just blown my mind!

I've got a lot of sympathy with Vallee's ideas myself - fascinating to hear you've had communications with him (have you posted details anywhere on ATS?) - the phenomenon definitely seems to go beyond a nuts-and-bolts star trek kind of alien (unless you include Q!)

I'd temper this this though by reference to Arthur C Clarke's statement about any sufficiently advanced technology being indistinguishable from magic. If aliens were so advanced as to be able to manipulate space & time we would probably expect there to be high strangeness - it would also be child's play for them to clear up any evidence of themselves, should they wish to.

If they exist it could well be in these entities interests to remain elusive and unproven, even to be thought of as a spiritual phenomenon - what better way to subtly guide our thinking?



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 01:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Learhoag
 


have you replaced ufo and aliens with dragon
the desert fing is rosswell or crop circles
the russian fing is that village that said them 7 foot tall people got out of a ship then left
and the bit about people cuming out and talkin about it is the discloser project
and the astronaught bit is about was it neil armstrong or buzz aldren or the other 1 who said they saw a ufo



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 05:07 AM
link   
Ok ... I have a suggestion. Rather than everyone whining at eachother like a group of maleducated ten year olds, lets work a scenario out . Someone figure out a hypothetical situation involving , say , a landed UFO sighting, and all of us can then throw ideas out as to what we would collect from the scene as evidence, and then see if all that constitutes some hypothetical situation in which we would have some form of proof.



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 11:18 AM
link   
#18 is the ONLY way to be certain that dragons exist.



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 11:29 AM
link   
reply to post by CT_Flyboy
 


ive never seen a hippo with my own eyes
i know hippos are real
just saying



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 07:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Malcram

IMO, At this point, it is only extreme prejudice, narrow-mindedness, or slavish deference to the pronouncements of 'powers that be' - whether they be political, religious or scientific - that holds back the fact of ET piloted craft in our skies from being accepted as a rather obvious truth.


[edit on 10-3-2009 by Malcram]


UFOs and ETs are completely different subjects, when are you people going to get that? Do you assume USOs are ETs as well? The evidence for UFO phenomenon is overwhelming...the evidence for ETs is virtually non existent. Even when you take into account witnesses who see the occupants of a UFO, you don't know the occupants are extra-terrestrial. You "believers" are simply creating a strawman for pseudo-skeptics/debunkers to attack.

Get a grip.



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join