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 Great Puzzle to solve The Great Debate!

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 16 2009 @ 09:30 AM
link   
Hello ATS.

Before I get into the topic at hand, I'll give you all a little info about myself.

I've been a member of ATS, since 2003 I believe. I signed up here when I was 15.
My first username being sdrawkcab, now I'm here as sdrawkcabII, because my first username was no longer permitted to post after I broke the T&C several years ago.

I'm a firm believer in extra-terrestrial life and also with their contact with us on this planet. I've had a UFO encounter about 5 or 6 years ago, but held the belief in them since I was a toddler. The thread FEMA Admits to UFO's, sparked what I am about to say, and hence the reason for this topic. I thought it would be a better idea to give this topic it's own place. Thread-jacking is not my style.

Allow me to quote myself


Originally posted by sdrawkcabII
This is hilarious.

Personally, I don't see the point as using this as the smoking gun. It's not!

Because they have a section dealing with UFOs and aliens, and it's FEMA approved, doesn't mean UFOs and aliens exist.

Why can't people see that.

Just because we've got millions of eye witnesses through man kind's history saying they've seen this and that in the sky, does not mean that aliens exist. C'mon people. I'm sure 100% of those millions of people saw something else 100% of the time.

Just because we've got high ranking officials come forward and say they've worked with this project and that project and admitted to UFOs and alien life does not mean they really exist. So what if they've got pictures and videos? Most of them are obviously CG, even the ones created way before computers existed. Even the footage from NASAs shuttles are fake. I mean, people haven't been able to explain them all away, but the ones that cannot be explained, shouldn't even be dealth with. Who cares? Astronaughts come forward, pilots come forward, policemen come forward, even firefighters come forward. Hell, even FEMA lets them publish the garbage! As far as I'm concerned, they're all crazy. 100% of them are wrong 100% of the time! And that's a fact, because I said so!

Come on skeptics...let's be real here. Even if this is not the "smoking gun" as some so eloquently put it...it's definitely another reason for UFOs and aliens to possibly exist.

In fact, the more I think about it...there has never really been a "smoking gun". The only time we'lls see a smoking gun, is probably when aliens invade Earth and Texans and people everywhere are armed with smoking guns, bussing caps at green, mean big-headed beings everywhere. Then, again, the skeptics may truly believe they're simply on the set of the next big film for the big screen.

No, there has never really been a "smoking gun." All the sightings, abduction reports, videos, pictures, testimonies, this little hand book...they're not the proof the world needs...they're millions and millions of bits and pieces of evidence that simply indicate to a large extent that there are extra terrestrial life out there, and that they've been having contact with us for quite some time now. Logic tells me, when countless evidence is suggesting one thing, what is being suggested is probably what is the case.

Thinking about all the evidence that there is, you'd have to think that someone would have to be crazy to dismiss even the possibility of extra terrestrial life making contact with us.

This is just another piece that fits into our big puzzle of evidence. Soon enough, that puzzle will be comleted and staring back at us, would be the huge face of reality, accompanied by a squadrant of alien beings!

My advice to you skeptics is this, do not waste your time trying to use logic and reason to explain away things, that, if you were using logic and reason correctly in the first place, would not need explaining away. You dissappoint me!


Now, with that being said, I want to look at this from a slightly different perspective. Many sightings can be explained away using reason, many others cannot. Some sightings in fact, have been debunked and the explanations are quite simple. Others have left many people stumped!

Dealing with individual claims is what most skeptics seem to do, and this makes sense, but to a certain degree. Skeptics(well, most of them), use logic and reason to find alternatives to "aliens did it!". They do this on individual cases. Now, I ask you skeptics, using this same reason and logic, can you begin to explain the great puzzle I was referring to when I quote myself?

Deal with it the way it is. Take the millions of sightings, testimonies, abduction reports, etc and using reason and logic, come up with some alternative, as to what those millions of pieces of evidence are. 1 single piece of evidence is usually easily dealth with. This is not my proposition to you. I want to know what you can gather, from all the evidence we have been given over the many years we have been debating this phenomenon.

Is it that 100% of the time, 100% of these people are lying? Is it that 100% of the time, 100% of these sightings are indeed something else? Is it that 100% of the high-ranking officials who have come forward claiming they've seen, or worked on projects directly dealing with alien beings, are 100% liars or are wrong? On a large scale, using logic and reason...what is this that is happening?

As I realize now, dealing with some of these sightings on an individual basis is no real task. But, what of dealing with the entire situation in all it's greatness and grandness?

I ask us to come together and discuss what is really happening here. I'd like to here from skeptics, trolls, believers and even the folks who are indecisive about the matter. Am...okay, I take part of that back...no trolls!




posted on Apr, 16 2009 @ 11:14 AM
link   
I have to agree. It would be statistically impossible that 100% of all these people would be lying 100% of the time. I know I tell the truth at least 95% of the time and I think probably does most any individual. So lets lower that number and say that even 75% of them are lying, are wrong, or are cgi. That still leaves 25% truth. Any truth is enough, and this percentage is probably a lot lower than the actual number. There is enough evidence (where this a murder trial) to convict just about anyone in a court of law. Yet people blatantly debunk 95% of all alien related material almost haphazardly. They offer every explanation and never state that even though it is probably something else it could be an alien craft. They can't handle that possibility.

Don't call me a blind believer. I've seen a lot of evidence that is obvious crap. Most if it I also am skeptical about and do not beleive to be alien, but I always state that it could be (if it isn't an obvious fake) and allow for that possibility. Some of the evidence however baffles me. Especially when a lot of eye witness accounts are almost identical, and so are many abduction accounts. Even a percentage of the videos are quite convincing. Lots of people even here on this site come in saying they've seen something and ask if anyone else has seen the same thing. Most of the time quite a few people chime in claiming to have seen the same thing (I doubt 100% are lying about it). Heck I know I've seen quite a few things in the skies around here that I can't explain and are obviously not any aircraft I have seen (I am not too dumb to know what conventional aircraft look like).

Plus I could see how they would find us. Lets use the Betty Hill star map just for giggles (it doesn't matter if you think it is fake or not just an example). Zeta Rectuli 2 is only 39 or so light years away right? In the cosmic scheme we are next door neighbors. When we start exploring I bet we start with stars near us, and I may assume so would they. Plus in the type of galaxy we live in there are only 2 places ( ring shaped zones lying above and below the equator) you could call a galactic Goldilocks zone one of which is where we are. So if there was other life out there it would probably be within this galactic zone of life. Meaning there should very well be life right on our doorstep. That map alone shows a trade route with at least 2 other worlds not belonging to us that scientists have already thought could support life which by the way are also in our interstellar neighborhood. (so can Zeta Rectuli 2 btw, which I think is on the Keppler Satellite's list to look at). I'm not trying to validate the map, all I am trying to do is make an example.

Anyway it is both improbable and statistically unsound that 100% of the countless people are lying, even in cases of abduction accounts. Many people that are abducted are considered very mentally stable individuals with no history of mental illness. I doubt 100% of them would be lying. Tons and tons of people have had sightings, sometimes in groups. I doubt 100% of them would lie about it, it is just improbable. Any psych student could tell you that no one lies 100% of of the time (not even a compulsive liar).



[edit on 16-4-2009 by DaMod]

[edit on 16-4-2009 by DaMod]



posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 09:17 PM
link   
Thanks DaMond.

I see it's been two days, and my thread has already gotten buried under the countless other threads in this forum.

I was really looking forward to this debate., and still am.

What are others thoughts? What do some of you think? Do you think looking at the entire picture, the entire UFO phenomenon indicates greater evidence, opposed to looking at single cases? Or, as I like to put it; does the puzzle itself say more than the individual puzzle pieces?

I'd really love some other input here.

[edit on 18-4-2009 by sdrawkcabII]



posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 07:13 AM
link   
reply to post by sdrawkcabII
 



Hi SdrawkabII,

I notice you put a lot of effort in this thread and it has gone largely unnoticed. So to help it to start going I'll share some of my opinions on this debate.

Yes, I agree with you looking at one area is not enough, but one must look at the sum of the evidence. I think even if you can arrive at a conclusion that supports the ETH with one case it is enough. However, it's always nice to have a couple of such cases because when you do, it becomes nearly impossible to deny by a rational person.

You are right that the skeptic begins by trying to find an explanation that is not the ETH. Now, when he cannot find an explanation he just concludes "Insufficient evidence to make a conclusion", "Unidentified" and still does not accept the ETH. Most of the time, as you will know very well, they will accept irrational explanations, usually by picking out one of either: planet venus, swamp gas, headight, flares, weather balloon, delusion, hoax, aeroplane, satellite, birds, bees, frisbees, which patently do not match the evidence.

First of all this is not the scientific method. The scientific method does not begin by forming a prejudice on what it will not consider in its investigation. That is pseudo-science and faith. The scientific methods begins from a position of neutrality and then objectively observes all the evidence for a particular phenomenon and then attempts to explain that by producing an explanation which can explain all the phenomenon observed.

You can see in my Billy Meier thread and indeed many threads skeptics fail constantly to consider evidence that is counter to their hypothesis. In the Battle of LA the hypothesis that the UFO is a cloud is produced, the counter-evidence that it was photographed, witnessed by tens of thousands, intercepted and shot at for an hour or so does not cause the author of the hypothesis to revise their hypothesis to adjust for this counter-evidence, but merely to reject the counter-evidence just so they can stick to their hypothesis.
Likewise in the Meier case, the skeptical hypothesis is that his UFO's are small models on a string, the counter-evidence is that using a small model and a string his photos and videos cannot be reproduced and vigorous scientific analysis over a 5-year period has validated that it is not a small model and does not use strings. Nonetheless, the skeptic does not capitulate, and maintains their hypothesis rejecting the counter-evidence.

So what is the point? The point that most often the case the skeptic is not a real skeptic, but just an immature person who feels threatened that their conception of reality is under threat, so they reject everything that threatens that conception of reality as false. This is what has prevented Ufology and Paranormal studies from progressing. You are essentially fighting religious dogma. Otherwise, the evidence is so strong for ET, ET should have been an accepted fact by today.


[edit on 19-4-2009 by Indigo_Child]



posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 08:23 AM
link   
How can we judge the whole collection of cases without knowing what are the real ones?

Even if 95% of the cases are true, how can we know which are and which are not, if do not study them isolated from the rest?

If the hypothetical 5% false cases are the ones providing most of the data, for example, it can affect too much the whole 100% of the cases, so I think we can not and should not judge the whole cases as if they were just one.

But that does not mean we should not study all cases, we should, but we should first try to classify them (night lights are very different from abductions, for example) and, after studying them each in their own "classification", we should study the links between the classifications themselves, looking for inter-classification cases (night light and abduction, for example), and try to make a consistent whole with all the cases that were considered relevant.

Then we should take a new look at the cases that were not considered relevant and see if they fit in the "whole plan" case.

Doing things like this, in my opinion, it's the best way of looking at things, because in cases like this, the witnesses were not witnessing the "whole plan", they were witnessing just that case, so we should go from the particular to the general and not the other way around.

But I am only a guy that did not frequented any University, so I am far from a scientist to suggest how to do (what should be) a scientific work.


PS: I hope this does not turn into another "War of the Words" between factions...



posted on Apr, 20 2009 @ 09:52 AM
link   
Thanks for all the replies guys.

ArMaP, I hear you loud and clear.

I'm not suggesting that we stop dealing with individual cases. We can't do that. What I am suggesting though, is that we acknowledge the sheer volume of the cases. It is the numbers I am concerned about. It's obvious all of the cases will not be legitamate. But, it's also obvious, because of the volume of cases, some are. It's highly unlikely, that from all these millions of cases(I say millions, because, I am certain, from the beginning of mans' existence, to now, we've reached the millions...or maybe greater), not one of them is genuine. And if, all it takes is one...well...

What I would like, is for people to acknowledge what is happening. The fact that so many cases exist is highly suggestive of something unidentified taking place. Whether it's extraterrestrial, or maybe inter-dimensional...or something else, the fact that we have so much cases and testimonies(some, from very credible sources) should count for something. Should it not?

It's easy to deny the existence of UFOs, specifically intelligent alien beings when looking at one case...but, if some skeptics can honestly say there is nothing to all of this, in spite the magnitude of cases, something is very wrong here.



posted on Apr, 20 2009 @ 10:11 AM
link   
I have to agree with the OP.

I find the hardcore skeptics attitude to the import of the evidence to be rather like that of Jim Carey's character in "Me, Myself and Irene".

For those who haven't seen it, Jim's character, Charlie, has a wife who is clearly unfaithful to him. Everybody in town knows it, it's obvious, the evidence is overwhelming. Charlie - a white guy with a white wife - doesn't even allow himself to consider his wife's infidelity when she gives birth to black triplets. LOL. Even years later, he won't accept this obvious fact when a friend tries to comment on his kids "year round tan". Interestingly, Charlie's mental blocking contributes to him having a massive breakdown and manifesting an alternate personality in order to deal with his cognitive dissonance.

(Even now I can sense the uber-skeptics attempting to stifle the urge to say "Well, having black kids doesn't prove his wife had to be unfaithful, there have been cases of....." and so on
)

My point is that the OP is right and that the meaning of the whole range of evidence and the sheer volume of very explicit sightings and reports by very credible people over many years is largely overlooked by the hardcore skeptics. They tend to stay out of the very evidence heavy threads. They usually ignore them and carry on in the other threads as if nothing had happened and as if they don't exist, continually crying "Where is the evidence?" or stating "There is no evidence!". They have found a way of living with cognitive dissonance and a perspective that largely omits common sense and the ability to see meaning of the big picture painted by the evidence taken as a whole.

They do not see the forest because of looking only at certain trees.

And note I am not referring to all skeptics here, but a particular breed, which I call hardcore or uber-skeptics.



[edit on 20-4-2009 by Malcram]



posted on Apr, 20 2009 @ 10:32 AM
link   


What I am suggesting though, is that we acknowledge the sheer volume of the cases.


this is what ufologists have done for years, point to the sheer volume. The question becomes volume of what? Anything & evrything seen in the sky by belivers turns into an alien spaceship. Green lights, red lights, white lights. Fast moving , static, slow moving. Big, small, medium. Its not even clear they are the same phenomenon never mind labelling them all as 1 single thing (alien spaceships)

So no , pointing to volume on its own is unscientific and is a cheap attempt to mask the weak evidence for ET visitation.


[edit on 20-4-2009 by yeti101]



posted on Apr, 20 2009 @ 11:02 AM
link   
reply to post by yeti101
 


Actually you would be incorrect in calling it unscientific. Science revolves around math. These are statistics that we are pointing out. You are failing to include the fact that generally people are not that stupid. If you saw a big red light in the sky doing all sorts of weird stuff what would you call it? If your watching it dance around the sky in front of your own eyes are you just going to dismiss it? That would be more unscientific.

I appreciate skeptics when it comes to individual cases. They help sort things out and most of them are pretty reasonable people. But saying that everyone looks up into the sky and makes everything to be a UFO is pure horse (*&#!! I know I'm not dumb enough to make everything into a UFO. I think the general population would be smart enough to differ between a star and a light in the sky producing copies of itself etc. Here's a perfect example.



CNN Interview with Arizona Governor.



Thousands of witnesses. Most people say flares but how can that be? Flares would have been pulled to earth by gravity one, and would not have stayed lit as long 2? So what is it? Perfect example to go with this post.



posted on Apr, 20 2009 @ 11:05 AM
link   
reply to post by yeti101
 



You my friend, are solely pointing to Unidentified Flying Objects as the only cases we have. UFOs are not the only cases we have. Also, there are a great deal of UFO cases that have not been debunked, and are mostly still considered unidentified.

I already stated that they may not all be of alien life...they can be of some other nature. However, most skeptics believe, they have a rational explanation and have an Earthly origin. Which, so far, is not necessarily the case. I'm not labelling them as "one single thing", i.e, alien beings. I'm labelling them as a great phenomenon, that so far, seem to be unearthly.

The point remains...something great is going on here. We're not certain what it is...although, some sources(who have a lot more direct experience than you or I) claim that some of these things, are indeed the works of intelligent alien life. Some of them may be...others may not. The point remains though.



posted on Apr, 20 2009 @ 11:09 AM
link   


I'm not labelling them as "one single thing", i.e, alien beings. I'm labelling them as a great phenomenon, that so far, seem to be unearthly.


LoL your not labeling them as 1 single thing....except you just did label them as 1 phenomenon with an extra terrestrial origin to boot.



posted on Apr, 20 2009 @ 11:11 AM
link   
reply to post by DaMod
 




Flares mate . sorry

I dont know why i have to type another 40 characters



posted on Apr, 20 2009 @ 11:12 AM
link   
reply to post by yeti101
 


Cmon yeti. Discredit the 10,000 people that saw this all at once! Then tell me why they would scramble jets. Then tell me they where hallucinating, and 10,000 people all made this same thing up. Please do it!!

They must be ultra long lasting anti-gravity flares. If you've ever fired a flare gun in the air you know what goes up must come down. Try again.

[edit on 20-4-2009 by DaMod]

[edit on 20-4-2009 by DaMod]



posted on Apr, 20 2009 @ 11:15 AM
link   
reply to post by DaMod
 



did you watch the video i posted? It makes it very clear those are flares dropping behind the mountain.

come on nobody touts those flares as a spaceship anymore not even stanton friedman. They all changed to the earlier sighting that has no pictures/video. You need to do some reading my boy


[edit on 20-4-2009 by yeti101]



posted on Apr, 20 2009 @ 11:19 AM
link   
What about the witnesses (there where a few hundred of these) that said they where directly overhead. Wouldn't the "Flares" have fallen on top of them instead of behind a mountain?



posted on Apr, 20 2009 @ 11:23 AM
link   
reply to post by DaMod
 


Your probably confused because there are stories by a smaller number of poeple about a gigantic craft flying overhead. That was the earlier sighting. The video you posted is the later "sighting" of flares. If you can post a vid of the early one i would be impressed.


[edit on 20-4-2009 by yeti101]



posted on Apr, 20 2009 @ 11:26 AM
link   
reply to post by yeti101
 


Are you talking about this one? This is not what i was talking about...



31 more characters...



posted on Apr, 20 2009 @ 11:40 AM
link   
reply to post by DaMod
 


that footage is not from the same night.

but i'd like to address what you posted earlier. I myself have seen soemthing in the sky i could not identify. But i dont jump to the conclusion it was an alien spaceship. In fact if my sighting is representative of what people claim are alien spaceships then i think theyre wrong.

so your "perfect example" has been shown to be flares and it has turned into my "perfect example" of how poeple can be easily fooled. Nice




[edit on 20-4-2009 by yeti101]



posted on Apr, 20 2009 @ 12:10 PM
link   
That is just the thing though. It's one example. I could literally fill up this entire post with pages and pages of footage, photos, accounts etc. Some of which cannot be explained so easily. Some of which still leave the community baffled. My point in this post is 100% of people do not lie 100% of the time. Most of the sightings are the same thing. A disc shaped craft. How do you explain away a disc shaped craft? 100% of disc shaped craft are not disc shaped craft? Heck I've seen one of these disc shaped craft from a reasonable distance and it was exactly what it was, a disc shaped craft. So 100% of the disc shaped craft are either lies or something else?

I understand that you shouldn't be quick to say they are an ET craft but you shouldn't be so quick to allow it as a possibility especially since we have no idea what is really out there.



posted on Apr, 20 2009 @ 12:44 PM
link   
reply to post by DaMod
 


i have no doubt poeple see things they cant identify.

As for the classic "saucer" i have some bad news. The modern era of ufos started with kenneth arnolds sighting he described them as crescent shaped like a half moon or boomerang whos movements were like saucers skipping on a lake.

In his article the reporter described the object as a flying saucer not crescent shaped like arnold had said. But the phrase "flying saucer" stuck and from then poeple suddenly saw saucers everywhere after all thats what was in the papers. Thats what they were supposed to see, right?

Do you think the aliens would redesign their craft to conform to the reporters mistake? Personally i think this illustrates the power of suggestion. To this day people still report "saucers" probably becuase theyre a fixture in films, comics, scifi , tv , books that has reinforced what an alien spaceship should look like.

All that started becuase of some sloppy reporting. There are some decent ufo cases but they are few & far between. There certainly isnt "sheer volume" of good cases.

[edit on 20-4-2009 by yeti101]



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join