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.
Originally posted by DoomsdayRex
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]
Originally posted by Pathos
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]
Originally posted by Pathos
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?
Originally posted by Tifozi
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]
Originally posted by Tifozi
reply to post by Pathos
Prove to me that the F-117 exists.
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]
Originally posted by WitnessFromAfar
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?
Originally posted by DoomsdayRex
reply to post by WitnessFromAfar
What am I, chopped liver!?! No praise or criticism?
Originally posted by DoomsdayRex
Originally posted by WitnessFromAfar
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?
But the existence of such things is not common place knowledge. There may be such civilizations out there. Or they may not. We don't know because we have no proof either way. While there are, as far as we can tell, millions of planets out there there is nothing yet to tell us they are populated (though again, they may be. We don't know). Therefore, the extraordinary claim is not only do these things exist but they are coming here.
Originally posted by DoomsdayRex
reply to post by WitnessFromAfar
What am I, chopped liver!?! No praise or criticism?
A popular example of this involves radar operators in England (3). Having only blips on a radar screen, the operators had to decide if these were bombers or something harmless like a bird. During World War II, the operators were biased towards deciding radar blips were bombers. After the war, with no apparent threat, they were biased towards deciding they were birds. In the same way, running tests over and over that generate only false alarms can create a bias in testers towards deciding that failed tests or odd program behavior is not a bug, but just a “bird”.
Originally posted by WitnessFromAfar
My point is that a binary star system, or a pulsar, or a black hole, is no more extra-ordinary than an extraterrestrial species.
Ufology will rise and fall on its ability to stand up to the testing of science.
Originally posted by Tifozi
Anyone who tries to give the idea that truth is a egocentric battle between two different sides, has already fall to stand up for reality.