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.

 

I need proof.

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 10:15 AM
link   
reply to post by hornum
 


I am afraid with technology such as CGI and government tactics with phyc ops and propaganda as well as a little mix of hoaxers it will be very hard to come up with this proof you desire.

Where you will find your proof you seek is from your eyes ears and nose with your own personal experience. Other forms of proof are just plain not credible in this day and age.

The only thing that should fully make up your mind is if you see with your own eyes a UFO land right in front of your feet and a little gray comes out and shakes your hand. Then and only then you will have the proof you seek.


Unless of course there are unknown technologies out there to implant images and sounds in your mind to make you believe a UFO landed and a Gray came out and shook your hand which comes to prove that nothing is 100 percent provable in this day and age.

Let us just hope that when you do get that handshake you are actually experiencing it and it was not just a electronic implant in your neurons forcing you to accept it as proof.

This leaves me pondering..




posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 10:17 AM
link   
Rejecting photographic evidence in favor of hearsay is not advancing the "cause", it's a retrograde movement. Now GOOD photographic evidence in conjunction with reports from good observers would be better. It would certainly help eliminate "false positives".



posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 10:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by hornum
But where is the proof?
this is a classic catch 22...god...where and what's the proof?creation...evolution...adam...missing link ...the bible ,they're proof? our very own existence can't even provide proof of what and who we really are...but at least let's not lose our common sense.reality check ? is that we are exchanging ideas here at ats right now trying to find "your proofs"...



posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 12:01 PM
link   
reply to post by hornum
 


one who adheres to the precepts and dogma of the church of rome in the palace of the vatican,under the supreme power,command and influence of the pope,and not the creator! my definition only!
if one can see something and describe it's shape or any other qualities it is not a ufo!what is controlling the craft is unidentifyable as to whether or not it is terrestial or extra or supra terrestial. that is what the question really is.


[edit on 7-4-2009 by bluewaterservant]



posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 03:09 PM
link   
Well, I wasted my time reading the initial few replies here...

And something occurred to me...

Why oh why do people respond to trolling threads like this, and so many times?

The simple answer to the OP is this:

You've made up your mind. You don't believe, based on the evidence out there, and none of us have any kind of duty to provide you with proof, or an explanation as to why we belive what we do.

If you want your 'proof', Kindly hold your breath... I'll explain it to you when I find it... Which may take a while, so I don't expect you'll be conscious after the wait...

J



posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 03:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Gawdzilla
 


I think you missed my point. There will always be debunkers. Every theory (not proven yet) can and will be debunked. The true believers are usually that way because they saw something. Obviously there is no way you can debunk my eye wittness account, but then again, it's only hear say and can't be used as evidence. The world needs a good ballance of debunkers and blind followers. It keeps the chi good.



posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by network dude
reply to post by Gawdzilla
 


I think you missed my point. There will always be debunkers. Every theory (not proven yet) can and will be debunked. The true believers are usually that way because they saw something. Obviously there is no way you can debunk my eye wittness account, but then again, it's only hear say and can't be used as evidence. The world needs a good ballance of debunkers and blind followers. It keeps the chi good.

I see little use for "blind followers". We have a superabundance of gullible people now.

And using the term "debunker" pejoratively is rather amusing. I promise you can keep all the bunk you want in your theories. I simple like point it out.



posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 05:46 PM
link   
Awhile ago I made a thread to address the very question of "I need proof." If you're looking for a case that is sufficiently strange and yet to be truly explained. Look no further.

All anyone needs to prove that there is an unexplained aerial phenomenon is one verifiable case and we have that in spades. So I'm not sure what the debate is at this point.

The real question right now is how do we better study this phenomenon.

[edit on 8-4-2009 by Xtraeme]



posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 05:54 PM
link   
I havent made up my mind but I certainly wont be holding my breath. I ask you this question. If I went to an airshow and there was the B2 stealth bomber doing some manouvers for the crowd to see and I was filming it with an HD video camera that I have, then took it home plugged it into my tv for some friends to watch, would they believe it to be real or fake? You can't tell me that with the amount of sightings in recent years and with the fair technology around to capture it we dont have ANY good footage of a so called UFO?reply to post by jephers0n
 



posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 06:04 PM
link   
reply to post by hornum
 


I think part of the problem is that with any spontaneous event people are limited by the equipment they're are carrying, and their often limited technical abilities. I think a lot of potentially good shots of interesting aircraft end up useless because of the equipment used, and the technophobes operating it.

So I don't think there's likely to be a direct correlation between people seeing UFOs the number of decent videos. I think eventually, when the majority of people get used to using cameras, due to the prevalence of camera phones etc, there may well be a correlation between UFO sightings and the number of videos.

When I say UFO I mean that in its strictest sense, so a unidentified military stealth craft would come under the heading, as would weather/space phenomena.



posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 06:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by hornum
I havent made up my mind but I certainly wont be holding my breath. I ask you this question. If I went to an airshow and there was the B2 stealth bomber doing some manouvers for the crowd to see and I was filming it with an HD video camera that I have, then took it home plugged it into my tv for some friends to watch, would they believe it to be real or fake? You can't tell me that with the amount of sightings in recent years and with the fair technology around to capture it we dont have ANY good footage of a so called UFO


Here's some compelling footage. Oh and, I'd be remiss to not include the old Nellis AFB vid (analysis).

FWIW video footage doesn't really do it for me. It's air / ground radar combined with air / ground visual that makes me sit up and take notice.

[edit on 7-4-2009 by Xtraeme]



posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 06:15 PM
link   
Well the debate is that there is no proof! I am not doubting that these people experienced something amazing but if I took an aircraft went back in time and flew over the pilgrims they would be amazed too! The crux of what I am after as far as proof is concerned is that UFO's are from other worlds and are controlled by aliens. The technology described in the article presented could easily be of man of whatever govt. look at the sr71 and when it was designed and built, in all this time its still the fastest? thats BS. The Germans at the end of WW2 had made some amazing discoveries including rocket propulsion inwhich many scientists were shipped to the US and Sth Am. Who knows truely which Govt or Country has this tech or if it exists, I would love some proof.

Originally posted by Xtraeme
Awhile ago I made a thread to address the very question of "I need proof."

If you're looking for a case that is sufficiently strange and yet to be truly explained. Look no further.

All anyone needs to prove there is an unexplained aerial phenomenon is one verifiable case, and we have that, in spades. So I'm not sure what the debate is at this point.

The real question right now is how do we better study this phenomenon.

[edit on 7-4-2009 by Xtraeme]



posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 06:23 PM
link   
I have seen this before and will investigate further, will keep you posted.The video looks like an RC craft though, I will look into rdar etc.reply to post by Xtraeme
 



posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 06:54 PM
link   
here come the men in black ( clap-clap )
galaxy defenders ! (clap clap)



posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 07:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xtraeme
All anyone needs to prove there is an unexplained aerial phenomenon is one verifiable case, and we have that, in spades. So I'm not sure what the debate is at this point.


"Spades"? Sorry, but you've only dug a hole for yourself. Your case depends on faith that the reports are correct and the interpretation of the information is correct. That just doesn't work for me.



posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 07:03 PM
link   
Touche'reply to post by Gawdzilla
 



posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 08:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
"Spades"? Sorry, but you've only dug a hole for yourself. Your case depends on faith that the reports are correct and the interpretation of the information is correct. That just doesn't work for me.


Rather than get in to a long breathless debate over differing positions why don't you take the challenge? We'll talk after you offer up your own explanation.

[edit on 7-4-2009 by Xtraeme]



posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 08:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xtraeme

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
"Spades"? Sorry, but you've only dug a hole for yourself. Your case depends on faith that the reports are correct and the interpretation of the information is correct. That just doesn't work for me.


Rather than get in to a long breathless debate over differing positions why don't you take the challenge? We'll talk after you offer up your own explanation.

[edit on 7-4-2009 by Xtraeme]


I jump through hoops at my own request, not someone else's. I guess this means you won't talk to me any more.



posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 09:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
I jump through hoops at my own request, not someone else's. I guess this means you won't talk to me any more.


I'll happily talk to you. I just don't know what we'll talk about. Arguing against another persons beliefs is an exercise in futility. To argue against a specific case, now that has tangible merit!

Whether you choose to believe it or not I greatly enjoy talking with people that are deeply skeptical. Unfortunately most of my professional colleagues are what I would call disbelievers. They don't offer explanations. They disbelieve on faith rather than on anything they know for fact. This is not only frustrating it's boring. They refuse to confront cases that are put in front of them.

Skeptics, on the other hand, are far cry from a disbelievers. They have an explanation to backup their disbelief.

I hope you change your mind. I honestly would like to hear your take on that case.

[edit on 7-4-2009 by Xtraeme]



posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 09:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xtraeme

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
I jump through hoops at my own request, not someone else's. I guess this means you won't talk to me any more.


I'll happily talk to you. I just don't know what we'll talk about. Arguing against another persons beliefs is an exercise in futility. To argue against a specific case, now that has tangible merit!

Whether you choose to believe it or not I greatly enjoy talking with people that are deeply skeptical. Unfortunately most of my professional colleagues are what I would call disbelievers. They don't offer explanations. They disbelieve on faith rather than on anything they know for fact. This is not only frustrating it's boring. They refuse to confront cases that are put in front of them.

Skeptics, on the other hand, are far cry from a disbelievers. They have an explanation to backup their disbelief.

I hope you change your mind. I honestly would like to hear your take on that case.

[edit on 7-4-2009 by Xtraeme]


Have you ever googled that case to see that debunking already done? Why don't you tell me what problems you have with the explanations?




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join