Does Anyone Deny the Existence of U.F.O.s?, page 1
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 5 times
Topic started on 2-7-2009 @ 01:41 AM by open_eyeballs
It seems here, that there is somewhat of a mis-perception of how many people do not "believe" U.F.O.s exist when it comes to the percieved consensus from the general public.

I would like to know if there is anyone, at all anymore, that...

A) denies the existence of U.F.O.s?

B) think everything is identifiable? And finally

C) believe the entire idea of an "unidentifiable object" is foolery or rubbish?

It is of my opinion, that true U.F.O.s are exactly that, unidentifiable, until there is a scientific way of identifying such objects. Then they become whatever they truly are.

Certainly, most are in fact easily identifiable, some take some serious study to be identified, and on rare occasion are indeed unidentifiable. But is there ayone anymore that believes all U.F.O. accounts are simply made up?

From the internet I would say there is a consensus that has been made, and that is those true U.F.O.s (UNidentified flying objects) are of either a higher degree of technology that most humanity is unaware of, or is of some sort technology from a non human source.

My point here, is that the believers (unknowingly) have seemingly won the battle of "do they exist or not?" And therefore, it is more appropriate, at this stage, to be questioning what in fact these objects are (the unidentified of course) and how do we find out more about them?

So, if there are those that deny the existence of anything unidentifiable in the skys of earth please speak up, and by all means state your reason.

I do think though any replies will be of those that believe, and we will not find many, if any, that outright deny the existence of such objects...kind of validating my point.


reply posted on 2-7-2009 @ 02:08 AM by open_eyeballs
reply to post by Wuushu


Ya, I tend to agree. Surely ATSers are more on the believers side, but I still think even outside ATS that most people will recognize the fact U.F.O.s exist in one form or another.

Even grandma and grandpa are more willing to say, well heck, theres gotta be something goin on up there!

I think this has heavily to do with websites such as ATS and others. The gap has widened and almost competely overtaken those that deny U.F.O.s. exist.

Its almost like those that don't agree there are U.F.O.s are the unrational ones now...

shoes on the other foot sorta thing.


reply posted on 2-7-2009 @ 02:14 AM by open_eyeballs
reply to post by Scooby Doo


Hi, thanks for replying


The only real time we will ever know the truth is if we 1. Get a global disclosure or 2. We actual get visited by one.


I hear wher you are coming from, but I dont necessarily agree. I believe it can be confirmed in other ways.

It really is not the governments job to disclose anything. It would be huge if evidence was presented on the MSM though.

Then you have to remnember, if there is not continual contact and sharing of information, people will be skeptical anyway. like if they can not see it with their own eyes, or touch it with their own fingers kinda thing.

So, it is not important for everybody to believe, just coverage on a large scale, and whatever facts that are known, be presented.


reply posted on 2-7-2009 @ 02:31 AM by Scooby Doo
reply to post by open_eyeballs



I hear wher you are coming from, but I dont necessarily agree. I believe it can be confirmed in other ways.


I can see you point, but the only issue is that there is absolutely no real way we can properly and completely confirm the existence of UFOs or more less Extra Terrestrials.

If we are leaning towards confirming UFOs from just witnesses statements, videos or images, we are jumping to a hole other conclusion.

Lets look at the facts. If NASA ever discovered "extra terrestrial life" (science fans don't respond by saying they found bacteria) the last thing they would do sadly is a public announcement.

NASA is in fact a government branch, this is where I mean government disclosure, if NASA was ever to bring forward actual evidence, it would be disclosed by "Government" means.

And second, witness statements I am afraid is NOT physical evidence. I do sound a little overboard jumping to the fact that a visit from aliens is actual proof. But lets admit it, that is the definition of physical evidence.


reply posted on 2-7-2009 @ 02:40 AM by open_eyeballs
reply to post by Scooby Doo


I was more thinking along the lines of a unified body of experts or panel funded by a university. Maybe a large commercial investment firm looking for new technology.

there definitaly other ways than the government, but if there were a conclusion made, would the msm cover it?

that is the real kicker...


reply posted on 2-7-2009 @ 02:44 AM by open_eyeballs
reply to post by tristar


another great example of the battle that has been won.

your right, it is not if they exist or do not exist, but more what are they?

that has to be the focus. here at ATS, that leap has been made, but that answer needs to permeate the media so that the tough questions can be asked.

Still waiting for that denier...Any takers? U.F.O.s are bunk? made up? no such thing? Maybe they are all earth anomolies? Anyone not believe in U.F.O.s?


reply posted on 2-7-2009 @ 02:55 AM by Scooby Doo
reply to post by open_eyeballs



I was more thinking along the lines of a unified body of experts or panel funded by a university


I do agree with you. That would be a more appropriate solution. The only trouble is where the real funding would come from.

In regards to the media, do we trust them enough with anything else?

We constantly come up with great evidence, and when has the media really ever taken that much interest? NEVER If you were to take a public poll on who believes in UFOs, you would get a very positive response. So why don't the media take any interest?

We could truly never really rely on the media as most of the time a story is usually is just a story, that don't care about the public, they care about the money.

If we spent as much time looking into UFOs as we did Phil Spector, imagine what we would achieve.

[edit on 2-7-2009 by Scooby Doo]


reply posted on 2-7-2009 @ 02:58 AM by open_eyeballs
reply to post by woodwardjnr


Thanks! Notice I have not used ET or anything of the sort. I have no idea whether or not some life form has visited us, or if some life form existed before us here on this planet or whether there is some form of extra-dimensional life that has been here.

I am strictly interested to know if anyone denies there are phenomena happening in the skys above our head (and in some cases in our waters)?

Do you think the can all be explained by conventional aircraft or natural phenomena? Im under the impression the majority takes the other route, while the minority would deny th existence of anything strange going on in the clouds at all and can be easily explained with the right amount of information.



reply posted on 2-7-2009 @ 03:06 AM by open_eyeballs
reply to post by jd140



C) believe the entire idea of an "unidentifiable object" is foolery or rubbish?


Ok. Im sorry, are you saying that the concept of a U.F.O is rubbish or is not?

When i say unidentifiable, I mean along the lines of conventional wisdom. Unidentifiable in the sense of where human understanding currently lies.
I don't really like to speculate on what U.F.O.s are. I haven't a clue. I like to postulate though that considering they are unidentified, they could be anything.

I would definitely consider that in some instances, there seems to be evidence that current human technology does not give a satisfactory explanation of what was seen or recorded.

So, just to be clear are you on the side of the fence that believes all U.F.O.s could be identified with a "closer look"?


reply posted on 2-7-2009 @ 03:17 AM by open_eyeballs
reply to post by woodwardjnr


cool..I totally agree.

See this is my point. Where say 10, 20 years ago, some people would easily pop up and say "oh ya, everything is identifiable. ive never seen a UFO..haha...this is a non sense topic"

wher today, skeptics even acknowledge there is something goin on up there, and they cant identify what it is. that is the major difference.

today, in my opinion , there needs to be independent investigations. Universities should be involved. science has to step up and say this is a valid subject. this needs to be studied, verified or thoroughly debunked.

i mean, if there is something to it, and humans are not responsible, could you imaging the leaps in science, understanding?... it could affect every part of our lives if a discovery could be made.

it would basically be the bigest discovery of all time.


reply posted on 2-7-2009 @ 03:17 AM by jd140
Originally posted by open_eyeballs
reply to post by jd140



C) believe the entire idea of an "unidentifiable object" is foolery or rubbish?


Ok. Im sorry, are you saying that the concept of a U.F.O is rubbish or is not?

When i say unidentifiable, I mean along the lines of conventional wisdom. Unidentifiable in the sense of where human understanding currently lies.
I don't really like to speculate on what U.F.O.s are. I haven't a clue. I like to postulate though that considering they are unidentified, they could be anything.

I would definitely consider that in some instances, there seems to be evidence that current human technology does not give a satisfactory explanation of what was seen or recorded.

So, just to be clear are you on the side of the fence that believes all U.F.O.s could be identified with a "closer look"?



I wouldn't presume to be able to identify everything in the sky as identifiable with a closer look.

Do I think everything in the sky that is a piloted object made by humans? Yes I do.

The fact is that we really don't know what we are able to accomplish technology wise. There is technology that is top secret and I would think that some of that, if made public, would change our perspective of what we are able to do in the sky.
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4  >>    ^^TOP^^



Aliens Among Us ...Video
  Posted 7 days ago with 65 member flags
Moon: inexplicable phenomena. Luna Cognita video.
  Posted 15 days ago with 60 member flags
UFOs \'Escort\' Mexican Aircraft - Radar Confirmed.
  Posted 10 days ago with 31 member flags
The Dyatlov Pass Incident--Russia\'s Mountain of Death
  Posted 17 days ago with 28 member flags
The Aurora, Texas UFO Incident (1897)
  Posted 1 days ago with 25 member flags