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: 12
13
<< 9  10  11    13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 07:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pathos
Line the designs I provided up, and then you tell me who is insane.
[edit on 19-10-2009 by Pathos]
How about you line up those designs with the other eight craft Arnold described? In fact, how about lining them up with some of the more robust UFO cases of the early 50s?

And how you extrapolate flying wing pototypes to Roswell is beyond me since we don't really know what it was that crashed at the Brazel field and what it looked like. Then there's the gross mismatch between the look and properties the materials a horten flying wing or Northrop prototype would be made of, and the descriptions given by most witnesses.

But as I mentioned, Roswell is boring (to me). You have fun wih it.




posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 07:08 PM
link   
reply to post by jclmavg
 


personally i think mr arnold was hoaxing.

so youve not made your mind up about ET vsisitation ? still weighing the evidence? Let me know how you get on interested to know your conclusions.



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 07:16 PM
link   
Hahahaha... UFOs made by the United States.

History Project UFOs The Real History (Parts 1 thru 6)
Proof: www.youtube.com...
Proof: www.youtube.com...
Proof: www.youtube.com...
Proof: www.youtube.com...
Proof: www.youtube.com...
Proof: www.youtube.com...


"Started in 1932"


"Psychological Warfare"

----------------------------------------------------


"Russia and other allies were building UFOs based upon Germany's UFO designs"

That's the piece I was missing. Hahaha... Arnold saw versions of Germany's designs, which were being implemented by the allies of World War II. Wow... I was right in my observations. Hahaha...

----------------------------------------------------


Originally posted by jclmavg

Originally posted by Pathos
Line the designs I provided up, and then you tell me who is insane.
[edit on 19-10-2009 by Pathos]
How about you line up those designs with the other eight craft Arnold described? In fact, how about lining them up with some of the more robust UFO cases of the early 50s?

Done. See above clips.

[edit on 19-10-2009 by Pathos]



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 08:14 PM
link   
I'm not a UFO skeptic but i will say that most UFO supporters and theorists have some really bogus ideas, most UFO skeptics and UFO supporters say some of the dumbest things. Such as people trying to sell alien urine on eBay or as far as skeptics saying that there is absolutely nothing there...

I'm a firm believer that noone has come to the exact conclusion of what UFO's really are, but 99% of people assume that it is an alien from another planet or a weather balloon... Rarely anyone on both sides tries to come up with a theory on what the object actually is, why does it have to be an alien? why does it have to be man made? There could be sooo many other explinations... both sides don't consider the whole factor in my opinion...



posted on Oct, 20 2009 @ 11:31 AM
link   
how? ufo skeptics use reason by not automatically assuming every light in the sky is an alien.

i believe in the ufo phenomena wholeheartedly but to automatically assume any/all ufo's are "alien beings" is childish and silly and ignorant and a whole host of other adjectives.

i find it much more likely its technology from our governments, among a few other things, even light beings livin in our atmosphere.

just as likely as aliens ya darn conclusion jumpers

[edit on 20-10-2009 by whateverponcho]



posted on Oct, 20 2009 @ 01:18 PM
link   
"afterall we exist here but are not visiting any other star systems. Are you saying we dont exist here at all? "

This is a joke right? Could the fact that we do not possess the technological know how to visit other star systems be a possible explanation?
So let us turn your exact argument back on you
Are you suggesting that should we ever develop such technology that we will NOT use it? That once we can visit other star systems we will choose not to?
I do not understand. Please pick one for clarification's sake
A) You believe if we had the technology to visit other star systems we would not use it
B) You believe we would but other alien races who might possess this technology would not
WARING: Choosing either may damage your credibility.

But why would they want to hang out here?
A) Intelligent life in the universe is rare but aliens discovering a planet of sentient beings would have no interest it.
B) Intelligent life in th universe is so common they would have no interest in it, much the same way no one here wastes their time studying fish or insects as there are just so many different kinds.

Why don't they establish direct contact with us?
Well if we ignore the possibility that they have....the most obvious questions is 'Why would they?'. While believers and skeptics may argue their existence I don't think that particular question would bother them. My guess would be that despite the possible existence of skeptics in their society they would still have accumulated sufficient evidence that they would probably go with the 'yes' vote, they do exist, subject to change of course with the possible discovery of new data to the contrary.

To maintain skepticism one must accept

There is no life elsewhere in the universe OR
There is life elsewhere but it has not reach a technological level sufficient to allow it to travel to other star systems OR
While alien species may be moving amongst the stars none have come here because..... eeer I'm having a little trouble with this last one. Could you skeptics lend a hand here?



posted on Oct, 20 2009 @ 01:34 PM
link   
"anythings possible. Mermaids are possible, pink unicorns are possible. But you wouild have to show me the evidence before i concluded they were true"

Good point. I am having trouble though, trying to figure out how you can state as fact that they do not exist while lacking evidence of that fact.
Why do you have so much trouble with a simple, honest, and intelligent "I don't know".

Allowing that other people may weight the evidence differently than you, that they may give more credence to pilots, radar operators, etc as well as certain radar readings, videos etc (all subjective evaluations) it is obvious that they might come to a conclusion differing from yours. They may decide that they believe the evidence is sufficient to accept that certain phenomena cannot be fitted into any other paradigm except one involving their source as 'other', be it extraterrestrial, inter-dimensional, time travelers or whatever.
I understand this may not be the rock hard evidence that some skeptics might seek yet the simple fact that they do not reject some of the evidence which you dismiss does not qualify them as loonies or nuts or gullible.
I suggest until you can provide proof that these things do not exist you allow that you are as subject to error as them. It follows then that if they might be wrong, so might you. You should stop talking as though you have the inside scoop from God. You KNOW!!!!! Sorry, you have only an opinion which does not justify your insulting comments directed at those who dare to disagree with your OPINION.



posted on Oct, 20 2009 @ 02:16 PM
link   
IMO There are skeptics and skeptics...
A normal skeptic will be just some one that do not belive in UFO's just because he have not real proofs to suport the subject.
But what i see here roaming all of the places are the wrong type of skeptics...the "Abnormal" ones that they do all they can to just Crash and smash everything related to UFO's, no matter the Proofs or evidences!!
In fact moust of the so caled debunkers here are not diferent from what they usualy call others as "blind belivers"!!
But i lack on sufficient english to truly explain this better. Allow me to post this Utube small video where we can see Kevin Randle explaining very well something similar. What ever he is...a crackpot, a nuts or just a honest guy, what he says about this it's correct!

www.youtube.com...#

[edit on 20/10/09 by Umbra Sideralis]

[edit on 20/10/09 by Umbra Sideralis]



posted on Oct, 20 2009 @ 02:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Umbra Sideralis
IMO There are skeptics and skeptics...
A normal skeptic will be just some one that do not belive in UFO's just because he have not real proofs to suport the subject.
But what i see here roaming all of the places are the wrong type of skeptics...the "Abnormal" ones that they do all they can to just Crash and smash everything related to UFO's, no matter the Proofs or evidences!!
In fact moust of the so caled debunkers here are not diferent from what they usualy call others as "blind belivers"!!
[edit on 20/10/09 by Umbra Sideralis]


I personally do not think ATS is a place where you see a majority of these "abnormal" sceptics to be honest. You have odd posts from people that present no argument other than an unfounded opinion (on both sides of the spectrum whether believer or sceptical - I really hate these labels btw) but I do think that ATS's so called sceptical posters are in their majority people that are very interested in UFOs, are polite and back their opinions with valuable research.

I don't see how that comes off as insulting or frustrating. I don't even see how that hurts the field of ufology or the effort for any sort of disclosure.



posted on Oct, 20 2009 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by InTrueFiction
I don't see how that comes off as insulting or frustrating. I don't even see how that hurts the field of ufology or the effort for any sort of disclosure.

What many (not all) of the believers are doing is rejecting rational logic. I agree that skeptics do come in many forms, but we also have to admit that UFO believers also come in many forms.

Realistic and Earth based answers to most (not all) ufo followers is impossible to fathom. Its hard for people to accept the possibility that man can achieve great things. It is beyond their scope of comprehension to think that man could construct the pyramids, flying saucers, or other massive monuments. According to many die-hard UFO followers, man doesn't have the motivation to master such great feats.

If you look at the past ten years in information technology alone, the computer has become 1,500 times more powerful. Within a very-very short period of time, human beings managed to evolve hard-drive space from 100 kbs to 2 terabytes. Even though that is only one technological example, the other components have also followed suit. Everything that use to be in my childhood is now cordless and mobile. Who could have predicted that the cordless phone would have become a portable communication device?

Skeptics notice the things that man can achieve, and they (we) try to eliminated the possibility of an Earthly explanation. Its is only logical to look at man first, for we have accomplished so much in short periods of time. Before anyone places an alien explanation for anything in human history, you should be looking at the human condition for answers.

If a believer cannot define every known (and unknown) military aircraft made by man (and its campability), they cannot definitively conclude that alien made UFOs are visiting Earth. Without having all of your facts on the table, doubt is formed from the missing pieces.

[edit on 20-10-2009 by Pathos]



posted on Oct, 20 2009 @ 03:41 PM
link   
UFO means unidentified flying object. How can one not belive in something that is not identified? How can you say that an object that is not identified does not exist? Do you understand what I am saying? Use the term extraterrestrial craft and then you are not just spewing illogical statements.



posted on Oct, 20 2009 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by earthdude
Use the term extraterrestrial craft and then you are not just spewing illogical statements.

Sure you are spewing illogical statements. Extraterrestrial means foreign to Earth. In order to conclude that something is made by aliens, you have to eliminate everything that is made by man. Can you do that?


Originally posted by earthdudeUFO means unidentified flying object.


Originally posted by earthdude How can one not believe in something that is not identified?

Even though something is not identifiable to me, that does not mean its not identifiable to someone else. Other words, something can be unidentified from my perspective, but someone with more knowledge could identify an object. Perspective is key.



[edit on 20-10-2009 by Pathos]



posted on Oct, 20 2009 @ 04:29 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 11:51 AM
link   
reply to post by DoomsdayRex
 


Yet, you just made Ad hominem statements as well.

Is there a difference?

I couldn't say.



posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 11:54 AM
link   
The 1993 Kelly Cahill alien-abduction case (listed in OPs opening), is one of the most difficult for debunkers to debunk with any kind of reason.
Though the last I heard from Cahill, she supposed a possible USA military involvement, but could not be sure.

Vid 8min: www.youtube.com...
Vid 52min: video.google.com...#

The point of the above as case and point evolves around two other abductees the same time, date and place, all in different automobiles and unknown to each other until only a few years ago.

This is perhaps the best case for UFO Abduction out there, of the thousands read. Though I'd suggest the USA Allagash Incident is another firm multi-abduction case to.

Allgash brief: www.ufocasebook.com...
---

There are others of course, but what I have found is Debunkers only debunk weaker cases or cases with little or no witnesses or evidence.

Decoy



posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 12:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Robin Goodfellow
 





To maintain skepticism one must accept

There is no life elsewhere in the universe OR
There is life elsewhere but it has not reach a technological level sufficient to allow it to travel to other star systems OR
While alien species may be moving amongst the stars none have come here because..... eeer I'm having a little trouble with this last one. Could you skeptics lend a hand here?


They may have better or more important things to do than visit here if they are capable.

They might not know we are even here. 400 billion stars in the galaxy they may be on number 50 perhaps we're number 200 billion on their list.

Perhaps interstellar travel is very hard and they only do it to save their species. Like migrate when their curerent star is burning out.

Perhaps intelligent life is extremely rare and they are just too far away to visit.

Maybe we are the first tech intelligence to evolve in the galaxy. We could be the most advanced species

Theres many reasons why we've not been visited.




I suggest until you can provide proof that these things do not exist...


can you provide me proof darth vader doesn't control the governments of the world with the threat of storm troopers?

[edit on 21-10-2009 by yeti101]



posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 06:18 PM
link   
Darth Vader control the world? Being a fictitious character I doubt it. But if your point is to prove that nothing can ever actually be proven, that we can only work with probabilities, I am willing to go along with that.
My argument is that it is you are grasping at the most outrageous improbabilities and expecting everyone to accept them as likely.

Considering the size of the known universe, considering how long it has been here and the number of stars that cooled before our own and thus the number of planets older than ours and therefore the potential for civilizations older and much more advanced than ours, do you find the liklihood of us being the most technologically advanced species in the galaxy to be probable?

Considering that we are dealing with an unknown potential number of advanced civilizations you believe it probable that any and all that might encounter us would have no reason to study/visit/observe us? You really think it more probable that any and all would shrug us off and go about their business with not a single one interested in us for any reason? How do you measure probability?

If we are discussing alien species you do not believe that it is probable that neither you or I or anyone on this site has any means of grasping their logic or motives and so it is a bit silly to discuss these things?

I will concede that everything you say may be correct. I personally find it highly improbable, almost to the point of absurdity. But I cannot prove it incorrect and so yes, you are correct. It is possible there are no aliens here.

You, however, will not say that you cannot prove differently and so have to concede that yes, there may be aliens visiting us because........

Here is your weak spot. The simple, logical, intelligent statement "Yes, it is possible I am wrong and the earth is being visited by extraterrestrials but I highly doubt it."
If you concede this one point then how can you demand the believers concede to being in error once you admit they may not be?
It is the doubters who must maintain some type of claim of infallibility. "No, I cannot be wrong. There are no aliens"

So forgive me but it seems to me that your problem is not that believers accept UFOs, it is that they do not accept your infallibility. Yes, you disagree. So? Your opinion is more than just your opinion? Get over yourself.



posted on Oct, 22 2009 @ 01:38 AM
link   
"Skeptics have no evidence, therefor they cannot weigh reason."

"You don't have evidence either."

"I have direct evidence. You must believe what someone is saying because they experienced it and you did not."

"Neither did you, yet, you believe it."

"Because I have weighed reason due to the evidence. You cannot do that because you have no evidence."

"You only have cases, reports, people's word for it."

"You have no evidence."

"Neither do YOU!"


"Skeptics are wrong because they do not believe the same things as me."

...

"Talk to the hand."


Seriously, for 12 pages now. It amazes me how much time and effort goes into this debate when everyone knows nobody is going to change their mind. I understand people are passionate about their beliefs but couldn't all this be better spent elsewhere?

EDIT: My smiley (angry?) went to an inapropriate place.

[edit on 22/10/2009 by Bluemcgee]



posted on Oct, 25 2009 @ 12:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Robin Goodfellow
You have yet to provide a single photo, a single shred of evidence, to establish the existence of atoms. Many theories but no actual proof. Yet you have no problem building entire sciences based on your theoretical assumptions.


Gee, do ya think that might sorta be because of the NATURE and SIZE of the thing being postulated? Your analogy is worth exactly what you charged for it.

Nothing is ever proven, we can only suggest the most likely theory that best matches the observations. That 'most likely theory', has to be, by nature, based on other most likely theories. Atomic theory, like many others, provides a very useful and highly applicable model to be used, it gives predictable and repeatable results, it gives a perfect match for all the observations, and it is based on a myriad of other accepted, tried and tested theories.

How does the 'alien spacecraft' theory fare, in those regards? What other evidence for aliens do you have? Von Daniken, perhaps? And how EXACTLY has that alien spacecraft theory been established as the most likely explanation?

Why don't you try being honest, and admit that even the VERY BEST case you can offer for an alien origin for any given ufo report, is flimsy at best.

And then you have the teensy weensy problem that there is no other evidence (except more ufo sightings and dubious interpretations of ancient imagery, etc) that aliens have visited us.

And of course the alien spacecraft theory has as a basic premise that they for some reason do not wish to announce their presence, that they are extremely shy and only allow the vast majority of sightings to be to *very* small groups of observers at night, and that despite the reports of some of them crashing into the ground, not a single trace of any unknown alloys or technology, or any artefacts at all, has been found on Earth.

(Unless you count skinned sloths and monkeys, or easy-to-produce aluminum slag...)

Like I said, the hoaxers are useful in that they remind us to not jump to ridiculous conclusions, and to always apply much rigour to the investigations.

It is very clear that many folk here do not work in the science or research fields...

And why.



posted on Oct, 25 2009 @ 12:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by jclmavg

Originally posted by Pathos
Line the designs I provided up, and then you tell me who is insane.
[edit on 19-10-2009 by Pathos]
How about you line up those designs with the other eight craft Arnold described? In fact, how about lining them up with some of the more robust UFO cases of the early 50s?

And how you extrapolate flying wing pototypes to Roswell is beyond me since we don't really know what it was that crashed at the Brazel field and what it looked like. Then there's the gross mismatch between the look and properties the materials a horten flying wing or Northrop prototype would be made of, and the descriptions given by most witnesses.

But as I mentioned, Roswell is boring (to me). You have fun wih it.


Wow! Someone that doubts the popular press about Roswell! I thought I was the only one here. Good to see ya!



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 9  10  11    13  14 >>

log in

join