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.

 

Irrefutable UFO evidence. ( Nobody can say prove it ever again! )

page: 3
36
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 18 2009 @ 09:53 PM
link   
Funny how a shock thread gets so many replies and so many flags isn't it?

I would say that the word 'irrefutable' helps the popularity of this thread greatly, even if it's very refutable in reality.




posted on Jun, 18 2009 @ 09:57 PM
link   
well you have to expect that with a site like this.
its not my intention to offend anyone - but most of the UFO crowd are a little bit on the wishful thinking side, some as far as complete nutters. hence the indigo starchildren youre all alien threads. its to be expected. approaching a claim with caution and a level rational mind is something they won't do because they *want* it to be true more than they want to know the truth.



posted on Jun, 18 2009 @ 10:03 PM
link   
reply to post by JScytale
 


Yeah, perhaps we have been forced into our tinfoil hats for too long or breathed in to much swamp gas along with too many shocks from sprites and ball lightning while you guys get all the good purified oxygen of real and mentally stable knowledge.

Millions of people are just crazy - there is nothing to it at all.




posted on Jun, 18 2009 @ 10:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by arizonascott
reply to post by JScytale
 


Yeah, perhaps we have been forced into our tinfoil hats for too long or breathed in to much swamp gas along with too many shocks from sprites and ball lightning while you guys get all the good purified oxygen of real and mentally stable knowledge.

Millions of people are just crazy - there is nothing to it at all.



this is exactly what i mean.
you assume people are either "debunkers" or "believers", and that "debunkers" always use the same nonsensical explanations over and over. life is not so simple. you're labeling anyone who doesnt immediately jump onto the bandwagon as a skeptic, and then immediately assuming he believes nonsensical explanations.

did i say there is nothing to it? nope. i have seen a UFO with my own eyes, dude. I just refuse to believe every bit of interesting "evidence" people bring up because most of the UFO crowd talks out of their asses.

[edit on 18-6-2009 by JScytale]



posted on Jun, 18 2009 @ 10:10 PM
link   
JScytale, powerful post.

Nicely done.







Arizonascott: The point is that this thread is not irrefutable at all. It's in fact very debatable.

[edit on 18-6-2009 by bloodline]



posted on Jun, 18 2009 @ 10:12 PM
link   
reply to post by JScytale
 


Yes, well done



posted on Jun, 18 2009 @ 10:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by IgnoreTheFacts
My thoughts? My thoughts are that this thread will fail. Whenever someone is ignorant enough to use the words "irrefutable" and then go on to say "Nobody can say prove it ever again" they are doomed to failure for obvious reasons of debate.

....

I have no problem logically discussing such things such as this case and others, but when you approach it in the manner that you have, there is no point.

Assertiveness and flexibility must go hand in hand if we ever want to get this thing on the right course.

[edit on 18-6-2009 by IgnoreTheFacts]



Even though I will refrain from such a lashing in terms of the criticism being presented towards the OP's wording in introducing this Thread, I will be the first to admit that Debate is as much a part of Science, as Prayer is a major part of Religion.

One of my MAJOR criticisms of the entire AGW debacle has always been the idea that any opposing theories or observations are moot, and that debate is a past tense issue of complete irrelevance. This can not be any further from the truth in regards to ANY scientific subject matter, and therefore I will state quite emphatically that until we have a publicly introduced presentation of an Extra-Terrestrial and their mode of transportation (ie, a so called "UFO"), and it is backed by the Government and/or the Mainstream Media, and then after it passes all scientific scrutiny, only then will it be irrefutable.

BTW, I am not skeptical in this matter, but I do hope that I am somewhat realistic in my manner.



posted on Jun, 18 2009 @ 10:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
Great post and I think you worded it perfectly.

Like they said at the end of the video, there's no debate if U.F.O.'s exist...

The debate is over their origins.


Did the OP word it "perfectly?" The English language being what it is, our culture often adds weight to words beyond a strict dictionary definition. The term UFO is one of those loaded words. Just as one cannot deny UFOs exist as they are strictly defined in a dictionary, one also cannot deny our culture has made UFO synonymous with "extraterrestrial." This connection is so strong the actual definition is forgotten. This is evidence by the fact you felt the need to remind us what the strict definition is. But there is no doubt, from reading the OP, that UFO is used here in that cultural sense.


Originally posted by Matrix Rising If evidence is found that rebutt's the evidence then present it. This nonsense that it could be another explanation is meaningless unless evidence is presented to support the counter explanation.


One does not always have to present counter-evidence to refute a claim. Often a cogent argument as to why the claimant's evidence is not sufficient will suffice.

But that is al beside the point of the OP. Is it irrefutable? Certainly not. As Gazrok mentioned earlier, Eric Melloit has an extensive study on the case, refuting many of the claims. This editorial at UFO Casebook finds the case to be lacking.



posted on Jun, 18 2009 @ 11:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by arizonascott
Yeah, perhaps we have been forced into our tinfoil hats for too long or breathed in to much swamp gas along with too many shocks from sprites and ball lightning while you guys get all the good purified oxygen of real and mentally stable knowledge.


As much as you may want to scoff, you do have to recognize that sometimes swamp gas, ball lightning, sprites and so forth are the explanation for sightings. It does not matter how many times we have heard them used as an explanation.


Originally posted by arizonascott
Millions of people are just crazy - there is nothing to it at all.


This is a common mistake and accusation made by UFO fans. Saying someone is mistaken is not the same as calling their character or their mental facilities in to question.



posted on Jun, 18 2009 @ 11:03 PM
link   
reply to post by libertytoall
 


Excellent thread! I hadn't heard of this one before. I think it has exceptional proof that something happened there.

Unfortunately many people, especially in the U.S., won't believe "irrefutable evidence" until a "saucer," or something obvious, lands on the ground, stays for a few days, and is reported by network news with the little "Live" notation on their TV screens.
[Even after that people will say prove it...]

Star and flag - thanks for sharing!



posted on Jun, 18 2009 @ 11:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by notreallyalive

Unfortunately many people, especially in the U.S., won't believe "irrefutable evidence" until a "saucer," or something obvious, lands on the ground, stays for a few days, and is reported by network news with the little "Live" notation on their TV screens.


that's because it isn't irrefutable.



posted on Jun, 18 2009 @ 11:25 PM
link   
reply to post by DoomsdayRex
 


And some saying they are believers and then claiming evidence presented is bogus due to "one" word that the OP uses is ridiculous.

That is like saying:

I am an avid fan and collector of all classic cars and the fact that this guy claims that the 68 Thunderbird is irrefutably the best car ever made makes him insane.

Isn't it true that "any" piece of evidence dealing with any issue is another piece in solving the puzzle of said issue? Why then is this evidence or video provided by the OP non-evidence or bogus?

What makes this evidence any less credible than any other? Why is it not the holy grail or irrefutable proof? We have the specific names of scientists, we have the breakdown of their study and pain staking costly analysis, so what is the debate. It is all there for fact checking and cross reference for those that truly wish to study it further and not just attack a thread because of one selected word.

All because of one word - irrefutable

If that one word was not used what would the debate have been then? What other single point would have been attacked?

That is just it, in absence is the fact that there has been no real discussion about said evidence or the proven scientific facts.

Yes swamp gas, ball lightning and other natural phenomenon has been the solution to many sightings, but not all. And in rare cases like the one presented here by the OP, there is nothing but the fact that something anomalous and unknown to current science that happened which leads us back to the truth. There is something happening and an unknown presence on Earth for which we cannot explain.



[edit on 18-6-2009 by arizonascott]



posted on Jun, 18 2009 @ 11:30 PM
link   
arizonascott...

We are making the same exact point.

It's the shock posting style that makes this thread popular, not the actual information which really goes to show you what ATS as a community upholds. I haven't even made a comment on the video so here goes...

It's okay. Little bit of evidence, which is good. Not a bad case, but certainly refutable.

The video was enjoyable.



posted on Jun, 18 2009 @ 11:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by arizonascott
And some saying they are believers and then claiming evidence presented is bogus due to "one" word that the OP uses is ridiculous.


Reading back over the posts in the thread, I have to disagree. The OP's claim the case is irrefutable has been challenged, but no one is using that unfortunate phrasing as an excuse to dismiss the case. While there has been little said about the merits of the case, it is not because anyone has dismissed it, but are discussing whether the evidence can be questioned. In my case, I did cite Eric Melloit's study of the case, not as a way to dispute the case but in order to show it is refutable.



posted on Jun, 18 2009 @ 11:55 PM
link   
"I like it, I like it alot" Good stuff, kind of a corney french version of UFO hunters or something but hey........That guys some kind of head of their Space program so I take his word as reputable. score one for the good guys.

WolfmanJ



posted on Jun, 19 2009 @ 12:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nightchild

Originally posted by aalien
If there were actual evidence of an alien presence, we would know it already


Oh but I thought we did.


Well what if the NSA and CIA posted UFO files on their official websites? Would you believe THEN?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I would call those IRREFUTABLE



[edit on 19-6-2009 by zorgon]



posted on Jun, 19 2009 @ 12:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon

Well what if the NSA and CIA posted UFO files on their official websites? Would you believe THEN?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I would call those IRREFUTABLE



[edit on 19-6-2009 by zorgon]


thing is, the NSA linking cases everyone knew about because they were asked to by a lawsuit really means nothing. there is no "a saucer crashed and we brought an alien in". this is public domain information. what exactly does them posting reports prove? that they acknowledge said reports exist? their official stance remains the same.

[edit on 19-6-2009 by JScytale]



posted on Jun, 19 2009 @ 12:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Kevin_X1
 
NO you PROVE these scientists wrong.



posted on Jun, 19 2009 @ 12:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by JScytale
thing is, the NSA linking cases everyone knew about because they were asked to by a lawsuit really means nothing. there is no "a saucer crashed and we brought an alien in". this is public domain information.


Sure. But often in the public-domain-information you can find some clues that lead to the bigger picture, and with a little imagination and some thorough research, as pointed out in the NSA thread by a certain poster.


Originally posted by DoomsdayRex
sometimes swamp gas, ball lightning, sprites and so forth are the explanation for sightings.


Sometimes yes, not all the time though. The problem with threads like these, and BTW I do share the skeptic sentiment here, is that the title is; "irrefutable" or "nobody can say prove it ever again", as a result; first page dismissals and refutations were offered on-the-spot. Not a bad thing though.

I like this case, I'll have to go through the ufocasebook page you linked. Didnt know that anyone even challenged this. Physical trace cases are always impressive, and the witness makes no outlandish claims and seems genuine. I imagine that there were one or two people with a remarkably similar experience whom later built a story around their experience and evidence ended up either starting a hoax cult or took the freeway with dollar signs.

The behavior of the craft in this case as described by the witness is similar to the account of the one that landed in Rendlesham.

Regards,



posted on Jun, 19 2009 @ 01:10 AM
link   
The problem with this movie (and most of this kind of movie) is that they only show the people who think it was an alien UFO.

Many people disagree and this cas is debunked here : www.zetetique.ldh.org... (in french)




top topics



 
36
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join