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 Heike
Besides, I have looked at the "battle of LA" case. I agree that it was most likely a solid object piloted by an intelligent being. Nothing about the case, however, implies where that craft or being came from.
Originally posted by Indigo_Child
In general we do not doubt that we landed on the moon, but we have no evidence other than a rather dodgy looking moon landing clip and the testimony by scientists at NASA.
Likewise, using the same standard, there are dozens of scientists from organizations like NASA that give us testimony on the ET origins of UFO's.
You can withthold judgement until the cows come home, but at some point you are going to have to make a judgement. That's life, we have to make judgements even on incomplete data.
Likewise, whatever evidence you get for UFOs, you have to to account for with a consistent hypothesis to explain that data. If that means the ETI hypothesis, then you use that.
Yes of course, but such inference can only tell us what something is not. A UFO the size of several footbal fields, travelling at impossible speeds, doing abrupt turns is clearly not a human craft.
The hovering noiselessly lights are called USO's.
It does not make a case less likely if they are defying our laws of physics, because our laws of physics are not complete and thus an advanced alien race defying it would be expected. It is reasonable to infer that they are using exotic propulsion systems.
Originally posted by Indigo_Child
It does not make a case less likely if they are defying our laws of physics, because our laws of physics are not complete and thus an advanced alien race defying it would be expected. It is reasonable to infer that they are using exotic propulsion systems.
Originally posted by Europa733
Remember my list you guys...
Europa733 : "But on the other side, if anyone hade some empirical evidence of ET visitations, we wouldn't be on this thread "babysitting" our dear believers."
Malcram : "That's naive. You have such trust in the honesty of the 'establishment'."
* Claiming that a conspiracy of scientists or government officials exists which is hiding the truth about the believer's discoveries, or other invented complaints about scientific objectivity.
Malcram : "The purveyor of hearsay the Skeptics UFO Newletter may not be peer reviewed but the journal of the Society for Scientific Exploration, which published the Trans-en-Provence reports, is."
* Invocation of authority rather than evidence
Now regarding TEP and the SSE, you guys are going to have a hard time to find any mainstream & well recognized "Scientific journal" that either talks about TEP or that give credit to the SSE.
The SSE is what is called a "fringe science or borderline association" specialized in things like Ufos and the paranormal, this is in no case mainstream science. Ask scientists to check & verify yourself. (if they even know about it)
So, ok if you guys think that I am a pseudo-skeptic, I don't really care but some of you guys really fit the description in the link provided below and you demonstrated it and keep demonstrating it on almost every page of this thread.
Originally posted by Europa733
Hi Malcram,
When you say : "That's naive. You have such trust in the honesty of the 'establishment'."
You are :
* Claiming that a conspiracy of scientists or government officials exists which is hiding the truth about the believer's discoveries, or other invented complaints about scientific objectivity.
Originally posted by Mysterium918
So that's my reason why skeptics are skeptics. Their minds are defending them from knowledge that they simply could not handle.
Originally posted by ziggystar60
I don't find it odd at all. After being a member here for a little over a year, I have also become more of a skeptic.
When you participate in a forum like this, you get to dig much deeper into different conspiracy theories than people who get most of their information from the main stream media and tabloids.
And if you are open minded enough to consider ALL the information made available, to look at things from as many different perspectives as possible instead of just clinging stubbornly to your pet CT
you will in time understand that many things have perfectly natural and logical explanations. Not all, but many.
I also think it is very unfair the way many "skeptics" are being bashed by some of the "believers".
My experience is that most of the skeptics bring valuable and very sensible information to the table, they very often go the extra mile to give you an explanation for things, and they provide sources, images and facts to back up their statements.
Sadly, some of the believers have another approach. When a skeptic enters a thread with information that contradicts their conspiracy theory, they just stick their fingers in their ears, close their eyes and start ranting at the skeptic instead of adressing the information itself. They end up cluttering the threads with personal attacks and accusations instead of trying to learn something to get to the REAL truth about things.
Also keep in mind, that this is supposed to be a site that is mostly for 'believers' and conspiracy-theorists.
Originally posted by ziggystar60
Hm, I can't remember anyone telling me I had to be a believer to sign up here..?
Discussion topics and follow-up responses in this forum will likely tend to lean in favor of the existence of extraterrestrials and the related conspiracies, scandals, and cover-ups. Members who would seek to refute such theories should be mindful of AboveTopSecret.com\'s tradition of supporting the examination of the \"extraterrestrial phenomenon\" on the related conspiracy theories, cover-ups, and scandals.
Originally posted by Mysterium918
...
The problem is one of awareness, really. I believe that anything could be possible in this gigantic universe we live in. Skeptics are essentially trying to find comfort in the most logical, explainable reasons why certain things happen. In other words, I think it's a defense mechanism. They may not even realize it themselves, but some people could not handle the truth.
...
Originally posted by ziggystar60
And the key words are:
the examination of the \"extraterrestrial phenomenon\" on the related conspiracy theories, cover-ups, and scandals.
Because without discussion, without all the relevant and available facts put on the table, no real examination is possible, in my opinion.
Originally posted by Majorion
I think that they mean; examining a particular conspiracy theory from a more pro-angle.. or.. examining the conspiratorial aspects of a specific subject.
Dodgy??? There is not ONE video clip. There are tons of evidence showing how the US space program landed men on the Moon, and the entire history of these achievements is documented.
Ridiculous comparison between NASA and UFO organizations. The evidence presented is not at all at the same level.
No we don't. No one will point a gun at you asking you to choose between hypothesis about UFOs.
Yes, but the ETH is not consistent with the evidence. That's the whole problem.
It can also be argued that it is clearly not a physical craft.
Yes, but it's also reasonable to call such baseless speculation wishful thinking.
Originally posted by ziggystar60
The members can say what the want, they can discuss anything as long as their statements are "pro" different conspiracy theories?
Originally posted by Majorion
and if someone wants to refute, then they should be mindful of this tradition..
Reading this again, I don't think it's just a matter of a more advanced propulsion system (technology). A much more advanced science is needed to overcome the theoretic difficulties of interstellar travel. I was very much buying into scientific theories about extra dimensions and shortcuts through parallel universe until I realized they are just speculations, not experimentally tested at all.
Originally posted by Indigo_Child
"UFO's cannot be human
That's life, we have to make judgements even on incomplete data.
your absolutist skeptic position
in terms of major cases which ufologists study those are the most common characteristics.
The hovering noiselessly lights are called USO's.
It is reasonable to infer that they are using exotic propulsion systems.
Even if one case exists in the entire history of ufology which cannot be explained without ETH, then it is sufficient evidence.
However, you are muliplying quantites unnecessarily
time travellers, underwater civilisations, parallel universes are only theoretical possiblities and do not form a part of our current understanding of the universe.
any kind of witness tesimony will have variation, even on reporting something as mundane as a car accident, that there will be variations.
So any objection that UFO's are deying the laws of our physics so cannot be true are invalid.
Just a response to the Battle in LA UFO sighting. ...If one accepts all the data, how does one explain this case without using the ETH hypothesis? Take a shot.
Originally posted by Heike
Originally posted by Indigo_Child
"UFO's cannot be human
I have no problem with the idea that many UFOs are "not human." Although some of them probably are military craft on which data has not yet been released to the public. It's the leap from "not human" to extraterrestrial that I have trouble with. "Not human" leaves us with many options besides "from another planet." Yet, "from another planet" seems to be the only option you want to look at.
That's called imagination. We can't reasonably infer knowledge about something we haven't discovered yet. Furthermore, the idea that we are so "primitive" and that we haven't yet learned very much about anything is a product of FICTION, primarily science fiction.
No, it isn't. There are exceptions to every rule, and one case does not a hypothesis make. Mike the Wonder Chicken was a Wyandotte rooster that lived for 18 months after his head had been cut off. Does this mean that all chickens, or most chickens, can live after their heads have been removed? Nope.
No, I'm not. I'm considering all reasonable possibilities. You choose to interpret the evidence with a bias for your "pet" theory, ETH, and manage to find all other possibilities to be less likely.
Excuse me, but FTL travel and life on other planets are also only theoretical possibilities and not part of our current understanding of the universe. We can theorize mathematically that there is probably life on other planets somewhere, but it's still just a mathematical theory and we haven't yet actually found any such life.
Quite true. However, there's quite a difference between two witnesses disagreeing on the driver's hair color, or two witnesses disagreeing about whether said Sasquatch smelled more like a skunk or like rotten eggs, and the immense variation in UFO reports. After a car accident, witnesses won't report everything from a Beetle to a HumVee limousine being the car that caused the accident, and that is the scale of variation we see in UFO reports.
That may be true. However, isn't it just as logical and reasonable to think that a UFO may be something other than a physical craft and therefore it is NOT defying the laws of physics as we understand them?
I already did, and you rejected them all because you find them to be less 'reasonable' than your ETH.