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'm pretty tired of skeptics who are unable to think outside the box.

page: 10
35
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 10:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by draknoir2
Wow. Scientific method and logic are simply tools concocted by skeptics to discredit one particular group... UFOlogists. Here I thought they've been around for thousands of years. Learn something new every day.

Science doesn't apply. huh? How do you intend to prove anything?


Actually no just not ufology. Science is used by those who have an almost fanatical religious belief in it.... as a way of explaining what they cannot understand.

You do realise science is continually proven wrong and changing? How can science be used for proving anything.




posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 10:59 AM
link   
Also, F-117s have physical evidence that is documented. All of the images that prove its existence comes in the form of detailed pictures, blue prints, video, and scientific facts.

Ufology uses bouncing lights without details as evidence. Its subjective.

[edit on 17-9-2009 by Pathos]



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pathos

Originally posted by Tifozi
reply to post by Pathos
 


Prove to me that the F-117 exists.

You are pretty funny. Hahaha...

If we were in a court of law, the prosecutor would have to provide the proof. You guys are the prosecutors.

As I said in my previous statement, you need substantial evidence to prove the existence of something. Here is your evidence: images.google.com...

F-117 can be touched by individuals. It has substance. UFO made alien space crafts have no substantial evidence to test. You cannot physically touch them.

Show me yours.

[edit on 17-9-2009 by Pathos]


Actually no. He has a very valid point.

If you have never seen an F-117 how do you know it exists? You are relying on ..... whats that.... anecdotal evidence from others! Maybe a video or 2? but of course.... videos prove nothing in UFOlogy. The videos and photos of the F-117 may have been fake.

His point is a perfect example of what we mean. You happily accept the F-117 exists because you have no reason not to believe it.... not because you have PROOF. You don't believe UFO's are ET vehicles visiting earth not because of the lack of proof but your lack of personal belief.



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 11:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Total Package
If you have never seen an F-117 how do you know it exists? You are relying on ..... whats that.... anecdotal evidence from others! Maybe a video or 2? but of course.... videos prove nothing in UFOlogy. The videos and photos of the F-117 may have been fake.

His point is a perfect example of what we mean. You happily accept the F-117 exists because you have no reason not to believe it.... not because you have PROOF. You don't believe UFO's are ET vehicles visiting earth not because of the lack of proof but your lack of personal belief.

Actually. I have seen one up close. I have also touched one at a aviation museum.

[edit on 17-9-2009 by Pathos]



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 11:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Pathos
 


Oh really?

Guess what, we're not in a court of law. And if you were, you have to "prove beyond reasonable doubt", you don't even have to show actual proof.

I'm still waiting for YOU to post HERE your evidence that the F-117 exists.

And before you start your verbal diarrhea about the education on people around here, mind you that I'm a pilot that graduated with 98%.

Carry on.


Originally posted by Pathos

Actually. I have seen one up close. I have also touched one at a aviation museum.

[edit on 17-9-2009 by Pathos]


I don't believe you.

Next.

[edit on 17/9/09 by Tifozi]



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 11:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pathos
Also, F-117s have physical evidence that is documented. All of the images that prove its existence comes in the form of detailed pictures, blue prints, video, and scientific facts.

Ufology uses bouncing lights without details as evidence. Its subjective.

[edit on 17-9-2009 by Pathos]


Yeah... because there is no physical evidence of alien abductions at all right? Oh hang on yes there is. And there is no documented evidence of UFOs right? Ahhhh actually thats right there are 100,000s of those as well.... and video... well thats everywhere.

Just admit it your ego and fanaticism for science is clouding your ability to think openly about the evidence for UFOs.



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 11:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tifozi
reply to post by Pathos
 


Oh really?

Guess what, we're not in a court of law. And if you were, you have to "prove beyond reasonable doubt", you don't even have to show actual proof.

I'm still waiting for YOU to post HERE your evidence that the F-117 exists.

And before you start your verbal diarrhea about the education on people around here, mind you that I'm a pilot that graduated with 98%.

Carry on.

You are a pilot? What college did you graduate from? What was your field of expertise?

[edit on 17-9-2009 by Pathos]



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 11:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pathos

Originally posted by Total Package
If you have never seen an F-117 how do you know it exists? You are relying on ..... whats that.... anecdotal evidence from others! Maybe a video or 2? but of course.... videos prove nothing in UFOlogy. The videos and photos of the F-117 may have been fake.

His point is a perfect example of what we mean. You happily accept the F-117 exists because you have no reason not to believe it.... not because you have PROOF. You don't believe UFO's are ET vehicles visiting earth not because of the lack of proof but your lack of personal belief.

Actually. I have seen one up close. I have also touched one at a aviation museum.

[edit on 17-9-2009 by Pathos]


And I haven't so am I to believe your anecdotal evidence? I've never seen the Concorde either..... I wonder if that existed.



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 11:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Total Package
 


I see you completely ignored my post on page 8... why ask me questions if you aren't going to reply to my post?

Why make me waste my time?

[edit on 17-9-2009 by TruthxIsxInxThexMist]



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 11:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Pathos
 


Don't run away from the subject. I want proof that the F-117 exists.

And the Google images...Are you serious? If I type "UFO" is that proof?



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 11:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Total Package
 

Sorry man, your logic does not fly. What you are selling is that "shaky-blobs" of unidentifiable lights are in fact alien made ufos. Its all about assumptions on your part. Folk lore.



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 11:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Total Package
I'm saying EDUCATE yourself... don't tell people it's up to them to prove it.


It is up to them. That is how science, every single science, works. If someone makes a claim, it is up to them to prove it.



Originally posted by Total Package
And what a surprise you would say that. Science is and always will be irrelevant.... and continually proven wrong.


Science is irrelevant you say? As you type away on your computer...

Science is a self-correcting system. As our ability to explore the universe around us expands so does our ability to understand it. Yes, we are wrong about things in the past but as we learn more we discard these fallacies. Every scientist will admit this. The only people who think this is not true are people like you who have a fundamental misunderstanding of science.


Originally posted by Total Package
They sit there in their egotistical shells telling everyone how the burden is on them and how it's 'extraordinary' to believe it.


Yes and that is the basis on which everything we know is founded. Everything we know is based on extraordinary evidence, the only reason we do not recognize it as extraordinary is because it is common to us. When someone wants to prove an extraordinary claim they need to provide the extraordinary evidence that contradicts and subplants and invalidates the extraordinary evidence of our common-place knowledge.


Originally posted by Total Package
I guess science would tell me years ago that microorganisms don't exist because they didn't have a microscope...


It certainly would have because there was no way to confirm, or even explore, these claims. However, our ability to explore the universe increased, allowing someone to provide the extraordinary evidence for their extraordinary claims. Science discarded the fallacy of the past and accepted this newly discovered truth.

[edit on 17-9-2009 by DoomsdayRex]



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tifozi
reply to post by Pathos
 


Don't run away from the subject. I want proof that the F-117 exists.

And the Google images...Are you serious? If I type "UFO" is that proof?

I had already answered this question. Please look back for answers.



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 11:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Total Package
And I haven't so am I to believe your anecdotal evidence? I've never seen the Concorde either..... I wonder if that existed.

Unlike the evidence that is used to prove ufos, you can go somewhere and touch a Concorde or F-117. You can be in its presence physically.

Where can I go to touch a real alien made ufo?

[edit on 17-9-2009 by Pathos]



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 11:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tifozi
reply to post by Pathos
 


Don't run away from the subject. I want proof that the F-117 exists.

And the Google images...Are you serious? If I type "UFO" is that proof?



Go to the National Museum of the Air Force and see and touch it for yourself.



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 11:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Total Package
Science is used by those who have an almost fanatical religious belief in it.... as a way of explaining what they cannot understand.


But that is the point of science, the explore the universe and unveil the truths around us.


Originally posted by Total Package
You do realise science is continually proven wrong and changing?


You don't see the virtue of such a system? That it allows itself to be proven wrong, accepts that it is wrong and then corrects these mistakes?


Originally posted by Total Package
How can science be used for proving anything.


Science does not prove anything. Every scientist will tell you this. What science does is look for a preponderance of evidence to explain the phenomenon we see around us.

[edit on 17-9-2009 by DoomsdayRex]



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 11:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Pathos
 


You have completely failed to address my points on proof vs. evidence.

By your given standard, Alpha Centauri does not exist.

-WFA



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 11:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Pathos
 


No you didn't.

You said you have touched one. I haven't, so I've choosen not to believe you.

You went to Google Images and showed me pictures of a F-117. If I show you the same thing but searching for "UFO" or "alien", is that proof? Are you joking?

Military records stating that the F-117 has existed, executed missions and all that. I can choose not to believe, because THERE are records about UFO, and they're actually coming out.

Like you can't explain dark matter and PROVE it, scientists can't explain some UFO occurances. But one is taken seriously, and the other isn't, wonder why...


I know the F-117 exists, but if I take your approach in this forum, NOBODY can prove to me that a F-117 exists, because I can't touch it, I don't see it all the time in the news, and there are only a few people who have been inside of one(working at least).


You're just arrogant, and you're trying to tell people what they should believe in. That's just stupid because no human is perfect or capable of understanding everything.

Provably you don't even the brain capability of discussing a UFO case, but here you are, judging everyone.


My...."area of expertise"? Are you serious? Are you really that ignorant?



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 11:17 AM
link   
reply to post by draknoir2
 


You didn't understand my point, so I wont even respond to that...

[edit on 17/9/09 by Tifozi]



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 11:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by DoomsdayRex
When someone wants to prove an extraordinary claim they need to provide the extraordinary evidence that contradicts and subplants and invalidates the extraordinary evidence of our common-place knowledge.


There is a serious flaw in this logic. What do you do when the claim does not violate the evidence of our common-place knowledge at all?

You see, we know that extra-solar plantets exist. In all likelyhood, there are millions of Earthlike worlds in the universe, according to current science.

We also know that the age of the universe is enough to allow for the development of species in excess of 1000 years ahead of our own.

This is common knowledge, and nothing about it is extra-ordinary.

Nothing more extra-ordinary than asking someone to believe in an indepedent self-sustaining thermo-nuclear reaction in space (otherwise known as a star)...

-WFA




top topics



 
35
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join