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: 12
35
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 12:15 PM
link   
Through sound there was light and everything there after was made, now that we are learning to see past what we think Is, Is usually when we start seeing things differently when first seen, our perception changes the properties of reality, therefore everything we have ever looked at has already changed its form.




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


Actually I'm trying not to debunk the skeptics or the believers, so you may have misunderstood my post.

I agree with Jkrog that whether you think of yourself as a skeptic or a believer, we should all be here for the same reason and that is to seek the truth. We all have different approaches to doing that and perhaps by discussing these issues we can agree on what the best approaches are for doing that.

But I would like to come back to the F117A versus UFO example for a minute. And I credit DoomsdayRex for posting this link in another thread that helped me understand why the standard of evidence may appear to be different for those 2 objects, when in fact it's really NOT different.

I had cereal for breakfast

Let me translate the F117 example to the one used in the article:
Instead of "the F117A exists", I substitute "I had cereal for breakfast"
How much evidence do you need for that claim? I could be lying, but it's not that hard to believe since we know cereal exists and people eat it for breakfast.

Instead of "the Alien spaceship exists", I substitute "the cereal I eat every day will guarantee that I will never get sick and will live to be 100" How much evidence would you need to believe that claim? More than likely you will want to see some proof of that claim because it's outside common experience.


Strictly speaking, all claims require exactly the same amount of evidence, it’s just that most "ordinary" claims are already backed by extraordinary evidence that you don’t think about. When we say “extraordinary claims”, what we actually mean are claims that do not already have evidence supporting them



You can see than my claim I had cereal for breakfast is not extraordinary. We know cereal exists and people eat it. There are no other accepted or “proven” claims that you have to abandon to accept that I ate cereal for breakfast. The claim that my cereal will guarantee I will live to be 100 is an extraordinary claim. It is counter to all the other evidence we have that there is no one simple thing you can eat that will guarantee no illness and such a long life.


To me that is the relevant issue in the F117A vs. alien UFO evidence discussion. The more extraordinary the claim, the more extraordinary the evidence required. And it's not that more evidence is needed for the UFO being alien, it's because we already have extraordinary evidence to support the F117A claim. We know planes are made on earth, we see clear pictures of the planes, we can go to a museum and touch them, etc. Even some of the clearer pictures we have of UFOs, might be military black projects instead of alien in origin.

And just to be clear lets accept as a given that most people think ET life is highly likely, so even if we assume there IS ET life for the sake of this discussion, the question really then boils down to "has that ET life visited earth?" We don't have all the supporting evidence to say yes to that question that we do for various aspects of the F117.


[edit on 17-9-2009 by Arbitrageur]



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

Science has proven that water is wet. Are you saying water is not?

Science has proven that the reason behind the sky being blue is from the interaction between our sun and atmosphere? Are you saying that is not fact?

Science is about proven and disproving hypothesis and theories based upon exploring the levity of evidence.

Bobbing lights in the sky does not prove that alien made ufos exist.

Science is made from studying physical elements.
Religion is made from studying the metaphysical.

[edit on 17-9-2009 by Pathos]



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 12:19 PM
link   
reply to post by DoomsdayRex
 


I agree that evidence would need to be provided, however my point was that given current science's understanding of the universe, these things are to be expected.

From some of the real evidence that does exist (see RedwoodJedi's trace evidence thread, linked earlier in this thread, or the BOLA case I've linked several times, and MANY others...) nothing terrestrial fits the observed evidence...

From this situation, a scientist evaluating these cases should take into account what current science suggests is to be expected, when formulating a hypothesis. Of course that hypothesis would then need to be tested.

Where Pathos is, is the point of refusing to make that hypothesis, because he/she doesn't find it 'believable'.

From the perspective of science, that's a ridiculous outlook, one should follow where the evidence leads.

The refusal to apply Occam's Razor to such situations was my entire impetus to post in this thread.

Occam's Razor should be applied in those situations, and if the simplest solution to the problem is 'Extra-terrestrial craft', and that fits with the observable evidence, where terrestrial theories don't fit...

Well that's still science.

That's my only point


-WFA



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 12:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Pathos
 


All these views are only based on interpretation, now what if humans could actually see through walls, would that mean walls are no longer solid, I have but I am still waiting for the rest of the world to catch up.



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 12:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by menguard
reply to post by Pathos
 


All these views are only based on interpretation, now what if humans could actually see through walls, would that mean walls are no longer solid, I have but I am still waiting for the rest of the world to catch up.

Did you see through walls with or without technology?

[edit on 17-9-2009 by Pathos]



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 12:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Pathos
 


Without, my spaceguides activated the halo on top of my head and I went blind for a second, saw in green for about ten to thirty seconds and then could see through walls and clothing. They adjusted the electrical circuit through the the head but I could feel a real light pressure on top of my head.

On different levels of reality thoughts manifest creation instantly, thoughts become action.

[edit on 17-9-2009 by menguard]



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pathos
reply to post by WitnessFromAfar
 

Science has proven that water is wet. Are you saying water is not?


There is evidence to support it, there is no 'proof'


Originally posted by Pathos
Science has proven that the reason behind the sky being blue is from the interaction between our sun and atmosphere? Are you saying that is not fact?


I'm saying that Science doesn't offer 'proofs', Math does. Science offers 'current' theories. 'Proof' cannot ever be attained in science, because theories are always being subjected to new evidence.

READ THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD!

Or just ask your science teacher.



Originally posted by Pathos
Science is about proven and disproving hypothesis and theories based upon exploring the levity of evidence.


I'm not sure that evidence has 'levity', but your terminology is incorrect. Science is about examining the evidence, forming a hypothesis, and testing that hypothesis against the available evidence.

Proof does not exist in science. Proof is a state of being that real science neccarily cannot achieve. The best we can achieve are 'current' theories, because we do not know the entire data set (and likely never will...)


Originally posted by Pathos
Bobbing lights in the sky does not prove that alien made ufos exist.


Nor have I EVER claimed they did. You refuse to examine the rest of the evidence in the case I cited. That doesn't make that evidence go away...


Originally posted by Pathos
Science is made from studying physical elements.
Religion is made from studying the metaphysical.

[edit on 17-9-2009 by Pathos]


What about physical evidence existing for UFOs don't you get? It exists, and much of it has been linked for you...

-WFA



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 12:29 PM
link   
Physics is the same in every part of the universe.
If we can't do it, they can't do it.

The Moon trip is even contested.
The occulted Tesla ship might be able to travel the universe
but where are we going to go.

The ship can't be used at all due to the impact of driving the world
into chaos much like radio communications, bombs, tanks and
airplanes did in making two world wars as man can't handle the
power and goes wild on one another.



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 12:35 PM
link   
reply to post by WitnessFromAfar
 


Okay. I will read through it further. You do make some good points; however, that does not sell me on the logic that there is "absolute proof" that alien made UFOs have visited Earth. Until I see something that "everyone" can test physically, I will not consider anything provided thus far as facts. I will keep an open mind when examining 'your' evidence, but I will only consider it as folk lore until its proven.

I will consider the evidence Ufology provides as a basis for a hypothesis; however, I will not consider it fact until it can be proven through scientific and rational examination.


Originally posted by menguard
reply to post by Pathos
 


Without, my spaceguides activated the halo on top of my head and I went blind for a second, saw in green for about ten to thirty seconds and then could see through walls and clothing. They adjust the electrical cicuit through the the head but I could feel a real light pressure on top of my head.

Space-guides? What are you selling?

[edit on 17-9-2009 by Pathos]



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pathos
Science has proven that water is wet. Are you saying water is not?


Science did not prove water is wet. We already know through observation that water is wet. What science does is seek to explain why water is wet.



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 12:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Sorry Arby, I skipped over this post on accident.

No, I got what you meant, I was simply congratulating you on being a true skeptic, and rationally addressing any and all possibilities that fit the evidence in the case being examined... I didn't mean to imply that you were here debunking skeptics, I consider myself to be a true skeptic, and you certainly weren't trying to debunk me


I like that you can apply Occam's Razor to situations where terrestrial options do not fit with the evidence, regardless of your personal theory on the case.

It's the sign of a true skeptic


-WFA



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pathos
reply to post by WitnessFromAfar
 


Okay. I will read through it further. You do make some good points; however, that does not sell me on the logic that there is "absolute proof" that alien made UFOs have visited Earth. Until I see something that "everyone" can test physically, I will not consider anything provided thus far as facts. I will keep an open mind when examining 'your' evidence, but I will only consider it as folk lore until its proven.

I will consider the evidence Ufology provides as a basis for a hypothesis; however, I will not consider it fact until it can be proven through scientific and rational examination.


Thanks! I know a lot of folks at ATS that will be pleased to hear that.

If you would stop using the term 'absolute proof' as it applies to science, that would also be much appreciated. Since the term does not apply to the field in question...

Perhaps this thread was worth several days of typing after all!


-WFA



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by WitnessFromAfar
...From some of the real evidence that does exist (see RedwoodJedi's trace evidence thread, linked earlier in this thread, or the BOLA case I've linked several times, and MANY others...) nothing terrestrial fits the observed evidence...

There may be no known terrestrial explanation that fits the observed evidence, but there is no known extraterrestrial explanation, either.

The likelihood that BOLA and other UFO events have yet-to-be-understood terrestrial explanations is AT LEAST as likely as them having extraterrestrial explanations. People have certainly given evidence that BOLA and other events are strange and currently unexplainable, but that doesn't necessarily mean the ETs are involved.

Again, I can't make the logical leap from "unknown/currently unexplainable" to "ET visitation" that easily.

For me, a simple "I can't explain it" suffices. I don't need to add the "...therefore it must be aliens."



[edit on 9/17/2009 by Soylent Green Is People]



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 12:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 


I would absolutely agree with you. As long as your theory fits with the observable evidence in the case.

However 'unknown' is a state of being, not an answer, and so Science mandates that scientists continue to search for the answer, including non-terrestrial explanations in the possibilities list.

It's the attacking of these scientists for being somehow 'unscientific' for including these possibilities that I have a problem with.

Point of fact, Nohup has a theory that the BOLA event was actually human time-travellors from the future. While this theory is not my top one (mostly because evidence for other Earth-like worlds exist, and the age of the universe allows for intelligence to emerge far before humans did on this world..., and time-travel has yet to be demonstrated outside of Math...)

It is still a valid theory that fits within the observable evidence in the case.

This is why I consider Nohup to be a skeptic willing to think outside the box.
He recognized that 'unknown' isn't good enough for a true skeptic, and continued to develop theories and test them against the data set.

Hope that helps explain my position...

-WFA



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 12:59 PM
link   
reply to post by WitnessFromAfar
 

Absolute proof is essential to this field of study, for it provides some type of ground to stand upon. If you remove the search for "absolute proof", you are dismissing the motivation behind a hypothesis.

Do you want to prove to everyone that alien made UFOs are real, or do you want to philosophically debate about the issue?

If you want to prove the existence of alien made ufos, your goal is to find 'absolute proof' that supports your hypothesis.

Philosophical debates are interesting into themselves; however, they do not provide 'absolute' evidence to support a hypothesis. Its based upon opinion and personal interpretation of the meaning behind evidence.

Science at least gives the research into alien made UFOs some ground to stand upon. You are able to create a hypothesis and thesis, and evidence is used to enforce the basis of argument.

"What is love?" (Philosophy) versus "What muscles make up the heart?" (Biology/Science)

[edit on 17-9-2009 by Pathos]



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 01:05 PM
link   
reply to post by WitnessFromAfar
 

Oh, I agree that ET visitation of Earth is certainly a possibility, but that's all it is for me -- a possibility.

Terrestrial explanations seem at least equally possible, therefore at least equally valid.



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 01:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pathos
reply to post by WitnessFromAfar
 

Absolute proof is essential to this field of study, for it provides some type of ground to stand upon. If you remove the search for "absolute proof", you are dismissing the motivation behind a hypothesis.


I'm sorry but this is not how science works, I thought we had established this. Please read over the Scientific Method, or ask a science teacher.

Absolute proof does not exist for ANYTHING.


Originally posted by Pathos
Do you want to prove to everyone that alien made UFOs are real, or do you want to philosophically debate about the issue?

If you want to prove the existence of alien made ufos, your goal is to find 'absolute proof' that supports your hypothesis.


I'm not seeking to 'prove', I'm not writing a Math equation.
I'm seeking to test a hypothesis against the available evidence. And to continue testing that hypothesis against future emerging evidence.

That's as far as Science can go.


Originally posted by Pathos
Philosophical debates are interesting into themselves; however, they do not provide 'absolute' evidence to support a hypothesis. Its based upon opinion and personal interpretation of the meaning behind evidence.


You aren't getting this, so I'll say it again:
NOTHING provides 'absolute proof' of ANYTHING.
All there is is evidence, and hypothesis that are either current or past...


Originally posted by Pathos
Science at least gives the research into alien made UFOs some ground to stand upon. You are able to create a hypothesis and thesis, and evidence is used to enforce the basis of argument.


Yep that statement is correct. Nowhere in it will you find the word 'proof'...

-WFA



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
reply to post by WitnessFromAfar
 

Oh, I agree that ET visitation of Earth is certainly a possibility, but that's all it is for me -- a possibility.

Terrestrial explanations seem at least equally possible, therefore at least equally valid.


Agreed, until/unless all terrestrial explanations have been exhausted...

-WFA



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 01:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 

I agree with you man. The 'possibility' of us being visited by alien made UFOs is there; however, there is not enough physical evidence to prove that they have.

As I said in one of my previous postings, I am willing to accept ufology's claims as a hypothesis. All we need to do it see if the proof provided can support such claims through rational thinking and science.

I think we can all agree that an actual alien made ufo is much more preferable.

One piece of evidence I will dismiss from the start are clips and pictures of specs of light. Since they do not provide details that can be examined closely, they can be interpreted from way too many perspectives. Man made explanations create a sense of doubt within this form of evidence.

Everything else I will consider.

[edit on 17-9-2009 by Pathos]




top topics



 
35
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join