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: 8
35
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 10:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pathos
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.


that...

Or they actually take the ingenuity of our species into account when conducting their investigations, and hold human technology up to the standard of evidence.

What to do in a case where man's ingenuity does NOT explain the event?

Quick talk about something else... don't mention Occam's Razor! NOOOOOOO!!!

That would be Science....


-WFA




posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 10:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Asmus
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.

That may be an excellent approach for matters of the heart and spirit.

However I suspect that's an extremely poor approach regarding matters of science and evidence.

We all probably need to use both a "feeling" approach to some experiences in our lives, but for other aspects of our lives a more rational approach will be more effective. Varying our approach to suit the situation makes sense to me.

I may feel the vortex I saw in the sky may be something not of this earth, so it must be alien, but when I apply the rational analysis and find it was a waste dump from the shuttle, that confirmed my belief it wasn't from Earth, however, it wasn't exactly of alien origin.



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 10:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stylez

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]


That depends on what you mean by proof. If we're talking about Science, proof does not exist. Only evidence exists. If you are talking about Math, sure proofs exist, but often we find that those proofs do not play out in real world physics...

I know it sounds funny to hear someone say that proof does not exist in science, but that doesn't make it an untrue statement.

Science is performed by following the Scientific Method:
www.sciencebuddies.org...

Nowhere within the scientific method is 'proof' ever mentioned.

In fact, in science we are encouraged to continuously hold our theories up to new data. So a theory is never actually 'proven', it's only 'current'.

I hope that makes sense...

-WFA



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

Originally posted by WitnessFromAfar
...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!...

I don't want to dwell on the Battle of Los Angeles much longer, because there are already threads on that subject. However, your whole argument relies on the idea that a craft of some sort was hit repeatedly by anti-aircraft shells but still managed to stay there. The problem is that the evidence is still sketchy that there actually was large ship in the spotlights for an extended period of time and it actually was repeatedly hit by AA shells.

Sure -- some people say they saw something, but others say they didn't. So why not believe the people who didn't see something strange instead of the ones who did see something strange? I'm saying that there were perhaps planes that started the incident, but after that, perhaps the AA guns were shooting at nothing.

I need to go to sleep now, so if you don't hear from me, don't think I'm trying to duck out of this debate
. I'll let you have the last word on our side discussion, then perhaps I'll let this thread go back to its original focus before I derail it any further.



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 11:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 


What about the radar data for the battle of 1942.

You are omitting that...



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 12:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


That is why I made mention of moderation. There is no need to throw it all out the window, thus the extreme of skepticism or belief.

I don't disagree in any way, reason and logic can also apply to that. Also why I spoke upon other guidance and assistance, it just the extremes that people sift themselves into that seems to become problematic. Whereas they may be trying to use logic alone to understand something outside of that paradigm, or they may be using the belief to understand something that requires more logic and reason. They can also share the same space in balance. In the past things like that have gotten me into trouble but I've learned a lot since then.

Be In Peace.


[edit on 17-9-2009 by Asmus]



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 06:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by WitnessFromAfar

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


Oh dear. Does anyone get the idea that Pathos is completely new to all of this... and has done NO Investigation in this field at all... yet sits here telling us there is no evidence. All credibility lost.

You see Pathos we are ALL skeptics here. Nobody is born believing everything they see..... that's a HUMAN trait. We have all come to our various levels of skepticism based on what we have learnt. The difference is what proof is required before you will start believing something. Open minded people think ANYTHING is possible with enough evidence... Closed minded people like yourself think the opposite... nothing is possible unless there is concrete evidence.

Now in your case all of the proof in the world short of an alien jumping out and shaking your hand is going to have you believe aliens exist and visit us.

Now unlike you I do take a certain amount of value in anecdotal evidence... in photographic evidence.... in witness testimony. Everything to me is possible evidence until proven otherwise.

With you it is the complete opposite.... you don't take any evidence at all as concrete unless you find it yourself. You are so busy in your mind trying to justify why something isn't.... that you are taking absolutely no notice of what is!

I mean how the hell you can sit there and tell us you can fake a photo in photoshop... and that is your argument for the photo published in a newspaper in the 1940s...... do you even listen to your own logic?

Your posts smack of someone who is closed minded and is approaching this subject from a fanatical religious standpoint.... and that religion being Science.



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 07:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Total Package
 


I just wouldn't like him to do any investigation on something that happened to me or to someone I know.

If it is so hard to him to accept any kind of evidence, then it is impossible for him to discover the truth.

In some steps of the path, you have to believe and follow your instinct about evidence (not proof) in order to clarify any type of case.

This type of view (Pathos view) is like closing your eyes.



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 07:21 AM
link   
What of the radar evidence at the Panic of Los Angeles? There was something detected on radar off the coast but it disappeared a half-hour before the panic started.



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 07:29 AM
link   
reply to post by DoomsdayRex
 
I see some people HAVE researched the BOLA!

Good comment! Star for your post!



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 08:00 AM
link   
Believe me we are very capable of thinking outside the box.... as i said earlier i've had strange things around me and seen some strange stuff but until i actually see an Alien Grey or one of these so called Reptoids i won't say there are Aliens walking around...

Jeeez... they may not even look like some Alien Grey creature... they may look just like us...



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 08:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by TruthxIsxInxThexMist
Believe me we are very capable of thinking outside the box.... as i said earlier i've had strange things around me and seen some strange stuff but until i actually see an Alien Grey or one of these so called Reptoids i won't say there are Aliens walking around...

Jeeez... they may not even look like some Alien Grey creature... they may look just like us...


Don't think you are. You would have to wonder why you come into this forum.... if your only acceptable level of evidence is you actually seeing an Alien for yourself.

That means no possible video, audio or anything in this forum is of interest to you as its not going to change your mind and your beleif.... why would you bother? unless it is to debunk.

[edit on 17-9-2009 by Total Package]



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 08:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by DoomsdayRex
What of the radar evidence at the Panic of Los Angeles? There was something detected on radar off the coast but it disappeared a half-hour before the panic started.

A Navy spotter with binoculars is on record as saying that he saw at least nine planes in the spotlights, and the editor of a LA newspaper reported the next morning that he saw a group of planes also, so that may have been what showed up on the radar.

The planes are probably what caused the Anti-aircraft response to begin, but it is unclear what -- if anything -- the AA were firing at later in the event.

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



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 08:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Total Package
 

I think different skeptics will have different thresholds of evidence needed to convince them.

I got my hopes up when Ray Santilli released that alien autopsy film, and I remember asking myself "Could this be real evidence"? If there were such a real film, it might have actually surfaced by now. I was a little disappointed when it was proven to be a hoax. But if instead it had been proven to be genuine, (or at least not a hoax), it would have been some of the best evidence short of us each personally meeting an alien.

But videos of fuzzy dots in the sky just don't quite cut it as proof of aliens for some (they may prove there are fuzzy dots in the sky, well we ALL know that by now). And witness testimony can be very unreliable even when people are telling the truth. And we'd have to be really stupid to assume that EVERYBODY is telling the truth, at least some people aren't. Then there are those that are telling the truth that don't understand what they've seen, but they've seen something. Personally I find that fascinating, but is it proof? And what does it prove? Well it may prove they saw something they don't understand, but it may not rise to the level of proof of aliens.

But as jkrog08 said, we should all keep an open mind, and we should all be looking for the truth, regardless if you label yourself a skeptic or a believer or somewhere in-between. Maybe we should all label ourselves truth-seekers and stop calling ourselves skeptics and believers, that would suit me just fine.



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 08:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People

Originally posted by DoomsdayRex
What of the radar evidence at the Panic of Los Angeles? There was something detected on radar off the coast but it disappeared a half-hour before the panic started.

A Navy spotter with binoculars is on record as saying that he saw at least nine planes in the spotlights, and the editor of a LA newspaper reported the next morning that he saw a group of planes also, so that may have been what showed up on the radar.

The planes are probably what caused the Anti-aircraft response to begin, but it is unclear what -- if anything -- the AA were firing at later in the event.


If we were to speculate a theory that those 9 planes are what appeared on radar between 2am-2:30am, how would that theory explain what happened to those 9 planes between 2:30am and 3:00am? (Not to mention other problems with that theory like when the target was less than 3 miles away which is pretty darn close for radar, they didn't track 9 separate objects, only 1).

The shooting didn't start until just after 3am.

[edit on 17-9-2009 by Arbitrageur]



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 09:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Pathos
 


You said:


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.


If skeptics are looking for evidence that can be touched, tasted, heard or smelled they might as well shut down the current field of Theoretical Physics. If this was the standard of evidence then we would still be stuck in caves.

Ufology is not tainted by hoaxes. There's hoaxes out there but so what? There's a lot of bad physics out there, should we just shut down physics across the globe?

In Ufology you have eyewitness accounts from police officers, pilots, military, high ranking government officials and more. You have abduction cases, trace evidence, radar, pictures, video and more.

This is a lot of evidence. You see well accepted theories with less evidence than this.

What is UNDENIABLE EVIDENCE? Like I said in another post. These absolutes are absurd. Any time you introduce absolutes into a debate then you know you can't defend your position and you know it's weak. So know we have to use a standard to gather evidence that's impossible to attain. You can't even give me undeniable evidence that you have an objective existence. Are you a hologram? Are you a simulation?

These are theories accepted from Professors from M.I.T. to Oxford.

I also think it's about religion. Most skeptics I debate want to compare ufology to a religion or a fairytale. The same way they do with religion.

They think ufology will open the door to religion and they hate religion. It's obvious that extraterrestrials exist in the universe. We have found liquid water on Mars, there's billions of earth like planets out there and more.

There's nothing in the laws of physics that limit life in the universe to earth. If you then accept that extraterrestrials exist, you can't put a limit on their technology. They could be hundreds of years ahead of us which could mean quantum computing and nanotechnology or they could be hundreds of years behind us.

So I think when people say there's no evidence it's just silly. There's plenty of evidence. It's just subjective how you weigh the evidence. Skeptics have to act like there's no evidence out there and that doesn't make any sense. Your so scared that it's true you have to act like there's zero evidence.

I don't think Bigfoot exists but I accept that there's evidence out there to be weighed. Skeptics take a silly hard line position because it's a belief to them and in belief you don't want to give an inch. So there's no evidence and everything is hoaxes. It's just silly.



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 09:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
...But videos of fuzzy dots in the sky just don't quite cut it as proof of aliens for some (they may prove there are fuzzy dots in the sky, well we ALL know that by now). And witness testimony can be very unreliable even when people are telling the truth. And we'd have to be really stupid to assume that EVERYBODY is telling the truth, at least some people aren't. Then there are those that are telling the truth that don't understand what they've seen, but they've seen something. Personally I find that fascinating, but is it proof? And what does it prove? Well it may prove they saw something they don't understand, but it may not rise to the level of proof of aliens.

But as jkrog08 said, we should all keep an open mind, and we should all be looking for the truth, regardless if you label yourself a skeptic or a believer or somewhere in-between. Maybe we should all label ourselves truth-seekers and stop calling ourselves skeptics and believers, that would suit me just fine.


That's all I'm saying. The only incontrovertible evidence is "lights in the sky doing strange things". All of the other evidence is based on strange -- yet ambiguous -- events (such as the Battle of LA) and also based on non-verifiable accounts of abductions and unverified videos such as "alien autopsy" or "alien interrogation" videos.

Like I said earlier, of course I believe in strange lights in the sky, but the explanation for strange lights is not necessarily "aliens". All of the other evidence in not incontrovertible.


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



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 09:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Total Package

Originally posted by TruthxIsxInxThexMist
Believe me we are very capable of thinking outside the box.... as i said earlier i've had strange things around me and seen some strange stuff but until i actually see an Alien Grey or one of these so called Reptoids i won't say there are Aliens walking around...

Jeeez... they may not even look like some Alien Grey creature... they may look just like us...


Don't think you are. You would have to wonder why you come into this forum.... if your only acceptable level of evidence is you actually seeing an Alien for yourself.

That means no possible video, audio or anything in this forum is of interest to you as its not going to change your mind and your beleif.... why would you bother? unless it is to debunk.

[edit on 17-9-2009 by Total Package]


I suppose i should have ellaborated a little on what i said...

When i said 'until i actually see an Alien Grey or one of these so called Reptoids' i meant either by my own eyesight or by video footage or photo produced from somebody else which is definate proof of an Alien or Reptoid!!


I never said anything about actual [b[craft did i? It's very possible that craft are flying around but whether they are flown by Alien Greys or
Reptoids
is very debatable...

Like i said up above i have felt and seen strange stuff here on Earth but i cannot say for definate that it's all otherworldly. I've had what i thought was things putting or taking something from my abdomen area while in my bed but it could have just been me dreaming or imagining it!




[edit on 17-9-2009 by TruthxIsxInxThexMist]

[edit on 17-9-2009 by TruthxIsxInxThexMist]



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 09:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Total Package
You would have to wonder why you come into this forum....


One could ask you the same question. You are so entrenched in your beliefs you are as every bit as closed-minded as you and other such believers accuse skeptics of being. You do not allow for genuine disagreement, rather claim it to be disinformation. Instead of examining new or contradictory information, you engage in special pleading to rationalize it away, so you do not have to take it into consideration. Just look at your avatar.

So one must ask, if you are so convinced you know the truth, if there is nothing to discuss or debate and any disagreement is just disinformation, then why are you here? Why bother coming to a forum?



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 09:28 AM
link   
Despite having participated already, I think these threads are pointless. These are not discussions for rational and reasonable people, the critical thinkers on the board. Rather, these threads are a place for the worst offenders (such as those members who claim there is no place or need for skeptics here) to come and feel better about themselves.



new topics

top topics



 
35
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join