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: 11
35
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 11:22 AM
link   

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]


We are in absolute agreement on this point.

It's a pity those like Pathos cannot fathom this truth...

-WFA




posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 11:23 AM
link   

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]


Pathos, it's important that you know how stupid this makes you look.

Do some research, Tifozi is CLEARLY a pilot.

-WFA



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 11:25 AM
link   

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?


You could try to go to S4 if you believe Bob Lazar, but as soon as you pass the sign that says "Use of lethal force authorized", you can be shot on sight so I don't recommend it!


And if you have any idea of what the half-lives of various isotopes of element 115 are, you probably won't even WANT to go to S-4.



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 11:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Tifozi
 


You make a good point about the F-117.

The point is he doesn't have to see or touch an F-117 to know that they exist. You can come to the conclusion F-117 exist based on reason and weighing the evidence.

A person can't prove to a person that F-117 exists but a person can see pictures, videos and weigh eyewitness accaunts that F-117 exists.

This is the same with Ufology. There are people who have been polygraphed and some that are in the military who have claimed to have touched and been inside a extraterrestrial craft.

A person can weigh this evidence along with pictures, video, alien abductions, trace evidence, radar and more. They can come to the conclusion that these things exist without seeing them and weighing the evidence just like you can with an F-117.

Have the skeptics ever seen or touched a black hole? Have they seen or touched Parallel universes? Have they seen or touched dark matter/energy?

According to skeptics these things should be scraped but Professors from M.I.T. to Oxford accept these things by weighing the evidence.



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 11:27 AM
link   

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]


Yeah.. guess I misread. Sorry.


Originally posted by Tifozi
reply to post by Pathos
 


Prove to me that the F-117 exists.



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 11:28 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 man, Radar returns are SOOO subjective.
This one time a radar return told me I looked ugly. I think it was wrong! So subjective!

AA shells, now there's a subjective bunch. They only explode when they feel like it. Very subjective, not solid or real at all.

Newspaper reports (over 40 from all over the world) must surely have all been subjective as well, how could a printed newspaper that's dated actually prove anything. You're SOOO right. LOL

De-classified documents, brought forth through the use of FOIA, that corroborate established data, yeah that's the most subjective of all!

Those darned military folks must have been being subjective when they classified the object as 'unidentifiable' and 'likely not from this world'...

Keep on ignoring real evidence Pathos. Clearly it's working for you so far!

LOL

-WFA



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 11:30 AM
link   

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.



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 11:35 AM
link   
I am a skeptic - have been for many years but I thoroughly enjoy the subject matter. I think a majority of skeptics are very objective individuals who have the best interests of the community in mind. To us "Deny Ignorance" is not exclusive to a belief system. Many maintain some level of hope that some event will break, but until then there needs to be heightened levels of patience and vigilance.

Unfortunately the UFO/Alien field is rife with charlatans and individuals bent on deception for personal gain. Many of whom have seriously undermined the subjects legitimacy.

Just a few notable quotes from posters in this thread.

john124
What makes believers so sure that many skeptics don't consider the possibility, and are fascinated by the possibility, and would love it to happen! It's logical, scientific and truthful to oneself to want to see evidence beforehand!


maybereal11
Skeptics should be a blessing to any theorey, trimming away the weak arguments and poor reasoning.I whole-heartedly respect the skeptics who come with logical questions and data.

AND I believe in Alien life...

ignore the facts
"....it is not the skeptics that have made this subject so laughable that it can't be taken seriously by the people that need to in order for the truth to come out."



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 11:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


I'd just like to point out that it's so WONDERFUL to see a true skeptic fighting for true skepticism against a clear pseudoskeptic!

Arby, you rock so hard!


I can't speak for Kleverone, but I'm actually really pleased that this thread has actually delivered on a clear example of the OPs post, within the thread itself!

Pathos, thank you for demonstrating for all of us so thoroughly how some who claim to be skeptics will willfully disregard evidence and arguments that don't fit inside their own personal 'box'.

And Arby, and Soylent too! Thanks for showing that there are true skeptics out there, with an open mind and a willingness to actually investigate the unknown.

It takes courage to formulate a hypothesis. More courage to test that hypothesis against the available evidence, and still more courage to draw a conclusion from one's research, and still be willing to submit one's conclusions to further testing!

I'm proud of you both, and very pleased to see such bright individuals embrace the scientific method when searching out the answers to these great mysteries!

-WFA



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 11:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Tifozi
 

Because you can't. Since you guys are selling a metaphysical ideology, you cannot provide scientific evidence to support your claims. You are trying to sell religion. Good luck with that.

Ufology will rise and fall on its ability to stand up to the testing of science.



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 11:41 AM
link   
reply to post by WitnessFromAfar
 


What am I, chopped liver!?! No praise or criticism?



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 11:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by DoomsdayRex
reply to post by WitnessFromAfar
 


What am I, chopped liver!?! No praise or criticism?


FWIW, I completely agree with you... noob that I am.



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 11:47 AM
link   

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.


Yes, however you and I have already agreed that 'proof' does not exist in science.

What we have is evidence that suggests these things...

And if that evidence is enough to speculate that what we're observing are actually stars and planets, there is ZERO reason to believe that what happened in our Solar System did not happen in other systems as well.

My point is that a binary star system, or a pulsar, or a black hole, is no more extra-ordinary than an extraterrestrial species.

-WFA



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 11:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by DoomsdayRex
reply to post by WitnessFromAfar
 


What am I, chopped liver!?! No praise or criticism?


LOL DoomsdayRex, my sincere apologies for not mentioning your clear true skepticism in this thread.

I thought your intelligent posts spoke for themselves.

Seriously, I'm very impressed with your objective approach and your willingness to exchange ideas. You clearly have the ability to rational analyze data, and to formulate conclusions.

My apologies for not making that clear.

You rock! Well met friend!

-WFA

Edited to add: I didn't mean to leave anyone out, just using Arby and Soylent as examples of the MANY true skeptics that have visited this thread and offered fair and objective rational analysis and discussion, including the full data set available within their arguments.

You all are LEGION! and I LOVE ATS because you are all here! You are the reason I come here to discuss these topics. And nobody on the net can hold a candle to ATS's True Skeptics, when it comes to the scientific analysis of a UFO event!



[edit on 17-9-2009 by WitnessFromAfar]



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 11:51 AM
link   
reply to post by WitnessFromAfar
 

Anti aircraft artillery uses ( and used) timing devices to detonate at a preset altitude. It does not detonate on impact.

Radar interpretation was subjective and radar was (and is) subject to false returns. Two months after Pearl Harbor and a day after the shelling of Ellwood, it's pretty likely that even a false return would create a lot of "interest".

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”.

www.testingreflections.com...

There were many false alarms, up and down the west coast during this period.

BTW, do you have any information that the BOLA "object" was tracked onshore?


[edit on 9/17/2009 by Phage]



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 11:53 AM
link   
I used proof in the conversational sense, not the scientific sense.


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.


What are we discussing here? The existence of alien life or that they are coming here. There is little debate about the existence of alien life, it is a wideheld belief in almost every strata of society (including and especially scientists/skeptics). However, at the time being, it is extraordinary because while there is the belief there is barely anything amounting to evidence. While everyone expects to find life out there if astronomers tomorrow announced evidence of life on an extra-solar planet they would have to show why their evidence is indicative of life and not other natural forces.



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 12:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Pathos
 


You don't even understand the principles of science, how can you claim ufology fails upon science?

Ufology is part of science, it simply isn't taken seriously because of the culture around it and because of all the people that take advantage of it.

Science investigates what you don't understand, or what we haven't found explanation for, and there is phenomena that science itself says "we can't explain it". Dark matter is an excellent example, since it's identical to ufology.

Both have been "seen", and there is an huge amount of evidence to support it, but the gap between "believing so" and "proving so" has not been made, yet.

People don't joke around dark matter, but they do joke about ufology, and that's because of the culture around the subjects, not scientific research itself. If dark matter was mainstream like ufology, don't doubt that science would provably ignore it.

Scients, unfornatly, tend to be some type of elite who think they know a lot more than the average joe (exceptions apart, of course).

In 1500, if you told someone that you wouldn't need horses to travel in the future, they would make fun of you, humiliate you to the ground. Yet, we ride our car to work every day.

In 1500, if you told someone that they could speak to anyone, anywhere, in the future, they would call you Satan.

So why are you being so "old" in the way you think, when someone is just making theories about what the future may bring?

Don't put every case and every person on the same jar. It's not fair to anyone in any situation.

There are people in here that are smart, that think for themselfs and present amazing cases that make you wonder. And don't forget the word "case", because what we do here, it's the same thing lawyers do in court, for example.

Science tries to search for the truth, and science has proven itself wrong several times, and there are subjects that noone understands. Claiming the contrary, and telling people what to believe, like you're doing, is arrogant at the very least.

You have already choosen not to believe, and that's your right and up to you. So keep it that way. Keep it to you. Don't come here to judge people that you don't know, claiming things you don't understand and that yourself can't even prove.


Ufology will rise and fall on its ability to stand up to the testing of science.


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.

[edit on 17/9/09 by Tifozi]



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 12:02 PM
link   
reply to post by draknoir2
 


No problem at all, I understand that sometimes I don't go directly to my point. lol


reply to post by Matrix Rising
 


Thank you for understanding so clearly what I'm stating!



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 12:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Phage! Awesome, nice to see you here!

I do actually have info on the Radar units' activity once the object had made landfall. The FOIA report reveals that the Coastal radar units were then ordered to support the searchlights, which is why no further tracking data was reported to Flower St. HQ. The individual radar operator was then reporting to his regional commanders, and to the searchlight operators and AA gunners. The FOIA report from CUFON specifically mentions that the Radar units were shifted to support the searchlights, as I understand it, the AA gunners were at that time using the searchlights to direct fire.

Edited to add: There were 3 coastal radar units that verified a solid real target. The object was tracked additionally from HQ, as reported in the FOIA report. One false return I could understand, but in this case the signal was confirmed and then tracked for over 100 miles... - End Edit.

I'll leave further Q&A on the BOLA case to please be posted within the current BOLA thread (first link in my sig line...) However I am pleased to see you interested in that case! Soylent was right, that this thread is Kleverone's and I should stick to the topic at hand here.

I really just posted about the BOLA case, as an example here as to how pseudoskeptics often will not formulate conclusions that are consistent with a specific case's evidence. There are plenty of cases I could have linked to, I just know that one inside and out, so I use if for reference.

If anyone is interested in studying that case though, please follow the link and I'll see you there!


-WFA

[edit on 17-9-2009 by WitnessFromAfar]



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 12:12 PM
link   

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.

Hmmm. Science has proven there is a planet called Mars. Are you saying that Mars is a scientific lie?


[edit on 17-9-2009 by Pathos]



new topics

top topics



 
35
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join