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.

 

UFO skeptics don't use reason

page: 11
13
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 01:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Unity_99
 


It has been two years since my first contact. The siting came first then the "abduction" a term I dislike, but that first visit was pretty brutal. It has been a bumpy ride thus far until lately as I began to unplug myself from the so called experts.

My children are also experiencing contact. My son has an agreement with a gray, one of my daughters and I are traveling to what can only be described as out door classrooms. I am most familiar with the tall ashen colored entities that seem most interested in my emotional makeup.

The bloodline question plaques me as it was the answer to my question "Why me?" The answer was "It is in the blood". I am in touch with a few other contactees that are all a negative RH factor. Could this simple question of blood antigens have something to do with blood lines and families?

Intuition, clairvoyance and healing run in my immediate family and I am of a very rational but spiritual nature but still having a tough time sorting out the messages I am receiving. One thing I know for sure is the growth...the awakening that I am experiencing.

You started a very nice thread and I hope we can talk further there after I have viewed all of the sources you provided.




posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 01:03 PM
link   
reply to post by jclmavg
 


Here is a photo of Arnold holding an artist's rendition of the craft he saw...





posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 01:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by DoomsdayRex

Originally posted by yeti101
ive looked into practically every major ufo case. Every single case i find informatiion the ufologists dont tell you. That evidence usually points to a prosaic explanation.


While I am not as adamant as Yeti and do think there are cases that are baffling and not easily explained, he does make a great point, in particular to how it relates to Matrix-Rising's so-called evidence. The lists he keeps posting do not present all the information related to a case but rather the best evidence to support a certain conclusion.
But that's not Yeti's point. He does not refer to Matrix-Rising's list of "evidence" but speaks in general terms; "every major ufo case" and "Every single case". That's quite a difference.

I can hardly see the "great point" in that for it would be just a hasty generalization as I believe his argument is not representative of the whole.



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by DoomsdayRex
reply to post by jclmavg
 


Here is a photo of Arnold holding an artist's rendition of the craft he saw...

No, of oneof the craft he saw and even this artistic drawing does not completely match his textual description and only came about years later. Have none of you looked at the Air Force files sketch? Here it is again, sheesh.

Scroll down to the third image, direct link does not work.

In fact, in his letter to the AAF he even refers to the objects as "saucer-like". In the first days after his sighting he described them many timesas saucer- or disk-like. For example:

""They were shaped like saucers and were so thin I could barely see them," he told Jack Whitman, a local businessman."

That this is not common knowledge shocks me.

[edit on 19-10-2009 by jclmavg]



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by yeti101
reply to post by Unity_99
 


I call this the beliver paradox. Millions of sightings but not 1 clear photo?

If there were millions of sighting of anything like a rare animal or other phenomenon it should be relatively easy to get the evidence. A nice clear photo or video should be no problem at all. Except you dont have any. Does that not worry you?


UFO's are known to cause mechanical failure in electronic devices. Probably not a good argument, but it's a explanation at least



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 01:28 PM
link   
reply to post by ziggystar60
 


One down...a few more to go.



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 01:29 PM
link   
reply to post by jclmavg
 


i think in his original drawing he does attempt the double crescent just not as clear. He wouldnt hold up that other picture if he wasnt claiming thats what he saw, would he?

whats your take on no colonization of the earth the past 500 million years?



[edit on 19-10-2009 by yeti101]



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by EsSeeEye
Another point I feel should be made as an aside: Polygraphs are worthless as evidence of anything. There's a reason polygraph results are not admissible as evidence in court, and it's because they're frequently wrong.


[edit on 17-10-2009 by EsSeeEye]


I beg to differ. The success rate of polygraphs may be less than 100% but is definitely greater than 70%.

When considering cases, such as the Travis Walton case, where about 5 different people were tested, the chances that they are all lying and fooling the polygraph work out to be 0.243 % (assuming a success rate of just 70% for each individual)

this is a chance of 1 in 411.5.

So I would say in cases where a collection of witnesses is tested, polygraph examination can give results that are way better than what you are portraying.

Now, you may freely question what the witnesses actually saw in the Travis Walton case....

They say that they saw a bright object emit a beam of light that caused their friend to be lifted in the air and thrown back down, and they happen to believe that to be an alien vehicle.... but yes, I suppose "It could be anything" and I suppose one could make the (IMHO unreasonable) argument that it is not worth investigating any further.

I would say that with such high odds that their testimony is truthful, it is worthy of further investigation.

-rrr



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by yeti101
reply to post by jclmavg
i think in his original drawing he does attempt the double crescent just not as clear. He wouldnt hold up that other picture if he wasnt claiming thats what he saw, would he?[edit on 19-10-2009 by yeti101]
And the pseudo-skeptic again attempts more guess-work rather than digging up factual evidence. Arnold himself described the objects as disc-shaped many times (link provided above, ignored by Yeti). The object sketched in Arnold's report to the AAF is shaped like a disc with it's rear tapered into a point, like Arnold described them. There is no attempt at a crescent-shape in that sketch.

It is a matter of fact that Arnold revealed years later that ONE of the objects was crescent shaped in the rear. That is where the second picture comes in.

In short, you are a) ignoring his original sketch and blatantly asserting you see a crescent shape in here when obviously there is none (in the sketch there is only one circular arc, this does not fit any definition of a crescent) and b) you ignore that Arnold himself stated that only one of the objects had a crescent-shaped rear. Something which Arnold revealed only some years after. So no, contrary to your delusions that picture does not represent everything Arnold saw.

It seems you have no problems warping facts and evidence to suit your own prejudices.



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 02:20 PM
link   
reply to post by IgnoreTheFacts
 


Excellently stated. Personally, I lean on the believing side, but I approach the information with a skeptical eye. You can't believe everything that someone brings to the table, otherwise you're a complete fool.

So, I think that your statement adequately represents what everyone should strive towards.



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 02:31 PM
link   
reply to post by jclmavg
 

thanks for that info i stand corrected. Shame he never had a camera though.

would you like to respond to my question?



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 05:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by DoomsdayRex
reply to post by jclmavg
 

Here is a photo of Arnold holding an artist's rendition of the craft he saw...

I love this. Ready?

channel.nationalgeographic.com...

Hahaha... Click on the photo & interactive: time-line sections. Hmmm....

Arnold's Crescent UFO was sketched in 1947 only a few months before the Roswell crash.

German's Horten 229 blue prints and specs were picked up by the US government at the end of World War II in 1944.

Hmmm... Roswell crash was a US version of the Horten? YB-35's predecessor?

en.wikipedia.org...

That is why I'm a skeptic. The grandfather off all other UFO events has the potential of being an American made aircraft.

Sure, there is no direct evidence between Roswell and the YB-35; however, Arnold's sketch was created only a few months before the incident at Roswell. As far as I'm concerned, Roswell was a crash site of an American made prototype. During one of its flight tests, the plane crashed in the desert.

Believers who dismiss their design similarities are joking to themselves.

Roswell is debunked in my mind.

news.nationalgeographic.com...

news.nationalgeographic.com...

en.wikipedia.org...

www.youtube.com...

When realists see these type of similarities, they start to question everything through skeptic lenses.

(FYI - I hate using Wikipedia, but they do provide good photos. Approach the main information with skepticism.)

[edit on 19-10-2009 by Pathos]



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 06:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pathos
That is why I'm a skeptic. The grandfather off all other UFO events has the potential of being an American made aircraft. What launched one of the most important events to ufology is of Earth origin.
The sketch you refer to was published years after his sighting, not mere months. Arnold mentioned that only one of the objects had a crescent-shaped rear. In essence, what you are saying is that a winged-shaped craft by definition must be of human origin. I don't think that argument flies so easily.

Besides this, the Horten stuff and other experimental winged craft such as the XB-35 were pretty much conventional in all their aspects, and failures too since none of it got beyond the experimental stage. They have none of the reported extraordinary performance characteristics attributed to UFOs. Nor does it explain the military's extensive interest in these sightings if these were their own planes.

There's no historical evidence to suggest that the Northrop or Horten stuff caused certain UFO sightings.


Sure, there is no direct evidence between Roswell and the YB-35;
So an admission that there is no evidence turns into:


As far as I'm concerned, Roswell was a crash site of an American made prototype of the YB-35. During one of its flight tests, the plane crashed in the desert.
Right, personal belief, which turns into:


Believers who dismiss their design similarities are joking to themselves.
Ridicule of those who would suggest differently.


Roswell is debunked in my mind.
And this from someone who has just admitted "there is no direct evidence" for his hypothesis.

I'm not falling into the whole Roswell trap, I particularly do not care for the whole thing. But you're being quite selective in what information you believe and what information to toss out.



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 06:39 PM
link   
reply to post by jclmavg
 

Your comments reflect why the die-hard UFO community is insane. You guys dismiss logic in all of its forms.


Originally posted by jclmavgThe sketch you refer to was published years after his sighting, not mere months. Arnold mentioned that only one of the objects had a crescent-shaped rear. In essence, what you are saying is that a winged-shaped craft by definition must be of human origin. I don't think that argument flies so easily.

It doesn't matter how late the sketch was made. You clearly dismiss the design similarities, and said it was just coincidence. That is insane.


Originally posted by jclmavg
I'm not falling into the whole Roswell trap, I particularly do not care for the whole thing. But you're being quite selective in what information you believe and what information to toss out.

Falling for the Roswell trap? Oh, I get it. You think this is a trap?

Why? Is it because the argument of opposition is based upon rationality? You can't debunk the debunk?

[edit on 19-10-2009 by Pathos]



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 06:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by yeti101
would you like to respond to my question?
I don't know why ETs would not colonize earth if they arrived here long long ago just as I don't know the ET's agenda if they are here now. I can only speculate and I doubt my speculation on those points would add anything of interest to this debate.



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 06:49 PM
link   
reply to post by jclmavg
 



just as I don't know the ET's agenda if they are here now.


i thought you made your mind up they were visiting?



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 06:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pathos
Your comments reflect why the die-hard UFO community is insane. You guys dismiss logic in all of its forms.
No I'm just pointing out the leaps of logic (or shall I say faith) in your arguments.

I don't know what Roswell was, but I am dead on when I say your explanation is like fitting a square peg into a round hole.

I just find it humorous you would conclude as a "skeptic" that Roswell was a prototype flying wing. Oh well, at least it would have been a neat and more believable explanation instead of the silly MOGUL story spun by the USAF!



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by jclmavg

Originally posted by yeti101
would you like to respond to my question?
I don't know why ETs would not colonize earth if they arrived here long long ago just as I don't know the ET's agenda if they are here now. I can only speculate and I doubt my speculation on those points would add anything of interest to this debate.

Are not the believers the experts? If you guys think that skeptics don't use reason, you should have the answers to support your arguments.


Originally posted by jclmavg

Originally posted by Pathos
Your comments reflect why the die-hard UFO community is insane. You guys dismiss logic in all of its forms.
No I'm just pointing out the leaps of logic (or shall I say faith) in your arguments.

I don't know what Roswell was, but I am dead on when I say your explanation is like fitting a square peg into a round hole.

Line the designs I provided up, and then you tell me who is insane.

Pure logic.

[edit on 19-10-2009 by Pathos]



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 06:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by yeti101
i thought you made your mind up they were visiting?
I haven't made up my mind about anything yet. Keep working on those mind reading skills!



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 07:01 PM
link   
reply to post by jclmavg
 


LoL ! but you have photos of hubcaps err i mean alien spaceships. No?

edit: wait that was the other guy getting you mixed up. So your still weighing the evidence? Let me know how you get on and what your conclusions are i'd be very interested to know.

[edit on 19-10-2009 by yeti101]



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join