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: 15
35
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 11:03 PM
link   
Dr Michio Kaku is a theoretical scientist. He theorizes. Theories are mental processes. He is not using real data to come to his conclusions. He just thinks about other civilizations. No one called him a loonie. He is a bright person but he doesn't deal with reality, the here and now.

reply to post by Tifozi
 




posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 11:11 PM
link   
You said: "I'm a skeptic" I don't think so. You may be aspiring to be a skeptic but you still have a ways to go and your thinking has to change. You have to come up to my standards for I am an open-minded TRUE skeptic. I rely on evidence. Just because you said so and so doesn't make it so. Evidence, my friend, is the #1 requirement in a court of law. Skeptics require evidence. Once evidence is presented, a skeptic is no longer skeptic about whatever has now been proven with evidence. An open mind allows possibilities but possibilities are just that.

BTW, I'm 71 so I've been around the block a few times.

reply to post by Tifozi
 



posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 11:26 PM
link   
1.) How do you know he doesn't base his theories on actual data he may know about?

2.) What does a persons age have to do with anything? Oh you're older. That automatically means that you're right since you've been around longer?




posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 11:37 PM
link   
Well, now, it is not the way you state it. Humans do not have the mental capability nor the materials to build what we call UFOs. It doesn't matter that not all human-created aircraft is not known to the public. Yes, there are secret aircraft but all human-created aircraft have to obey the laws of physics and aerodynamics. Anything made by man has to have motors, wings, etc., or the damn thing will never get airborne and if it does and fails it falls like a rock. UFOs, in all of their varieties, defy the laws we must obey.

That said, and maybe not too intelligently, there is no evidence that UFOs are interplanetary craft. We have no idea where they come from although UFOs have been seen and recorded near and above the Moon. And there seems to be footage of an object going around space debris. But, mainly, we don't see UFOs in deep space. They may dematerialize or just move fast enough to give that impression. The bottom line is we don't know but what we do know is that they are not made by us.



Originally posted by Pathos
reply to post by Tifozi
 

Okay.

Do you know the makeup, capability, and types of every single military aircraft ever made (or is in production)?
If you cannot answer the above question with a 'yes', that means there is doubt behind the logic that alien made UFOs have visited Earth. In order to successfully debate in favor of the alien UFO theory, you would have to have knowledge about every single aircraft (classified and unclassified) known to man.

Do you have that information?


Before every other question can be asked, the above question needs to be answered. If you cannot get passed this question (with out "absolute" proof), the argument behind alien made UFOs visiting Earth stops.

[edit on 18-9-2009 by Pathos]



posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 09:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Skeptical Ed
 


Read the tittle of this thread.

There is my answer.



posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skeptical Ed
Well, now, it is not the way you state it. Humans do not have the mental capability nor the materials to build what we call UFOs. It doesn't matter that not all human-created aircraft is not known to the public. Yes, there are secret aircraft but all human-created aircraft have to obey the laws of physics and aerodynamics. Anything made by man has to have motors, wings, etc., or the damn thing will never get airborne and if it does and fails it falls like a rock. UFOs, in all of their varieties, defy the laws we must obey.

Says who? You are aware that Einstein's and Newton's theories only provide the main framework on gravity; however, they are not considered as the final word on how gravity works. You do know that, right?

Look up string theory. According to some scientist, gravity is now currently under consideration as being caused by multi-dimensional forces. As a result of several dimensions of existence overlapping, gravity was formed from those sub-atomic forces converging.

So. Human-created aircraft cannot defy gravity? Hmm... Looks to me that some people have missed the last 20+ years of scientific progression in the understanding of gravity.

I think what you are trying to say is, "but all human-created aircraft have to obey the laws of physics and aerodynamics, which I (Skeptical Ed) have a limited understanding of."

Do not be fooled. You are not debating against someone who is uninformed.


Originally posted by Skeptical Ed
That said, and maybe not too intelligently, there is no evidence that UFOs are interplanetary craft. We have no idea where they come from although UFOs have been seen and recorded near and above the Moon. And there seems to be footage of an object going around space debris. But, mainly, we don't see UFOs in deep space. They may dematerialize or just move fast enough to give that impression. The bottom line is we don't know but what we do know is that they are not made by us.

According to who? I am willing to bet its all about perception.

[edit on 19-9-2009 by Pathos]



posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by WitnessFromAfar


Originally posted by Pathos
Issues come from drawing a conclusion based upon evidence provided by those with a limited perspective. You and I cannot list every single military craft ever made, nor do we know how the currently known planes work. Same thing does apply to say Mexican fighter pilots. Even though they cannot explain what is in the sky with them, that does not mean Russian, United States, Asia, or Europe doesn't have the technology. Mexican fighter pilots are only comparing what they see to the limitation of what they know.

Make sense.

[edit on 17-9-2009 by Pathos]


It doesn't make sense actually, that's why I tried to cite the 50 year declassification law to you earlier.

We in fact CAN establish a data set including all man-made planes from 1942. The data on all planes made by man in 1942 is available on the public record. I've studied the top candidates, they fall short of the performance demonstrated in the event.
-WFA

Ah... You missed one:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Can you explain why the German Horten Stealth Bomber design from 1944 looks like Kenneth Arnold's drawing from 1947? Keep in mind that Arnold drew his sketch three months before the Roswell crash.

Hmm... Sounds to me like the very first modern and historical cases of alien made UFOs were actually man made aircraft.

[edit on 19-9-2009 by Pathos]



posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 04:29 PM
link   
If skeptics did not exist, it would be necessary to invent them!...but of course, we should be careful what we wish for. That's because the best are skeptical mavericks...a pricker of bubbles...they deflate balloons. Consistently, they stick to their skeptical guns. Over in my area at ATS... I have Jim Oberg to enjoy.

The breeziness of the skeptics argument frequently becomes a full blown gale. The sea of tranquility soon becomes an ocean of storms! This isn't to say that the skeptics theories are wrong or that the writing is without merit. It is only to suggest that the truth of skeptical claims is to be found less in what they say, & more in the manner in which they are obliged to say it.



posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 04:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tifozi
reply to post by Skeptical Ed

Show me that aliens exist. I don't think you nor anyone can. Therefore, they don't exist.


Now you reminded me of my daughter.

When she was 8 months old, I would put her toy in front on the table, and she would laugh and laugh without stopping. If I putted my hand in front of the toy, to her, it didn't existed.

Since when "I don't see it, so it isn't there" is true, for anything? Ridiculous point.


Skeptical Ed's point is not a ridiculous one -- and I think you mis-characterized what he is saying. I don't think Skeptical Ed is saying "I need to see an alien". All he is saying is that extraordinary claims (that ET visitation exists) requires extraordinary evidence. I personally don't think (and perhaps neither does Skeptical Ed) that we HAVE extraordinary evidence yet. You may argue that there may be a "preponderance of the evidence" for ET visitation, but even if that were true, I don't think that there is enough.


You're assuming aliens don't exist, the same way others assume they do. You're not right just because you exist. And don't try and go the path of proof, I'm tired of that discussion.

Again, I can't speak for Skeptical Ed, but I can speak for myself -- and I DON'T assume That alien visitation of Earth DOES NOT exist, nor do I assume it DOES exist, either. How could I? In my opinion, there isn't enough hard evidence to "assume" that they do, and it would be impossible to prove the negative (that they DON'T exist).

I don't think anyone has enough evidence to say that ET visitation definitely does or definitely does not exist.

Just because I don't have enough evidence to convince myself that ETs are visiting the earth doesn't mean that I think it is impossible that they are. I'm open minded to the possibility, but I need better evidence than we have right now.

It is unfair to the skeptic to say "if you don't think there is enough evidence to believe they DO exist, then you must believe they DON'T exist. I say that's unfair because any smart skeptic will tell you that it is impossible right now to "Prove the Negative" regarding alien-controlled UFOs.

That's what it means to be "open minded to the possibility". I'm open minded to the possibility of ET visitation, but that doesn't mean that I think it is actually happening.

[edit on 9/19/2009 by Soylent Green Is People]



posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 07:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Pathos
 


With respect, I missed nothing. You are citing an aircraft manufactured in 1944, and I've ALWAYS been citing a case that happened in 1942.

I've not once mentioned Roswell. In fact, never in any post at ATS have I ever referenced Roswell on a single instance. [Look it up]

And you altogether avoided my point.

You issued a challenge that NOBODY knew every aircraft that is made by man. While in the present I fully agree with that sentiment, MY argument was to present to you the FACT that there is a 50 year declassification law in effect within the United States of America. The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) allows you to request documents from 50+ years ago. Anything made 50+ years ago, is now within the public domain, as you well proved by researching and citing an aircraft made in 1944.

The case I focus on, and the case I've cited for you strictly within this thread, happened in 1942. The point here is that YOU or anybody else, CAN access the totality of craft made by humans in 1942.

Your challenge was met with evidence. This deserves at the very least acknowledgment. And in the same manner, it invalidates your earlier argument of 'we can not know' as is pertains to the case I've consistently referenced within this thread.

-WFA



posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 08:15 PM
link   
reply to post by WitnessFromAfar
 

What I did with my reply was to inject doubt of the founding incidents, which fathered the whole UFO movement. I have accomplished something you couldn't. I went right to the heart of the UFO movement, and I ripped out the first incidents that founded their cause. Your reply shows me that I was successful. I was right with my initial observation, which revolves around the notion that, "No one knows the makeup, model, and capability of every aircraft made by man." Until someone can access that information, no one can currently prove the existence of alien made UFOs found in Earth's atmosphere. Without "absolute" proof that can be tested by science, you cannot prove that alien made UFOs have visited Earth.

Also, we live in 2009 the last time I checked. Do you know every man made craft and their capability between the year 1900 to 2009? I didn't think so.

UFO investigations should be a science, for it 'could' lead to implications that affect all of us. Skeptics keep everything grounded to logic.

I am tired of believers who can't see outside of the box, and I am tired of believers who can use rational and analytical reasoning.



posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 08:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 


Please, I've seen your contribution around here, and I've tremendous respect for you, so please don't use arguments fired agains Skeptical to you, it's not fair to you.

The point is well placed, according to his view, because in that statement he didn't said "oh, you can't prove, neither can I".

What he said was "Because I don't see them, they don't exist".

Well, I've never seen a Ferrari Enzo. Does that mean they don't exist? Again, I've never seen a F-117, does that mean they don't exist?

We are in a CT forum, debating theories about everything. I honestly don't understand people that come in here just to prove they don't believe in anything, at all.

You have evidence. Nobody can deny it. But it's up to every single person to judge that evidence and go from there.

I had a UFO experience, I know it wasn't alien. But it made me think about a lot of stuff, and many things I though about aviation went out the window. Does that mean that there are aliens? No. But to me, looking at all the evidence, it's POSSIBLE to assume that maybe that UFO that I saw has alien based technology. It's just a theory, my own theory, my own living. Why can't people respect that, or the theories from another people?

I don't believe in most abduction cases, but do you see me in abductions threads trashing it around and justify my actions with "because I'm a skeptic, ahahah" ? (I did it once, actually)

I consider myself a skeptic, and anyone who knows me, knows that I don't stand on one side of the fence. I give you the example of the thread about the JAL flight. There I was, giving them information related to aviation, with WitnessFromAfar and internos on one side (a believer) and Arbitrageur on the other (skeptic) debating the case, and just because I gave info that points thowards a POSSIBLE alien ship, I'm not a skeptic?

I just live in the real world, and I know everything changes and everything is uncertain. First hand, I'm a skeptic. Sometimes I believe a case, sometimes I don't.

That's why I'm not even taking seriously Skeptic Ed. He judges me, the way that he judges many others BECAUSE of what they believe. That's wrong.

Phage is one of the most respected members in this forum, and yet, he's a hardcore skeptic. Why is he respected so much?

Because in all this time I've been visiting this forum, I have never, absolutly NEVER seen Phage judge people because of their beliefs, and I've seen him post on some ridiculous threads...

People who think too high of themselfs, don't believe in alien life or in the UFO cases, and come here just to spit on everybody that isn't on their of the fense, just go to ignore on my list...



posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 08:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pathos

Originally posted by WitnessFromAfar


Originally posted by Pathos
Issues come from drawing a conclusion based upon evidence provided by those with a limited perspective. You and I cannot list every single military craft ever made, nor do we know how the currently known planes work. Same thing does apply to say Mexican fighter pilots. Even though they cannot explain what is in the sky with them, that does not mean Russian, United States, Asia, or Europe doesn't have the technology. Mexican fighter pilots are only comparing what they see to the limitation of what they know.

Make sense.

[edit on 17-9-2009 by Pathos]


It doesn't make sense actually, that's why I tried to cite the 50 year declassification law to you earlier.

We in fact CAN establish a data set including all man-made planes from 1942. The data on all planes made by man in 1942 is available on the public record. I've studied the top candidates, they fall short of the performance demonstrated in the event.
-WFA

Ah... You missed one:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Can you explain why the German Horten Stealth Bomber design from 1944 looks like Kenneth Arnold's drawing from 1947? Keep in mind that Arnold drew his sketch three months before the Roswell crash.

Hmm... Sounds to me like the very first modern and historical cases of alien made UFOs were actually man made aircraft.

[edit on 19-9-2009 by Pathos]


Kenneth Arnold's original sketch does not resemble the Horten plane. Go here to see his original sketch under his signature:
www.altereddimensions.net...

Then go here to see a more sophisticated drawing that does not resemble his original sketch and, as you can see, neither looks like a Horten:
www.altereddimensions.net...

Your comparison is based on a "romantic" interpretation from those who fail to do proper research.



posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 08:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by secretnasaman
If skeptics did not exist, it would be necessary to invent them!...but of course, we should be careful what we wish for. That's because the best are skeptical mavericks...a pricker of bubbles...they deflate balloons. Consistently, they stick to their skeptical guns. Over in my area at ATS... I have Jim Oberg to enjoy.

The breeziness of the skeptics argument frequently becomes a full blown gale. The sea of tranquility soon becomes an ocean of storms! This isn't to say that the skeptics theories are wrong or that the writing is without merit. It is only to suggest that the truth of skeptical claims is to be found less in what they say, & more in the manner in which they are obliged to say it.


I invented myself. Skeptics ask only for evidence to support claims. All we say is "Don't just say it, or write it, prove it!" Would you settle for less? Wouldn't you rather be known as a questioner rather than a gullible believer? As a skeptic I don't have any theories, just questions.



posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 08:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tifozi
reply to post by Skeptical Ed
 


Read the tittle of this thread.

There is my answer.


Which is: "I'm pretty tired of skeptics who are unable to think outside the box."

Skeptics are not inside the box because hat's where all of the bs is located. We come in from outside and examine what is inside and if it shows faulty logic or common sense or reason, we think we can offer a better case because being outside means we are mentally superior.



posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 08:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 


Thank you, your tastyness! There is no evidence whatsoever that whoever pilots what we call UFOs, for lack of a better term, is extraterrestrial meaning from another planet, galaxy, wherever. I'm a natural skeptic but I've been associated with UFOlogy since 1957 and I know that we have an aerial mystery in our hands. But that mystery has always kept its distance and I don't accept a single case of alien contact especially alleged abductions.

The craft exist and there's more than necessary evidence to accept their reality even by hard-nosed skeptics such as Robert Sheaffer. What we don't have is any evidence for possible pilots since these craft could be RCV. Now, if they are RCVs, that means that someone or something is somewhere controlling them and I do not for one second think that they are light years away. If they exist, they are here and now and no one has had any interaction with a single "alien."

What they are, where they are and what they are doing is THE mystery.


[edit on 19-9-2009 by Skeptical Ed]



posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 08:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Tifozi
 


Look, you make comments that can be challenged. You state your point of view therefore you are open to criticism if others believe your comments can be criticized. Allow others THEIR POV.

"If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all."
-- Noam Chomsky



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 01:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skeptical Ed
reply to post by Tifozi
 

Allow others THEIR POV.


How about you try the same?

The only thing you've been doing is telling people they're wrong with nothing to back it up with. That's all you've been doing.

I find it hilarious that you think I have a controlling ego



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 01:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by nightmare_david

Originally posted by Skeptical Ed
reply to post by Tifozi
 

Allow others THEIR POV.


How about you try the same?

The only thing you've been doing is telling people they're wrong with nothing to back it up with. That's all you've been doing.

I find it hilarious that you think I have a controlling ego


You're wrong!



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 02:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pathos
reply to post by WitnessFromAfar
 

What I did with my reply was to inject doubt of the founding incidents, which fathered the whole UFO movement.


You did? Because the case I've consistently referenced in this case predates the aircraft you cited. The 'UFO Movement' as I understand it, began in the United States with the 'airship sightings' of the late 1800's, followed by the airship crash into a windmill in Aurora Texas.

Nothing you've posted in this thread has addressed the 'fathering' of the 'UFO movement'. And please note, I've never once quoted Roswell, or sourced the case. EVER. Do not continue to claim that false association. It does not exist.


Originally posted by Pathos
I have accomplished something you couldn't. I went right to the heart of the UFO movement, and I ripped out the first incidents that founded their cause.


Was that something I couldn't do? I'm not sure, I've never tried. I'm still investigating a case that doesn't have a terrestrial explanation. One apparently you still refuse to acknowledge...

One thing I'm certain of (as referenced above) you've done nothing to rip the heart out of anything. You made an attempt at mis-representing Science here in this thread, but that was well countered by several posters at ATS that are actually Scientists. But I've to date seen you 'rip the heart' out of nothing...


Originally posted by Pathos
Your reply shows me that I was successful.


I'm not sure why you say this, since my reply proved your argument factually inaccurate through timestamp. Anyone can follow the link at the beginning of this post to read my rebuttal for themselves. Sometimes I think you forget that what you write here can be quoted and referenced...


Originally posted by Pathos
I was right with my initial observation, which revolves around the notion that, "No one knows the makeup, model, and capability of every aircraft made by man."


As I've said before, in 2009 yes, but in 1942 YOU ARE WRONG. The 50 year declassification law is in effect. YOU, Pathos, if you ever bother to actually research anything on your own, can simply GOOGLE to find out every single plane that existed in 1942. PERIOD. I've done so, and so I can say that for certain. YOU can do it too. And so can anyone else with internet access. Your lack of willingness to investigate in no way diminishes the available data set, accessible by those with the passion for investigation you so clearly abhor.


Originally posted by Pathos
Until someone can access that information, no one can currently prove the existence of alien made UFOs found in Earth's atmosphere.


That day would be today. Get yourself a library card, or learn how to use:
www.google.com...

Just try to research on your own. I promise it won't hurt you!


Originally posted by Pathos
Without "absolute" proof that can be tested by science, you cannot prove that alien made UFOs have visited Earth.


Once again you rely on the fully debunked argument that 'absolute proof' exists in Science for ANYTHING.

Since you insist on continuing to make this assertion, know that every time you do I will be there to post a link to the Scientific Method:
teacher.pas.rochester.edu...

Each time I'll post a new link to a new source for the Scientific Method. I'll make it a game.
ATS Posters so inclined can take a drink every time it happens!




Originally posted by Pathos
Also, we live in 2009 the last time I checked. Do you know every man made craft and their capability between the year 1900 to 2009? I didn't think so.


Nobody is arguing that point. The argument is that we DO know everything made by man in 1942, and so we can hold the available data up against our theories when testing terrestrial explanations for the BOLA event.

Ignore it all you like, this point stands.


Originally posted by Pathos
UFO investigations should be a science, for it 'could' lead to implications that affect all of us. Skeptics keep everything grounded to logic.


One day perhaps, you may learn the Scientific method, and that 'absolute proof' does not exist. At that point in your mental development, you might become a true skeptic. You have yet to demonstrate this here within the thread.

Heck, you might be Stephen Colbert, here to show us by example what pseudo-skepticism actually is. If so, I wholeheartedly congratulate you on fully succeeding. I was fooled!



Originally posted by Pathos
I am tired of believers who can't see outside of the box,


I'm sorry to hear that, perhaps you should start a thread about it and see if it gets nearly the confirmation from the ATS body that this thread got...



Originally posted by Pathos
and I am tired of believers who can use rational and analytical reasoning.


I'm not. I love those folks! They're what ATS is all about!

You do realize that you're posting in the Aliens/UFOs Forum at AboveTopSecret.com, the world's leading website for investigative scientific minds to come together for productive research, don't you?????

If you're tired of skeptics and believers who can use rational and analytical reasoning, perhaps you should spend more time commenting on the YouTube forum. ATS is for productive commentary, from rational thinking individuals seeking to find answers to mysteries we all find interesting.

But that's okay Pathos, we can all see your true colors,

Shining through....

Don't be afraid, to let them show.

Your true colors...

-WFA



new topics

top topics



 
35
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join