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: 6
35
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 06:23 PM
link   
Know what I'm tired of. Seeing post like this one week after week after week after week!

Skeptics are played out, old news, deadbeats, boring people that bring others down -- move on, be postive for yourself...




posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 06:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by kleverone
When someone assumes that the only form of propulsion could be through fossil fuels, then yes I consider that inside the box. Call it lack of imagination or creative thought if you will...

I don't assume fossil fuels (or liquid hydrogen or hyrdrazine) are the only possible forms of propulsion, but I also have no reason to believe that there are alien craft visiting the Earth -- no matter what propulsion method they used.

Sure -- I think it's possible that ETs may have some way of traveling vast distances quickly, but I need more evidence than strange lights in the sky, unverifiable alien abduction stories, and/or unsubstantiated accounts of up-close encounters with alien craft.

I certainly believe in strange lights in the sky and, like I said, I believe it is possible that there are perhaps ways to travel between the stars quickly -- however, that is not enough for me to absolutely believe that ETs are visiting Earth.

I can think outside the box to believe it is possible that aliens are visiting the Earth; my mind is open to that possibility. However, I can't yet believe that they are actually visiting the Earth.


[edit on 9/16/2009 by Soylent Green Is People]



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 07:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
... but I also have no reason to believe that there are alien craft visiting the Earth -- no matter what propulsion method they used.


Soylent - I hope you know by now that I truly respect your insights.

I must interject here however. There is plenty of evidence suggesting just this. And not opinion, evidence.

I've spent a great deal of time assembling the BOLA thread, with the help of several ATS researchers, that outlines this evidence in this particular case quite well. RedwoodJedi has also linked in this thread to another ATS thread where physical trace evidence from UFOs exists.

With respect, please amend these sorts of statements. It's really the core issue of this thread, if I'm not mistaken. If the evidence before you doesn't fit your standard of proof, that's one thing (and perfectly acceptable) however to declare that the evidence does not exist is another thing altogether, and it's frankly in contrast to the public data set.

It's when skeptics make statements like 'not a shred of evidence exists' that I truly get bugged. Evidence does exist, and much more than a shred. I've got about 18 pages running in the thread I referenced. I'm not sure how much evidence equals a 'shred', but I'm pretty certain that solid radar returns qualify as a scientific instrument being utilized to document an unidentified flying object.

I apologize for the obvious frustration I'm feeling, but Soylent surely you must understand the distinction here.

If any of you truly feel that the BOLA thread does not document evidence of an extraterrestial event, then PLEASE let's go discuss your points there.

To date, I've seen NOT A SINGLE PERSON show up to the thread that didn't walk away full of data. Even true skeptics like Arbitraguer, Nohup, Nablator, etc. have all come to realize that a conventional explanation simply does not fit the observed evidence in that case.

In the time since that thread has been here at ATS (at least a year now...) I've seen HUNDREDS of blanket statements made here at ATS about how 'no evidence exists' or 'not a shred of evidence exists', etc. These statements frankly are at contrast with the truth, and they detract from a rational debate on the subject.

If you're talking about 'proof', one must realize that 'proof' doesn't exist for ANYTHING, only evidence that is testable exists. That evidence gives us a reason to believe. (It's the same for any Star, Planet, or Galaxy you've heard of. You cannot 'prove' it exists, you can only provide evidence that it does, until/unless evidence emerges to contradict your theory... or neutrinos, as I referenced earlier in this thread...)

I sincerely hope that you (I've read your posts recently and you are a very bright individual) will examine this evidence, and allow the evidence to guide your theories.

I promise you, the evidence does exist. And true skeptics here at ATS will gladly link you to it, in order to better enhance our own understanding of the case by including your observations.


-WFA



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 07:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by WitnessFromAfar

Mostly because the existence of neutrinos has been documented and tested. Just like the existence of UFOs. Evidence exists for both. Period.

Ignoring that evidence does not make it go away. It merely looses one credibility within the ongoing scientific debate...

Prove it. Show me definitive evidence that aliens and alien made ufos exist. Show us the proof. I want documented proof from the news media, scientific community, and military complex. The type of proof that I want needs to be in the form of something substantial.

(1) I want to see an actual alien in physical form.
(2) I want scientific documents done by credible sources, which prove that those aliens are real. DNA, etc..
(3) I want to see an actual alien made UFO in detail, and I want documentation that proves its real. (From a credible source.)
(4) I want to know the scientific and technological make up of the craft.
(5) I want to see an actual talking alien.
(6) I want the news clips that show the physical existence of aliens.
(7) I want to know about their species. Name, genders, etc... I want this information from an encyclopedia source, biological textbooks, and other sources taught in colleges and universities.

[edit on 16-9-2009 by Pathos]



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 07:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Pathos
 


Like I've said many times before, outside of Math, proof for ANYTHING does not exist.

However you can follow the link in my sig line for the evidence.

The evidence exists, and has been collected and examined for you.

Follow the link! (or follow RedwoodJedi's link...)

-WFA



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 07:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by WitnessFromAfar
reply to post by Pathos
 


Like I've said many times before, outside of Math, proof for ANYTHING does not exist.

Your logic is that nothing exist in general, so you do not need evidence to prove that something exists. That is illogical to this subject.

I went through your evidence earlier. Its all based upon subjective interpretation of presented evidence. There is no science in your arguments.

You have no proof!

[edit on 16-9-2009 by Pathos]



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 07:26 PM
link   
reply to post by john124
 


My apologies, I should have been more specific.

It's not that skepticism isn't without it's usefulness, it's the utter refusal by some to even acknowledge another possibility.

As an example, (I'm not claiming to be smarter than anyone),
A supervisor at my job, has issues with certain things. I offered a viable solution.
It was ignored. Granted, people are entitled to do whatever they want, but then don't complain about the repercussions.
The supervisor wound up costing the company some 30-40 thousand dollars, even though I warned him that his actions were not the right choice.
He actually stated, and I quote, "I have a degree in business, who the hell are you to tell me what to do? You make what? $20.00 an hour? HMMPF!!"
Well, his little venture cost the company, and cost us our raises that year. After the fact, he paraded around telling everyone how that was such a bad idea.
Again, that was just a "personal" example of what I meant.


I know it can be taken as a generalization, but anyone who is truly intelligent, will take the opportunity to consider all options before making a decision.


While I may believe in aliens, god, etc.... some others may not. I also wouldn't be too smart if I did not consider the fact that I might be entirely wrong.
There is no way to tell for certain, until irrefutable evidence is revealed.
So no one should assume anything at this point.
I'm sure that any revolutionary thinker throughout history had their share of hecklers.
Skepticism has it's place, but not at the cost of denying ignorance.



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 07:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pathos

Originally posted by WitnessFromAfar
reply to post by Pathos
 


Like I've said many times before, outside of Math, proof for ANYTHING does not exist.

You logic is that nothing exist in general, so you do not need evidence to prove that something exists. That is illogical to this subject.


NOT SO. I'm requesting moderator attention in this thread, that is not what I said AT ALL.

What I said is that YOU cannot PROVE to me that Alpha Centauri exists.
You can show me evidence that is testable, but you cannot PROVE it.

If you can, then do so.

That is the challenge you issued me vis a vis Aliens.

So let's hear you do it Pathos. PROVE to me that Alpha Centauri exists.

PROVE IT. Put a piece of it in my hand so that I can touch it.

See what I mean?


Originally posted by Pathos
I went though your evidence earlier. Its all based upon subjective interpretation of presented evidence. There is no science in your arguments.

You have no proof.

[edit on 16-9-2009 by Pathos]


What defines proof, first off? Since such a thing does not exist...

I seriously doubt that you read the entire BOLA thread in 1 day.

No science in my arguments? What thread did you read, the entire thing is full of science! From MANY perspectives!

Wow man, you realize that others here can actually follow the link to, and check to see that you're full of crap...

Let's see what mods have to say about your accusations here.

-WFA

After breathing a bit, I've decided to simply quote to you Barney Frank:
"Having a conversation with you mam, would be like arguing with a dining room table."



[edit on 16-9-2009 by WitnessFromAfar]



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 07:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Pathos
 


You know one of the things that makes you human? Choice.

You can choose almost everything in your life.

In your case, you need to be hited in the face by a UFO, and provably then you'll still need some media confirmation on that.

Well for most people, they choose to believe. If you don't, it's up to you.

I just think you're being extremist without need. Why are you afraid of believing? Because someone may call you crazy, unless you have an alien object in your hands?

If everyone would think like you do, half of the criminals would be out there.

[edit on 16/9/09 by Tifozi]



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 07:43 PM
link   
No science... Hilarious! No evidence... What a joke!

Perhaps you just can't read...

In this post:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

and in the following posts on page 1 of that thread, I documented a full bibliography of reports from the era...

In this post:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I submitted photographic evidence, video evidence, and radar return evidence (all scientific) of the event...

In this post:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I put out a request for research assistance, citing data that still needed to be uncovered...

In this post:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I defined an investigation technique, and outlined the process...

In this post:

I isolated the mountain range in the LA Times image, searching the LA area for a match...

In this post:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Lazyguy begins an extensive analysis of the AA guns used in the event...

In this post:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I began to lay out a map of the area....

This is all from the first page and half of the thread.

Did you read any of that?

How about the part where I went on to actually document and test the actual equipment used in the battle?

Perhaps you read the part where I used modern day searchlights to do comparison testing, and documented the results for all of ATS to read?

Perhaps you missed the part where I examined every aircraft that existed in 1942, and held their performace characteristics up against the oberved and documented evidence in the case?

Dude, you're so wrong on your statement that I could literally go on all day correcting it...

Where is your investigation so that I may read it?

Where Pathos, is the in depth scientific report you've written that disproves the possibility of Aliens visiting Earth?

Where is your analysis of the evidence I've now presented directly to you?
Where is the scientific method in YOUR work Pathos?

What I did was to collect data, form a hypothesis, and then test that hypothesis against the avialable data set.

NOTHING could be more scientific.

Kiddo, you wouln't know science if it bit you in the ass.

-WFA



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 07:45 PM
link   
reply to post by WitnessFromAfar
 

Accusations? Hmm... I am not the one who opened the thread with the title "I'm pretty tired of skeptics who are unable to think outside the box"

I can understand you are frustrated with people who do not see the world through your eyes. Skeptics and their approach are important to all things factual. If you consider the "Big Bang Theory" as an example, its only a theory until it is proven factual through substantial evidence. Until such evidence can be provided for testing, the "Big Bang Theory" is subject to critical analysis.

You have not provided anything that has substance. Even though your thread has a series of pictures, they can be subjectively interpreted in many ways. Since we also live in the digital age, most of those pics could have been altered. I'm not the one trying to prove the existence of anything. Since I am not making the argument that a fictional species exists, its not up to me to provide such proof.

Your intent of this thread is to call out skeptics. If you cannot handle the weight of sciences, (tool that skeptics use), I would rethink your approach to this subject.

Thinking outside of the box does not prove the existence of anything. You can think outside of normal testing to start a theory; however, the definitive answer must be in the form of actual evidence. I can look at a square by thinking its a circle; however, it remains a square until further substantial evidence can be provided.

You have none.



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 07:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Pathos
 


You really need to stop to think before you post.

This isn't my thread, it's Kleverone's...

So I take it you can't prove to me that Alpha Centauri exists then....

I'll be waiting...

-WFA



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 07:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by WitnessFromAfar
So I take it you can't prove to me that Alpha Centauri exists then....

I'll be waiting...

-WFA

Again. I am not trying to prove anything. You are.



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 07:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pathos

Thinking outside of the box does not prove the existence of anything. You can think outside of normal testing to start a theory; however, the definitive answer must be in the form of actual evidence.


How about examining some of it? Radar returns (verified by HQ and tracked on 3 separate coastal radar units) qualifies as scientific evidence of a real and solid object.

But I guess if you'd actually read the thread you'd know that...

You see that's exactly what I've done, formulate a theory, and TEST it against the evidence in the case.

Guess what, IT FITS!!!

Guess what else, nothing made on Earth at the time Fits!

So where does that leave you? Seems to be in the dark, unwilling to use the light switch unless you can first guarantee it was made by humans. LOL

I've at least got a theory that's consistent with the data set, and published for the world to read and independently examine.

-WFA



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 07:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pathos

Originally posted by WitnessFromAfar
So I take it you can't prove to me that Alpha Centauri exists then....

I'll be waiting...

-WFA

Again. I am not trying to prove anything. You are.


You can't have it both ways Pathos.

Either something can be PROVEN, or it Can't Be PROVEN.

You cannot continue to deny that evidence exists, evidence does exist.

So once again, what defines PROOF to you, outside of a mathematical formula?

In science, Evidence is key, Proof does not exist.

-WFA



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 07:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by WitnessFromAfar
How about examining some of it? Radar returns (verified by HQ and tracked on 3 separate coastal radar units) qualifies as scientific evidence of a real and solid object.

But I guess if you'd actually read the thread you'd know that...

You see that's exactly what I've done, formulate a theory, and TEST it against the evidence in the case.

-WFA

Your are now making the argument that radar can prove the existence of alien made UFOs. They cannot. Sure, they can prove the physical existence of an object in the sky; however, they cannot prove that an object is of an alien species origin.

[edit on 16-9-2009 by Pathos]



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 07:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pathos
Since we also live in the digital age, most of those pics could have been altered.



LOL The event happened in 1942!!! Yeah, you must be right Pathos, it was photoshopped! LOLOLOL

Ridiculous.

What's the deal man? You still can't admit that evidence exists eh?

Where does that put you at a forum dedicated to examining that evidence?

-WFA



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 07:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by WitnessFromAfar
LOL The event happened in 1942!!! Yeah, you must be right Pathos, it was photoshopped! LOLOLOL
-WFA

I am a graphic designer. I can make anything look like 1800 BC through Photoshop.



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 07:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pathos
Your are now making the argument that radar can prove the existence of alien made UFOs.


You're going to have to stop putting words in my mouth, I said no such thing.

I said that Radar confirms that a real and solid object was in the sky that night.

The AA fire confirms that it wasn't man-made...

You see, when examining a case, the ENTIRE data set matters...

In fact, further corroboration of the theory that it was not man made can be found from the radar returns themselves. (They tracked it and calculated it's speed, higher than anything that humans made in 1942).

-WFA



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 07:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pathos

Originally posted by WitnessFromAfar
LOL The event happened in 1942!!! Yeah, you must be right Pathos, it was photoshopped! LOLOLOL
-WFA

I am a graphic designer. I can make anything look like 1800 BC through Photoshop.


I'd like to see you publish your photoshopped image in the February 25th, 1942 Los Angeles Times.

That'd be one hell of a photoshop trick LOL.

You should really actually read the thread before attempting to debate it Pathos, you're really making yourself look silly here...

-WFA



new topics




 
35
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join