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.

 

The Three Clinchers for Proof of Alien Life

page: 11
82
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 06:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by SoulOrb
You know something, there is nothing like seeing them yourself that proves they exist, spend less time on your computer and more time outdoors. Now I find it laughable when I read these posts, amazing what a year makes.


I wonder why the thousands of trained amateur astronomers never see UFOs? Perhaps because they see things for what they really are? Or, better, because each and every one of them is being controlled by the M.I.B.? No. 2 is probably the winner.




posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 07:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nohup

Originally posted by SoulOrb
You know something, there is nothing like seeing them yourself that proves they exist, spend less time on your computer and more time outdoors.


The argument has moved beyond the "they exist" point. Sure, weird things are seen and experienced. But what are they? If you saw something, do you know for absolute certain that it was "alien?" How? Even if the thing landed and grey aliens walked out of it and told you they were from another planet, why should you believe them? Where does it say that all aliens must tell the truth?

Again, could it have been a time probe, possibly with robots or genetically engineered "humanoids?" If you can't say for absolute certain that it wasn't, then you can't say it was aliens. You don't know what it was. Just something weird. Unidentified. Unexplainable.

[edit on 6-4-2009 by Nohup]


What???

This makes no sense. We never gather evidence this way and weigh iit within reason.

This absolute talk coming from debunkers and so called skeptics is illogical but I understand why it's done. It's done because they can't debate the evidence within reason so they have to talk in absolutes.

I'm not absolutely certain about braneworlds.
I'm not absolutely certain about the holographic principle
I'm not absolutely certain about what constitutes dark matter/energy

With this logic the field of theoretical physics would be knocked out in a single bound.

We never have to be absolutely certain that it isn't every possibility under the sun in order to build a hypothesis based on the availabe evidence. Nothing in life works this way.

When you get debunkers and so called skeptics using terms like extraordinary evidence, absolute proof, absolutely certain, undeniable proof and more it means the evidence is really good and they can't debate it.

They have to have this standard that's never used when we gather evidence and weigh it within reason. It's because no matter how good the evidence may be they can say well it's not absolute or undeniable. Evidence is evidence. It doesn't need to be extraordinary(whatever that means) in order to build a hypothesis based on the available evidence.

What many debunkers and so called skeptics want to do is remain in what I call a state of constipated possibility.

Cave paintings are not in isolation. There's cave painting, paintings, ancient manuscripts, trace evidence, picture, video, abduction cases and more.

Nobody is saying that there can't be other explanations for these things but that doesn't stop you from coming to the conclusion that extraterrestrial and or extradimensional beings are piloting these things based on the evidence.

To say that because you can't exclude other possibilities, you "can't" come to a reasonable conclusion based on the evidence makes no sense.

The entire world would be at a stand still because we would all be in a state of constipated possibility and no decisions would be made or conclusions reached based on reason.



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 07:12 PM
link   
"When you get debunkers and so called skeptics using terms like extraordinary evidence, absolute proof, absolutely certain, undeniable proof and more it means the evidence is really good and they can't debate it."

Sound like rationalization to me. If you fail to provide good evidence why would someone continue to debate with you?



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 07:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
"When you get debunkers and so called skeptics using terms like extraordinary evidence, absolute proof, absolutely certain, undeniable proof and more it means the evidence is really good and they can't debate it."

Sound like rationalization to me. If you fail to provide good evidence why would someone continue to debate with you?


Of course there's good evidence.

Edgar Mitchell is good evidence. Mitchell was an astronaut that says these things exist. We weigh the credibility of the witness as we evaluate what they are saying all the time. So you have to ask is Edgar Mitchell a known liar or is he known to make up stories. Edgar Mitchell can call the President or the Joint Chiefs of Staff and get them on the phone and get a call back. So you have to weigh what he's saying within reason. To dismiss it based on your belief about these things make no sense.

Is it extraordinary evidence? No
Is it undeniable evidence? No
Is it absolute evidence? No

It's evidence because we are talking about Edgar Mitchell not some guy/girl who does not travel in the same circles.

Here's some some trace evidence cases.

Over the past 38 years, specialized research into Close Encounters of the Second Kind has resulted in a wealth of reports in every major country of the world. CPTR files contain 3,189 trace/landing cases from 91 countries. I believe physical traces present us with the most direct approach to resolving the mystery of UFOs.

ufophysical.com...

Is it extraordinary evidence? No
Is it undeniable evidence? No
Is it absolute evidence? No

It's evidence that we can weigh within reason and build a hypothesis.

Here's some of the best documented cases.

churchofcriticalthinking.org...

Is it extraordinary evidence? No
Is it undeniable evidence? No
Is it absolute evidence? No

It's evidence that we can weigh within reason and build a hypothesis.

Here's some abduction cases.

1961 Betty and Barney Hill Abduction
1967 The Betty Andreasson Abduction
1967 Abduction of Herbert Schirmer
1968 The Buff Ledge Camp Abduction
1969 The Antonio da Silva Abduction
1973 The Doraty Abduction, Houston, Texas
1973 Pascagoula, Mississippi Abduction (Parker, Hickson)
1974 Hunter Abducted in Wyoming
1975 The Abduction of Sergeant Charles L. Moody
1975 The Travis Walton Abduction
1976 The Stanford, Kentucky Abductions
1976 The Allagash Abductions
1978 The Cullen Abduction
1978 The Dechmont Woods Abduction
1978 The Abduction of Jan Wolski
1980's Lost Time/Abduction in New York
1980 The Alan Godfrey Abduction
1983 The Copely Woods Encounter
1983 The Abduction of Alfred Burtoo
1985 Abduction of Wladyslaw S.
1985 Abduction of Whitley Strieber
1987 Abduction on North Canol Road, Canada
1987 Hudson Valley Abduction
1987 The Christa Tilton Story
1987 The Ilkley Moor Alien
1987 The Jason Andews Abduction
1988 Abduction of Bonnie Jean Hamilton
1988 DNA Sample From Khoury Abduction
1989 Linda Cortile-Napolitano Abduction
1990 Westchester, N. Y. Abduction
1992 The A-70 Abduction
1994 Abduction in Killeen, Texas
1997 Abduction in Wales
1997 Abduction in Australia, (Rylance-Heller)
1999 Carlyle Lake Abduction
2001 Abduction in Michigan
2003-Abduction in Florida
2004 Francis Family Abduction
2005 Man Abducted in Florida
2005 Clayton & Donna Lee Abduction

www.ufocasebook.com...

Is it extraordinary evidence? No
Is it undeniable evidence? No
Is it absolute evidence? No

It's evidence that we can weigh within reason and build a hypothesis.

So when debunkers and so called skeptics use these absolute terms, it's a way to say no matter how good the evidence is or how much evidence it is it doesn't matter because it will never be good enough because it's not absolute, undeniable or extraordinary(whatever that means).



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 07:42 PM
link   
reply to post by platosallegory
 


My friend , with all due respect, you have 2 or 3 threads on the go where

you and your mates argue about arguing, this is a very interesting thread , dont sideline it plzz



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 07:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seany
reply to post by platosallegory
 


My friend , with all due respect, you have 2 or 3 threads on the go where

you and your mates argue about arguing, this is a very interesting thread , dont sideline it plzz


So responding to posts and listing evidence is sidelining a thread that's debating evidence?

That makes no sense.

If you can't debate the evidence that I presented while responding to a post, I understand.

[edit on 6-4-2009 by platosallegory]



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 07:49 PM
link   
reply to post by platosallegory
 


Prior to responding to me

look over your last postings and if you think your argueing the OP, or

argueing about qualifying evidence and the wheres and hws of evidence, like the other threads your in



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 07:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Seany
 


Again, your not reading the thread and your just responding to me because you can't debate the evidence that I presented.

Nohup said that we couldn't reach these conclusions unless we are absolutely certain that these other possibilities are not the explanation for these things.

I responded to his post.

You don't want me to respond because you can't debate the evidence that I presented in the post or the evidence presented throughout the post.

Again, I was responding to a post and presenting evidence. I understand why you would want to try and debate a non issue, it's because you can't debate the evidence presented.



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 07:56 PM
link   
"trace evidence"? That's a funny way to spell "weak".



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 07:58 PM
link   
reply to post by platosallegory
 


Actually I agree with most of what you are sayin, Its just that Ive seen the same arguement over and over and over and over again between yourself and the usual suspects

I was hopin for the OP to enter the thread with Mikesighn and cont on with this very interesting thread



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 08:08 PM
link   
reply to post by platosallegory
 


WOW,good info!Thanx for the contribution and rational.Those,mine,and other accounts are clearly (when put together,or even alone on some) enough to convince most!I guess it is good we always have a balance(skeptics) but enough is enough!Proof is proof,logic is logic!Star for your post..



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 08:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Seany
 



I was hopin for the OP to enter the thread with Mikesighn and cont on with this very interesting thread


Explain please.........



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 08:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seany
reply to post by platosallegory
 


Actually I agree with most of what you are sayin, Its just that Ive seen the same arguement over and over and over and over again between yourself and the usual suspects

I was hopin for the OP to enter the thread with Mikesighn and cont on with this very interesting thread


I agree it's very interesting and as I said I was responding to a post and if you don't like what I'm saying then put me on ignore.

When someone says that we have to be absolutely certain before we can draw these conclusions then I'm going to respond and present evidence.

I understand that putting this debate within the realm of reason puts a period instead of a question mark about these things . I know that will make some uncomfortable because they want to debate the question mark on both sides of the issue.

So put me on ignore if you don't like the evidence or the way that I'm presenting the evidence within the context of reason.



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 08:12 PM
link   

Nohup said that we couldn't reach these conclusions unless we are absolutely certain that these other possibilities are not the explanation for these things.


Well when you have something that by probability is 95% likely extraterrestrial/dimensional/temporal(non-Earthly) in origin then you have to go ahead and take the odds!



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 08:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by jkrog08
reply to post by platosallegory
 


WOW,good info!Thanx for the contribution and rational.Those,mine,and other accounts are clearly (when put together,or even alone on some) enough to convince most!I guess it is good we always have a balance(skeptics) but enough is enough!Proof is proof,logic is logic!Star for your post..


Thanks.

I think this thread is great and the evidence that's being presented throughout the thread is great.

Some of these things are new to me and they are very interesting like the Betty Hill star map.



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 08:35 PM
link   
Let me ask the skeptics this:Do you believe in extraterrestrials?..............Do you believe that they have the capability to reach other star systems than their system of origin(SO).........Do you think the government would tell us at our present level of evolvement of contact with these beings who could likely have science that would dramatically shift our worldwide paradigm?

What if these beings could prove m-theory,parallel universes,creation of the universe by clashing brains,etc,etc............Don't you think that would drastically change EVERYTHING???



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 09:33 PM
link   
reply to post by mortalengine
 


If Nazca was an alien airfield, it must have been a very confusing airfield, consisting as it does of giant lizards, spiders, monkeys, llamas, dogs, hummingbirds, etc., not to mention the zigzagging and crisscrossing lines and geometric designs. It was very considerate of the aliens to depict plants and animals of interest to the locals, even though it must have meant that navigation would be more difficult than a straight runway or a large clearing. Also, the airport must have been a very busy place, needing 37 miles of runway to handle all the traffic. However, it is unlikely spacecraft could have landed in the area without disturbing some of the artwork or the soil. There is no evidence of such disturbance.



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 09:37 PM
link   
reply to post by dragonridr
 


I dont believe most of any of Nazca was an airfield,rather a open place of signaling/worshiping to et's.The only thing I think was a spaceport was the pic dubbed "the space port".



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 09:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by platosallegory

When you get debunkers and so called skeptics using terms like extraordinary evidence, absolute proof, absolutely certain, undeniable proof and more it means the evidence is really good and they can't debate it


Yeah, I know.

This guys sums it up quite nicely:

"This type of logic can be successfully applied to any claim. For instance, let's declare that dinosaurs are an extraordinary claim. This declaration requires no logical substantiation, just the way skeptics use their nearly zero a priori probability of extraterrestrial visitation to declare the claim extraordinary with no logical defense whatsoever, given the insufficient information to determine this probability. So, we have declared dinosaurs to be an extraordinary claim. The next step is to reject all fossil evidence for dinosaurs, since fossils are only acceptable for ordinary claims such as woolly mammoths; for extraordinary dinosaur claims, fossils are worthless. What we need, as dinosaur skeptics, is physical proof of an intact dinosaur. And, to make it even more similar to the skeptic approach, we don't need to defend the rationale of the demand for physical proof of dinosaurs; the fact that it is an extraordinary claim allows us to demand the very upper boundary of conceptually feasible modes of proof -- but conceptual feasibility does not translate into practical feasibility. Sure, I can demand physical proof, but
will I get it? Is it worth ignoring fossil evidence in my wait for physical proof?

We could extend the analogy further by applying more skeptic logical tricks. For instance, dinosaur articles are published in journals which already believe in dinosaurs; therefore, it is biased and one-sided, and hardly representative of truly critical peer review. We could assert that all fossils are best explained as hoaxes, misidentifications of known and unknown geological processes, and hallucinations and/or misinterpretations by overzealous paleontologists imposing their belief system on an anomalous rock. This, I can contend, is the "simplest explanation", and I don't have to worry about using overstrenuous logic because, in an absence of physical proof of dinosaurs, any explanation is simpler, no matter how contrived and convoluted! This is the essence of the scientific rejection of the UFO evidence: an overwhelming need to disbelieve coupled with a shameful lack of research into the actual evidence."
-Brian Zeiler (Thanks Brian!)



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 09:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 


Very well put.

Line two..........



new topics

top topics



 
82
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join