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: 7
35
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 07:59 PM
link   
Hello! Did any one see the news a month ago where Transparent Aluminum was named a new state of matter. Oxford scientist have created a transparent form of aluminum by bombarding the metal with the world's most pwerful soft x-ray laser. Wednesday July 29th, 2009 www.rdmag.com/news or google it.

Maybe the UFOs are here all the time, and we only see one when they are having a malfunction proplem with their laser. Isn't that scary? This is why they appear and disappear.... only they are still there peeping at Earth!




posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 08:00 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.


Actually no, I'm submitting evidence for your review, which apparently you don't want to actually review, even though you practically begged for some...

I'm not trying to prove anything, you are mistaken.

I'm undertaking an analysis of an event, and attempting to formulate the best hypothesis that fits with the observable evidence.

I've been quite clear that Proof is not a possible goal for ANYTHING, why would I then try to establish it?

Internal consistency in ones arguments is generally a good thing Pathos...

-WFA



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 08:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by IgnoreTheFacts
While I wont defend somebody that is ignorant enough to go on tv and say there is no chance aliens could traverse the vastness of space, I will defend skeptics.

You can get as mad at them as you want, but 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.

I wouldn't cry and whine about the very small minority called skeptics. If I were you I would focus more on the vocal majority and police them better.



Skeptics hinder progressive thinking......

If we all just said " ok....there must be aliens out there......Lets all together figure out the who, what , where , when , why ,and how's together.....rather than fighting about if it is possible...

Lets just make it possible....or find out how it is possible rather than bitch about the IFs.....


that is my problem with skeptics.......they are fine with where things are at and don't even want to see if there is a possibility that something else could be...


Not all skeptics............But finding an intelligent well thought out open minded skeptic is like finding a needle in a haystack...



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 08:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by WitnessFromAfar
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

Hmmm.... Its not man-made from whose perspective? You didn't consider perception into your examination. Even though a military air-force officer knows about F-16s, he may not know about other 'black ops' planes. One arm of the military doesn't know what the other one is doing. That is why your argument eats itself. You can use this as an analogy for any other argument. Police do not know what the military is working on, so how can they definitively know that something was not man made. It goes on and on and on... What one radar operator sees is different from another who has different experiences.



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 08:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Pathos
 


You can't debate with these people.Let's just say humorless and self righteous. I don't know about you but irregardless of the "truth" I still have to get up and go to work tomorrow. The kids need caring of, the garbage has to go out,etc. So until they land on the White House lawn I don't give this subject much thought. My 2 cents



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 08:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Pathos
 


You clearly have not read the thread.

When you can make an informed comment about it's contents, I'll return to this conversation.

Until then, best of luck completely avoiding science! I don't think it's really possible, but if you're dead set on trying it out, please let us know how long that lasts! LOL

-WFA



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 08:11 PM
link   
There is only one way to prove that Earth is being visited by aliens.

Hold a press conference. Bring an alive alien and his space craft for the public to test and examine. If it turns out to be authentic through scientific examination, (done by credible individuals), I am willing to concede that they do exist. Until that one special day comes to light, the existence of UFOs is based upon subjective interpretation of evidence.



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 08:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pathos
Hmmm.... Its not man-made from whose perspective?


The Army Air Force's Perspective silly!

Reading won't hurt you! I promise!



Originally posted by Pathos
You didn't consider perception into your examination.


You're totally right. The several pages in that thread that pertain to differing reports, and to the 50 year declassification law, that doesn't exist either. I must have been seeing things! LOL Thanks for pointing out to me what I didn't write. I'm so glad you were here to correct my error.

But then what's all this typing....????


Originally posted by Pathos
Even though a military air-force officer knows about F-16s, he may not know about other 'black ops' planes. One arm of the military doesn't know what the other one is doing. That is why your argument eats itself.


What argument are you even trying to refute here?

You do realize that it's been 60+ years since the event, right?


Originally posted by Pathos
You can use this as an analogy for any other argument. Police do not know what the military is working on, so how can they definitively know that something was not man made. It goes on and on and on... What one radar operator sees is different from another who has different experiences.


Except that here we have 60+ years of declassified planes, and still nothing that fits the observable evidence in the case!

Tell me Pathos, have you heard of the SR71 Blackbird?

LOL

Yes Pathos, you must be correct, it was a top secret German plane, that wasn't then employed to use the war. Or maybe a Jap plane that then wasn't employed in the war. Or a US Plane that wasn't employed in the war.

If you'd actually read the thread, you'd realize that the entire SR71 program would have been irrelevent if we had planes that could do what the object in the BOLA case did.

But I suppose that critical thinking and reading are not your forte...

-WFA



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 08:14 PM
link   
P.S. ) To the statement I just typed, Oxford Scientist turned aluminum nearly INVISIBLE to extreme ultraviolet radiation. Wed. July 29th,2009 this information was released publically. They named it a new state of matter. This is hard science. This explains alot. This is where the future aircraft stealth may go. This is incredible!!!!!!!



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 08:15 PM
link   
Double Post, sorry...

[edit on 16-9-2009 by WitnessFromAfar]



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 08:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by frugal
P.S. ) To the statement I just typed, Oxford Scientist turned aluminum nearly INVISIBLE to extreme ultraviolet radiation. Wed. July 29th,2009 this information was released publically. They named it a new state of matter. This is hard science. This explains alot. This is where the future aircraft stealth may go. This is incredible!!!!!!!

But its not evidence that alien made UFOs exist. I would love to read that article. If what you are saying is true, mankind has achieved a great feat.


Originally posted by WitnessFromAfar

You do realize that it's been 60+ years since the event, right?

-WFA

UFO theorists had 60+ years to prove their theories. They have not.

[edit on 16-9-2009 by Pathos]



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 08:24 PM
link   
Everything is healthy in moderation. There are extremes to all of it. Maybe one would believe, or think upon something, but what does he feel within?

I personally prefer to be an experiencer, I tend to not to rely on other peoples limitations to help me understand bigger concepts and realities. Stepping stones and guidance is always welcome, but never relied upon.

Guide yourself to the universe and its wonders, otherwise you may be searching for a very long time. Perhaps many many lives.

Be In Peace.



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 08:26 PM
link   
Good post.

This goes back to Plato and his allegory of the cave.

You can also see this in Edwin Abbotts story Flatland.

There will always be those who can't see past the nose on their face. That's just life.

I personally think that many skeptics take the other side of the debate because they think ufology opens the door to religion.

I think many of them truly hate religion and as soon as they say extraterrestrials exists then that opens the door to religion because extraterrestrials can be the gods of religion and also they can't limit their technology so questions about life after death would come into the mix as well.

I do think the root of much of the opposition to these things is religion. Ufology opens the floodgates when it comes to religion and spirituality.



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 08:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by WitnessFromAfar

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

-WFA


I think you're funny, umm I will say this on pathos behalf, there IS lots of evidence that "Proof does in fact exist"


[edit on 16-9-2009 by Stylez]



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 08:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by WitnessFromAfar

It bugs me to see skeptics utilize Occam's Razor to 'dis-prove' a case, and then refuse to apply it to a case where the simplest solution is an extraterretrial craft. Cases like the BOLA case...

Hope that helps clarify my response.


-WFA

Edited to fix spelling - Occam's razor is a tool, not a took


[edit on 16-9-2009 by WitnessFromAfar]


Woudn't be even more likely it isn't an ET craft but our own? Doesn't that become more likely with each passing year?



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 09:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Matrix Rising

I personally think that many skeptics take the other side of the debate because they think ufology opens the door to religion.

I think many of them truly hate religion and as soon as they say extraterrestrials exists then that opens the door to religion because extraterrestrials can be the gods of religion and also they can't limit their technology so questions about life after death would come into the mix as well.

I do think the root of much of the opposition to these things is religion. Ufology opens the floodgates when it comes to religion and spirituality.

I am a Christian and a skeptic. I am not dumb enough to claim the existence of God in public when I have no proof. Even though I can sense his existence supernaturally, I couldn't make the argument to anyone that he does exist. I would be basing my evidence on subjective interpretation of emotions. My metaphysical experiences would not be factual in a court of law; thus, God does not exist to everyone else through physical evidence. It would be foolish of me to make such an argument.

I believe aliens exist somewhere in outer space. I just do not believe we have found physical evidence to prove their existence. Since most of the evidence can be interpreted in multiple ways (and several pieces being hoaxes), I would hold back on using current photos and clips as definitive proof. There isn't any.

Mankind over the past 300 years has created some extraordinary advancements. Our sciences have progressed a long way within a short period of time. When people make the case for alien made UFOs, they dismiss the ingenuity of our species. Before the onset of our current century, mankind put together massive monuments through impressive means. As a individual who has studied history through psychology, art history (as an artist and archeologist), and philosophy, I have seen many motivated societies accomplish the unthinkable. (Guess what type of degrees I have.)

I came to Above Top Secret because I am interested in the theoretical. Even though I am interested in the theories, I would never give them any weight of truth. Sometimes theories do bring up questions that I have never considered; however, the evidence they are held up by fail to create a definitive answer.

Skeptics are individuals who seek truth that can be touched, tasted, heard, and smelled. Since Ufology has been tainted by an overwhelming amount of hoaxes, bouncing lights, and manipulated imagery, skeptics approach these theories looking for undeniable evidence. Our goal is to find something that 'everyone' can experience through our senses. Most of us originally believed we have been visited. What lead us down the road to skepticism is the lack of evidence.

Someday definitive proof will show up in the form of a up close alien and craft. Until we "all" experience the arrival of an actual alien and craft as "a society", the current evidence can not be used as definitive proof of their existence. At this point in history, alien and alien made UFOs are only folk lore.

Keeping an open mind is good and healthy; however, people are willing to take advantage of those who can be manipulated. Always be cautious. Always be a skeptic.

[edit on 16-9-2009 by Pathos]



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 09:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tifozi
...Why are you afraid of believing? Because someone may call you crazy, unless you have an alien object in your hands?...


I know your post was directed at ATS member Pathos, but I would like to reply...

I personally am not afraid to believe in ET visitation. I would love to have solid evidence that intelligent aliens are visiting the Earth. However, the evidence at hand of ET visitation is very subjective and all based on only one interpretation of strange events.

I admit strange occurrences have happened, but "alien visitation" is not the only explanation for all of those events.

Take the Los Angeles WWII anti-aircraft event for example. Sure -- it was very odd, but why exactly is the only explanation "alien craft"? It just seems odd to me to jump to that conclusion. There was nothing specific about the "Battle of Los Angeles" that would point to "alien craft". Unidentified craft? -- yes. An "odd" event? -- yes. Alien craft? -- no specific evidence.

In fact, the editor of a Los Angeles paper reported the next day that he personally saw airplanes in the search lights, and a trained Navy aircraft spotter counted at least nine airplanes. Now, I understand some UFOlogists have issues with these reports of people seeing planes, but the conclusion that "we don't know what they were, so they must have been alien craft" definitely seems to need more evidence before I'm convinced.

Like I said in an earlier post, I'm open to the possibility of alien-controlled UFOs visiting Earth, but I'm not convinced that they actually do exist. Strange lights in the sky and people seeing craft they can't identify does not automatically scream "aliens!" to me.



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 10:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
Take the Los Angeles WWII anti-aircraft event for example. Sure -- it was very odd, but why exactly is the only explanation "alien craft"? It just seems odd to me to jump to that conclusion. There was nothing specific about the "Battle of Los Angeles" that would point to "alien craft". Unidentified craft? -- yes. An "odd" event? -- yes. Alien craft? -- no specific evidence.


here's the deal Soylent, I've examined everything manmade at the time in the thread. There was no 'jumping' to any conclusion.

Let me ask you this way, what in 1942 could have performed in the manner documented in that thread?

I'm seriously asking you.

I intend to fully investigate whatever theory you have, as I have done previously with the 'it was just smoke' theory, the 'balloon' theory, the 'jap plane theory' the 'german plane theory', and the 'american plane' theory...

if you can find a single piece of man-made technology that existed in 1942 that could account for that event, then mention it please!

As it stands, I've actually investigated these things. And not only that, I've done it publicly, and linked it for public review.

When you say that 'there was nothing specific that would point to an Alien craft' how do you reconcile that statement with the 1400+ AA shells fired at the craft (to no effect I might add...)?

How do you reconcile that statement with the speed the object travelled (faster than any plane we had at the time...)?

A true skeptic MUST include ALL of the data before forming a conclusion.

Frankly neither yourself nor Pathos has done so, CLEARLY, and yet still you both are willing to make determinations that flatly do NOT fit with the evidence, and shrug it off like the event was no big deal!

That's just simply unscientific, and pseudoskeptical.

I can understand being ignorant of existing evidence, that's fine. Nobody was born knowing everything. But to make such a statement (that does not fit with the evidence in the case) without actually examining the case that has been linked for you...

There is no excuse for such behavior. It certainly isn't the sign of a true skeptic, with an open mindset, who is actually looking for the simplest solution that fits with the observable evidence.

-WFA



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 10:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Stylez
 


Actually, with each passing year that humans fail to create a vessel capable of performing in the manner that object did, it becomes even LESS likely that the object was our craft.

Why, if the US had a craft that could hover and was impervious to AA Shells in 1942, would we still be developing aerial stealth to avoid AA Shells in 2009?

We wouldn't.

-WFA



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 10:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pathos
There is only one way to prove that Earth is being visited by aliens.

Hold a press conference. Bring an alive alien and his space craft for the public to test and examine. If it turns out to be authentic through scientific examination, (done by credible individuals), I am willing to concede that they do exist. Until that one special day comes to light, the existence of UFOs is based upon subjective interpretation of evidence.


Finally we get to the truth of your position Pathos. FINALLY...

So by this standard then, Alpha Centauri in your view does not exist.

Thanks for the confirmation. I suppose that subjective interpretation of the evidence is not enough to prove the existence of that particular thermo-nuclear reaction that self sustains itself in space.

L. O. L.

you see you will NEVER hold a piece of Alpha centauri in your hand. it will never appear at a press conference, nor will it submit itself to up close and personal study by scientists here on Earth.

So by your standard, quoted above, it must not exist.

It is rather extraordinary isn't it? A self sustaining thermo-nuclear reaction in space? Must require some extraordinary evidence to prove such a thing, right?

I suppose then that the evidence suggesting the existence of Alpha Centauri just isn't enough for Pathos. He actually needs to hold it in his hand and be able to touch it to believe that it's real...

-WFA



new topics

top topics



 
35
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join