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...

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]

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

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]

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.

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

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

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]

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

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.

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

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