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 RedCairo
That's a good essay. Mario was something of a friend of mine via email anyway, and a good man. But aside from a few overtly ridiculous and limited posts on this thread, do you honestly consider the majority of the debate -- which was mostly refusal to agree that ET/ED is "the MOST" likely explanation of anomalies -- constitutes pseudo-science? I do not believe that was quite what he was referring to.
Best,
PJ
Originally posted by Seany
Originally posted by SaviorComplex
I'm done.
People like PlatosAllegory and Malcram will think they have won the argument by browbeating the skeptics, not realizing it is not the same as proving their
argument.
But I hope everyone has seen what kind of people they are dealing with in PlatosAllegory and Malcram.
For what it is worth , no on I believe changed their minds on anything
or anybody , regardless of this thread
Originally posted by SaviorComplex
Originally posted by platosallegory
I think when skeptics try to belittle eyewitness testimony, it's their weakest argument.
In each example you give of eyewitness testimony, there is a huge difference that sets them apart from eyewitness testimony of the UFO phenomenon. In each of those examples there is physical, measurable evidence to support the eye-witnesses testimony. In every single one of those cases, eyewitness testimony is not enough to make the case. If the eyewitness testimony does not fit the physical, the measurable, the quantifiable, then it is discarded.
Originally posted by MarrsAttax
Here's a couple of cases where eye-witness testimony coincided with physical,measurable evidence.
There have also been more than a few cases where witness testimony has been backed up with physical traces and/or radar.
Originally posted by MarrsAttax
reply to post by Malcram
It's something that frustrates me more than anything else. I'm sick of hearing the phrase "there's no evidence" when this is clearly untrue. What is in question is not the existence of evidence but people's interpretation of that evidence.
However, for SaviorComplex to imply that UFO eye-witness testimony is unlike court testimony because it has no physical, measurable evidence is just plain wrong.
I mentioned five hard-core cases in a previous post which as a group included multiple witnesses, physical traces in the environment, credible witnesses and physical medical effects. I have just mentioned two more cases. But yet again we are being fed the myth that UFO witness testimony is simply hearsay with no other evidence to back it up.
I noted that my post citing the first 5 cases (as well as directing people to some IMO amazing & credible UFO footage) garnered precisely zero replies. Make of that what you will.
It is hard not to generalize, this is why I used the "We" but if you read carefully my message, I made it very clear why I did not agree with #4.
Now, we could "play" with words and their definition but it is not really taking us anywhere, is it ?
My point is very clear, we lack scientific data & facts & proofs that we are being visited, it is a constatation based on our scientific knowledge & observations, so yes you are right to some extent, "we" BELIEVE scientists..as opposed to "we" BELIEVE ufologists.
People who choose to be pro-ETH don't need empirical facts & data & proofs, they just cherry pick what they want then they call it evidence just as long as it fits into their "model theory".
60 years of ufology already demonstrated that this does not take us anywhere, we could have had the same discussion 60 years ago.
Cheers,
Europa
Originally posted by MarrsAttax
reply to post by Malcram
It's something that frustrates me more than anything else. I'm sick of hearing the phrase "there's no evidence" when this is clearly untrue. What is in question is not the existence of evidence but people's interpretation of that evidence.