It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


UFOs: Lets cut the crap already

page: 5
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 01:43 AM
Boffins don’t look at the subject of UFO’s because no one is giving them the cash to do so. This is combined with the giggle factor.

Governments are not looking into them for two reasons. First as even with blue book (which many think was set up to discredit the subject) there are too many things that they can’t explain, balloons are warring a bit thin. So in not being able to discredit them they are now working on just the giggle factor.

The second is that they know what is going on. This I believe is obvious they can’t have things looking into nuclear facilities and not know what it’s all about.

That having been said the big question is why the secret. Motive motive motive???

posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 05:27 AM
reply to post by Phage

Thank heavens for that. Saved me (and Michael!) a little thought and typing! Nicely done. Thank you.

posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 07:27 AM
Excellent post OP - very nicely stated.

The chi-squared test result was very interesting to me, it asserting that the probability of unknowns being missed knowns is less than 1%.

I always tend to restate myself on this point - but I don't really believe in anything - holding that a belief is simply a hypothesis that may not have been proved wrong yet.

That aside - there is a great deal of excellent evidence indicating that UFO's are truly extraordinary.

I think it is entirely reasonable to develop a model that explains them as being vehicles for intelligent life from other places.

posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 09:21 AM
solid post by the OP

My own view on the subject of UFO's and the question of such things is this.

If one is to be made then who made you? im sure as hell you did not make the tree in my garden..

The probability of being here is more than the probability of aliens being out there..

says enough to me.. i mean even the word ALIEN says it all...

my cats a bloody alien for crying out loud lol...

so what is so strange about beings from another planet coming to visit earth?

star and flagzord great OP

posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 10:05 AM
reply to post by tallcool1

I and the members of my party not only witnessed the flying object, but had the misfortune of “meeting” them. They are not like you and I, not even close. What we observed was not a military drone. I stated in my last post that I do not want to revisit the ridicule that I was subjected to in my initial recounting of the story. But like I have stated, unless you have a personal experience, the doubt will always be there. I am going to post the link to the thread (regretfully) so you can read it for yourself. I take quite a beating so I’m not thrilled to be doing this. But I think for the sake of this discussion, a personal account has to and NEEDS to be represented.

Please keep in mind; this was an attempt to document a traumatic evening in not only my life but others as well. I have already taken quite a beating on this site for my attempt, please be understanding and reserve judgment until you’ve read the entire thread. If you choose to not buy any of it, that’s your choice and I respect it. It’s pretty difficult to wrap your head around I admit that. I have new memories of that night that are not a part of the story, but I refuse to recount anymore than I already have. Again, I am reluctant to do this but this is an attempt to illustrate the great divide when it comes to this topic. At some point in time those who have not personally been though this will either dismiss it as lunacy, or rely on a tremendous amout of faith. This is what I am attempting to get across. All of the graphs, charts, studies, and investigations will never completely convince anyone. It’s only when you go though something like this that faith and science give way to fear and paranoia.

posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 10:49 AM
"350 B.C.

The Greek Metrodorus wrote that to consider earth the only populated world in infinite space is as absurd as to assert that in an entire field sown with seed, only one will grow."

That is for me simple logic. All the other talk are just b.s. Let the others think that we are the chosen ones and that we are alone in the Universe.

posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 12:07 PM
reply to post by Dimitrios

Dimitrios - Why don't you read the posts before you repeat the silly "life out there on gazillions of planets" arguement. Most of us "debunkers" are NOT saying that there is no other intelligent life out there. There very well may be life out there. We are saying that to believe alien life is visiting Earth is more of a religious faith than proof. The grainy pictures and videos along with all the hearsay is similar to the Catholics and their weeping Mary statues and Jesus in the toast thing.

posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 12:29 PM

Originally posted by Myrmecobius
reply to post by Phage

Thank heavens for that. Saved me ... a little thought and typing! Nicely done. Thank you.

The point of this thread was to encourage thought. I hope you read the counter-arguments to Phages post. You'll see that the point isn't "debunkers versus believers." It is more that UFOs as a concept represent something much bigger than "alien spacecrafts" and to ignore that is to the detriment of science. Especially when there are proposals on the table to deal with transient phenomena in a scientifically rigorous way.

[edit on 25-6-2009 by Xtraeme]

posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 01:54 PM
reply to post by TheDarkHorse

OK, I did read the entire thread you referenced and all of the comments made by everyone else too. Please don't take this the wrong way - I am in no way trying to ridicule you or make light of your experience. While I believe most people who write such things are making up stories for attention, what you wrote would appear to be an event that you truly believe happened. I am still very doubtful that these were alien beings.
Our own alphabet agencies like the CIA have been "abducting" people since the 50's and performing experiments on them with drugs, extreme sleep and sensory deprivation, etc. and this is just what we are aware of. Would any abductee such as yourself consider that your group may have been part of a covert experiment of mind control or something where they inserted the alien abduction scenario into your subconscious to cover up what they actually did? You just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time and became guinea pigs for our government? Possibly the girl who "committed suicide" began to get her memory back of what really happened at the hands of our government and was "suicided"? Would you be willing to accept this explanation as at least possible?

posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 08:31 AM
reply to post by tallcool1

Absolutely. Truth is; that I have to go on is my recollection of the event. Skewed by time, subsequent study of like events also may have an effect on my recollection. As far as seeking attention, this could not be further from the truth. I almost never speak of it or reference it. This is for a variety of reasons. I thank you for being open-minded enough to read it.

All that I can rely on is and was my perception of the events. Quite possible planted memories by nefarious types. I also mention throughout the account that ‘this is what I believe is happening’ not ‘this is what happened’. As I stated before, it all comes down to faith in your own perception. As you and I both know, the tight-rope of faith isn’t an easy wire to walk.

I HAVE to believe what happened was real, I experienced this. My mind convinces me that this actually happened. But I can not provide proof, and therein lies the issue.

posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 09:47 AM
reply to post by tallcool1

I will agree with your statement ..

But at the same time i can understand you are biblical also..that is not a bad thing

But lets look at the proof


kinda simple .. You are the reason for aliens and every other mad crazy crap

just lil old YOU

aliens are real for one reason


posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 10:58 AM
I went and checked out your thread to refresh myself and what I wrote there is how I feel right now also.

Not being able to truly understand what has happened to you is a stress that can't be imagined by most.

There are so many that have had this happen to them and are suffering, I think this is one reason why our government doesn't come out and admit to their knowing because many lawsuits might be thrown at them. Our government has denied this instead of providing people help in some way understand or be able to handle the things that have happened to them.

This kind of experience is life changing and I would assume you at times think to yourself....... I wonder what I would have been like and my life would have been like if this did not happen to me.

As I wrote in your other thread, I am here to listen and help you in any way just U2U me.

posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 08:21 PM
reply to post by observe50

i thank you for your kind words.

I do not fear it. i know that is very simplistic

you have to understand that my life life yours is a mixture of things and not all the same.

humans lie.. but why? its not to upset others..

its complex

but being you and being who we are... coz im no better than you.. is what makes us.. or will..

we will always ask why.. for that is how was was created

but to understand it? well requires humility.

just be happy you are here to question for that is the very nature of what you are about.

stupid? yes.. needed? VERY

you are star
in your own right shine on and embrace your path for it was given to you

i do not now by who? or for what reason but i do was

and in this ..i am happy for my life and death are one of the same thing

in order to be alive one must be dead "word" in order for one to be remembered one must have had to died

we are just but a go in the wheel of time

and i love you all

posted on Jun, 28 2009 @ 01:04 PM

The grainy pictures and videos along with all the hearsay is similar to the Catholics and their weeping Mary statues and Jesus in the toast thing.

There is considerably more proof than the "Jesus in the toast" thing. If you truly believe that, than I am guessing you are one of those skeptics that have decided ahead of time, that everything produced is fabricated or mistaken.

posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 07:02 PM
Because it's highly relevant ...


The Blind Men and the Elephant

by John Godfrey Saxe (1816 - 1887)

It was six men of Indostan, To learning much inclined, Who went to see the Elephant, (Though all of them were blind), That each by observation, Might satisfy his mind.

The First approached the Elephant, And happening to fall, Against his broad and sturdy side, At once began to bawl: "God bless me! but the Elephant, Is very like a wall!"

The Second, feeling of the tusk, Cried, "Ho! what have we here, So very round and smooth and sharp? To me 'tis mighty clear, This wonder of an Elephant, Is very like a spear!"

The Third approached the animal, And happening to take, The squirming trunk within his hands, Thus boldly up and spake: "I see," quoth he, "the Elephant, Is very like a snake!"

The Fourth reached out an eager hand, And felt about the knee. "What most this wondrous beast is like, Is mighty plain," quoth he; " `Tis clear enough the Elephant, Is very like a tree!"

The Fifth, who chanced to touch the ear, Said: "E'en the blindest man, Can tell what this resembles most; Deny the fact who can, This marvel of an Elephant, Is very like a fan!"

The Sixth no sooner had begun, About the beast to grope, Than seizing on the swinging tail, That fell within his scope, "I see," quoth he, "the Elephant, is very like a rope!"

And so the these men of Indostan, Disputed loud and long, Each in his own opinion, Exceeding stiff and strong, Though each was partly right, And all were in the wrong!

Moral: So oft in theologic wars, The disputants, I ween, Rail on in utter ignorance, Of what each other mean, And prate about an Elephant, Not one of them has seen!


Simply replace "theologic wars" with "UFO discussions" and an Elephant with a "UFO sighting" and you'll have my view of the subject. To create a process to order and rigorously analyze each piece of the Elephant, the Giraffe, and every other strange animal that is yet unseen is my vision of what the study of UFOs means.

posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 08:46 PM
reply to post by Xtraeme

but yet to find an elephant while being blind would be a task would it not?

how did the blind men know it was an elephant if they was blind?

Moral of the story is the questions

and the understanding of such.

for to ask the question as the blind men did would require faith and trust in his fellow human "or blind person"

the elephant is the universe and the blind man is the human race

enjoy lesson over for today

posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 10:39 PM

Originally posted by Skyfloating
Im especially tired of hearing the mantra "Extraordinary Claims require Extraordinary Evidence". Indeed what is or is not "extraordinary" is nothing but a value judgement. The idea of - lets say ETs for example, would only be "extraordinary" to the most uptight of minds.

The expression is also a logical fallacy: it's known as the "argument from incredulity" (I don't believe it therefore it cannot have happened).

It sounds so snappy and convincing, though, doesn't it?

posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 01:36 AM

Originally posted by symmetricAvenger
reply to post by Xtraeme

how did the blind men know it was an elephant if they was blind?

It's not altogether uncommon to label things we can't tangibly sense. For instance: electrons, quarks, pi, air, et cetera.

To label something and know it exists doesn't require physically touching, smelling, seeing, or tasting it. I'm particularly fond of this quote:

"Mathematics seems to endow one with something like a new sense." — Charles Darwin

For instance lets pretend a blind person (who we'll call Bob) knows what a toothbrush is, but knows it by different characteristics from a person with normal vision (who we'll call Jane).

The word "toothbrush" is just a shared term to relate a concept. If Bob is say Jane's older brother he might tell her, "use this to clean your teeth." Jane would make the mental association with the smell, sight, sound & feeling of the object. Whereas Bob, will have a different mental picture based off the smell, sound & feeling of the toothbrush.

So the way the toothbrush is internalized in the head of the two individuals is slightly different, but the abstract notion of what it represents is the same.

The same applies for things that aren't fully known. For instance in an ancient Greece the concept of "aether" represented the idea of "material that fills the region of the Universe above the terrestrial sphere."

They had an incomplete picture of what was "above the terrestrial sphere," but they knew it represented something so they gave it a name. Thankfully with scientific advancement came new technology and we've since broken down the concept of aether in to many sub-concepts including planets, moons, stars, comets, space dust, pulsars, free space, etc.

for to ask the question as the blind men did would require faith and trust in his fellow human "or blind person"

Not so. For instance, think back to your old high-school or college lab experiments. Early physics class's often discuss the concept of friction.

Friction is intangible. It's only knowable through the interaction of two physical objects. To demonstrate its existence a teacher might place a brick on an incline plane and let it slowly inch towards the base. On another identical inclined plane the instructor would simultaneously drop an ice-cube to show the difference in acceleration.

The same is true with our example of Bob and Jane. Jane knows a "toothbrush cleans her teeth" because she tried it and it worked.

What I'm describing here with the concept of UFOs, that I presented in the OP, is a new scientific process.

Rather than trusting just anecdotal testimony, instead I'm proposing using a software and hardware solution (i.e. portable hand-held devices), to automatically perform the identification of the object and in the event the software / hardware fails, notifying other people in the vicinity so they can help with the identification, employing their own devices to assist with identification.

Making the identification or lack of identification scientifically rigorous.

but yet to find an elephant while being blind would be a task would it not?

About as hard as it is to locate quantum particles.

It requires knowing enough of the properties of the still somewhat-unclear-phenomenon, such that you know how to induce or increase the odds of the phenomenon occurring.

In the event the phenomenon is transient, the tool described above has the ability to pull in as much information as possible to attempt to identify it based on known characteristics.

Whatever falls outside of that list has the potential to be a new unknown or an old unknown including a newly located property.

the elephant is the universe and the blind man is the human race

Stating it like that makes it sound like you're a nihilist.

I agree with the statement in the sense that the elephant is everything that's left in the universe that is a "true unknown"

These "true unknowns" are worth further study and categorization, so we can reliably identify their characteristics causing "true unknowns" to go from `unknown unknowns` to `known unknowns` and eventually `known knowns.`

[edit on 1-7-2009 by Xtraeme]

posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 01:40 PM
I Live in WNY area and we have a speaker/lecturer who is giving a talk on "The Cherry Creek UFO Landing"..
The Lecturer-Bob Galganski, is known as "Mr. Roswell" , for his research, investigation and knowledge on the Roswell crash. He's appeared on The Discovery Channel, Sci-Fi channel, local WNY TV shows and at colleges all over US. If anyone will debunk a sighting-he will-if it should be. But, he also remains open to it either way. His job and he's good at it-is to find out-is it UFO or Not?
and is a thorough and fair investigator,researcher into any UFO report.

See Link Below!

posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 10:20 PM
No, no, no. I'm fed up with seeing this nonsense regurgitated, let alone defended.

I'll say it again as I've said it before: Sagan's statement about extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary proof is an example of what's known as the fallacy of personal incredulity - "I can't believe it, so it's not true."

Personal incredulity is something the skeptics love to use when it suits them, but disparage when it doesn't. Dawkins, for example, uses it to support the idea that organisms evolve from random mutations in the genome. Again, it's a two-edged sword disguising value judgements.

Originally posted by DoomsdayRex
Sagan's Law has everything to do with science. It is the very basis on which science operates.

Oh, so now it's a LAW?

Actually, the very basis on which science operates was articulated rather well quite some time ago by Karl Popper in his Logic of Scientific Discovery. You can never, ever prove a theory. All you can do is amass evidence that you think supports it. However, you can disprove a theory by providing evidence that contradicts it.

The problem then becomes the selection of valid data, which can be affected by bias.

Strictly speaking, all claims require exactly the same amount of evidence,

Exactly. Well... how do you quantify evidence? If you have two piles of evidence the same height, do you take the pile that weighs more?

it’s just that most "ordinary" claims are already backed by extraordinary evidence that you don’t think about.

Such as? What "extraordinary evidence"? I'm kind of shocked that anyone could quote this article as authoritative. This is some sloppy thinking here, and you don't have to be a scientist to recognise it as such - all it takes is careful attention to the language used.

When we say “extraordinary claims”, what we actually mean are claims that do not already have evidence supporting them, or sometimes claims that have extraordinary evidence against them.

So we'll just beg the question of value judgements completely.

As to the question of evidence, there is plenty of video and other evidence to suggest that UFOs are real objects that show up on radar, for example.

An examination of the historical evidence leads inexorably to the fact that there's been a cover-up going on since at least 1947. See Dolan, UFOs and the National Security State Vol I. The "cultrual schizophrenia" that Richard Dolan refers to is obvious. Most people don't have any problem with the idea of UFOs or aliens. Official culture denies and ridicules this notion for security reasons.

The evidence for the extraordinary claim must support the new claim as well as explain why the old claims that are now being abandoned, previously appeared to be correct.

Anyone see what's wrong with this sentence? No? Evidence cannot explain anything. People explain things. Evidence, by its very nature, supports a hypothesis. Without a hypothesis to support it's not evidence, it's just a bunch of random facts lying about.

This conflation of evidence and hypothesis is prima facie evidence of muddled thinking on the author's part.

And why should the evidence "explain why the old claims that are now being abandoned [were] previously assumed to be correct"? What's the point of that little demand?

This is all well and good, but as Phage brought up, how do you test a transient phenomenon?

Firstly, the evidence that UFOs exist is just as much historical as scientific. When governments are caught in lies, which has been the case over the UFO phenomenon for the past half-century, then it's correct to make inferences from those lies.

The US government has been, at the least, investigating UFO activity diligently since 1947, and has been actively disseminating disinformation about their own activities and about the available evidence in the field. That's a conclusion that you can support with reference to historical documents.

If there were nothing to investigate, this wouldn't happen. It's that simple.

[edit on 15-7-2009 by rich23]

top topics

<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in