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.

 

Show us ONE, just one UFO pic or ANY evidence that can be proven as evidence of visitation.

page: 56
85
<< 53  54  55    57  58  59 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 16 2010 @ 11:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by InfaRedMan

You're right in saying that no one can disprove a negative. Ergo, I can tell you that the universe rides on the back of a giant celestial squid named Trevor and you cannot disprove it. Does that mean that I am telling the truth? Does it make it more probable than not? Hardly! You miss the point as always Anthra. You aren't fooling anyone here. MMN makes a valid point that you cannot answer with any semblance of rationale.


Firstly; its not a giant squid ... its a jumbo. Second; his name is Bob.

Thirdly; there are Terrestrial myths that contradict your squid notion.

All of that not withstanding ... I'm not asking that anyone try to prove a negative, even though logicaly, mathamaticaly, and philosophicaly it should be possible.

MMN, you, and all the rest, have exactally the same ammunition in this argument as I do. Yet you don't use it and instead just resort to trying to yell louder than me. If what I'm saying is just BS, you shouldn't have any problems using my own data against me. Some have even tried, and while they failed, it is still commendable, and more than has been recently tried.

Some seem to think that all that needs to be said to debunk something is to call it a lie or hoax. Do you not understand, that by YOUR rules; if you call something a lie or hoax that it is now on YOU to prove it so?



Again you are correct. We don't like what you have to say for a multitude of reasons. For one, you bring the UFOlogical community into disrepute and turn it into a laughing stock at the expense of your self indulgent, delusional BS.


I'm not the one bringing the UFO community into disrepute. You are doing that yourself. For a community that would like to think you are doing something right, you fail at every turn. You do not apply scientific principals to your work. Further when someone makes an outrageous claim, and backs it up with viable evidence, all you can do is condemn that person.

Your proper course of action is actually quite simple ... use the evidence against the claim. If the person making the claim has offered to allow independant testing or gathering of additional evidence, you should be all over that. But, alas, no, you cry "lie and hoax" and accuse the claimant of every crime and disorder that seems to fit.

If your UFO community wants to join the "big leagues" then it is time for you to step up to the challange.

(after thought on this: Even if I am proven wrong, if I get you to do it right; then I have done you a fovor.)



And two, we call it a lie and hoax for the plain fact that it is. That is the only truth in this matter no matter how much you try to twist and contort the facts. Stop kidding yourself in pretending you have a valid argument for your actions. You don't! End of story.


Again, you have no reason to call me and my evidence a lie or hoax except for your knee jerk reaction ... not very scientific of you. Also, it is not I that is trying to twist and contort any facts, it is most of y'all.

Do I have a valid argument? The data would seem to support that idea.



Pardon me but you have not proved anything to the affirmative!


I have, and you can't handle it. The failure here isn't me or my data it is, very realisticly, you! Quit crying lie and hoax, and get to work proving it.

I'm sorry IRM, but it is past time for you and your "homies" to wake up to a few truths.

Etharzi od Oma




posted on Jul, 16 2010 @ 11:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by yeti101
i think the believers have done a good job in showing how irrational they are about this subject. Even when shown what they are being presented is false they still choose to believe its genuine. They wonder why people dont take this subject seriously


You're wrong on two counts in that you don't speak for everyone who believes or wants to believe. 1 - I'm willing to accept that the photo I posted is actually a time exposure of the moon if my last question can be answered, which is 'Did they have devices that compensated for star movement so as to eliminate star trails in 1950 when that photograph was taken?" 2 - I'm not a believer of alien visitation, yet. I want to believe we have been visited and I know there is a lot of bunk out there which is really what hurts the believers' crusade. But I still search for the undeniable, un-debunkable proof that we need. In my opinion, Roswell/Corona comes very close to the kind of evidence in that the officials have been proven to be lying on the Roswell/Corona incident on more than one occasion. The number of eyewitnesses to the crash debris, the ex military men and women who have come forward with similar descriptions of the crash desbris and alien bodies, all point to it being a genuine UFO visitation case. Also, what about Foo Fighters? Pilots during WWII on German and US sides reported seeing those things. Sometimes the Foo Fighters would play "tag" with the military planes, matching their speed and exceeding it and making erratic manuevers, which removes weather balloons or sky lanterns from the equation. Also, but not quite the same qcategory as alien visitation, the WOW! Signal has never been explained and all indications point to it originating from the direction of the constellation Saggitarius and being artificial in nature.



posted on Jul, 16 2010 @ 11:35 AM
link   
reply to post by black cat
 


Do you even read my posts?
Of course motor driven celestial tracking existed in 1950! And long before that. LOOK INTO IT!


[edit on 16-7-2010 by OldDragger]



posted on Jul, 16 2010 @ 12:24 PM
link   
reply to post by itchy_tartan_blanket
 


So you like my post. Thanks.
Again...let me repeat this, you surely cannot refute on this thread, try as you might...

Just because there is no evidence of a crime, (nor even proof), this does not mean a crime did not occur.

In many cases it means the proof as well as any incriminating evidence was ignored, concealed, or killed off. In the area of UFO study there is also support in covering up by turning real events into comic books or bizarre, tabloid news stories.

Why would all these governments and agencies bother launching such a massive global conspiracy?...The reason used in inner circles is...They are afraid we will go all "War of The Worlds" on them and start leaping off skyscrapers.
This is why we cannot be responsible with the information. You don't make that kind of mistake twice.
Though the real reason, I personally think... is a bit more sinister...



posted on Jul, 16 2010 @ 12:54 PM
link   
reply to post by black cat
 


While OldDragger is correct; clock drives for telescopes have been around for a very long time. However, I did notice that the lights of the city buildings aren't 'dragged' out like the "moon" is. I'm sure that they shouldn't be, but, if the telescope is moving, shouldn't there be some dragging if the ights?



posted on Jul, 16 2010 @ 02:59 PM
link   
reply to post by AnthraAndromda
 


It could easily be a composite photo.
Another point is that even if the "object" were real, it would have to be a time exposure. Fast film was not readily available then, ( though it could be had). I found this out in the 60's trying to take astronomy photos myself. The fastest easily obobtainable film in BW was ASA 400, Color was usually ASA 64. REALLY SLOW!
And yes you whacky youngsters, a composite photo was easily made in 1950!

[edit on 16-7-2010 by OldDragger]



posted on Jul, 16 2010 @ 03:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by AnthraAndromda

Originally posted by InfaRedMan

You're right in saying that no one can disprove a negative. Ergo, I can tell you that the universe rides on the back of a giant celestial squid named Trevor and you cannot disprove it. Does that mean that I am telling the truth? Does it make it more probable than not? Hardly! You miss the point as always Anthra. You aren't fooling anyone here. MMN makes a valid point that you cannot answer with any semblance of rationale.


Firstly; its not a giant squid ... its a jumbo. Second; his name is Bob.

I am pleasantly surprised to see humor rise up from you!

I was worried that your species was like those darned Vulcans, there's just no joking around with them.



posted on Jul, 16 2010 @ 03:26 PM
link   
reply to post by black cat
 

Rather than a time exposure it is most likely a multiple exposure image of the Moon. A series of exposures on the same frame of film.

As pointed out, if it were a time exposure it would not account for only the Moon being stretched. It also would not account for the "stacked" appearance.

But why aren't the stars also showing the same effect? I don't think they are stars. I think the exposure time of each shot was too short for stars to appear. If they were stars the Moon and the lights of the building would be highly overexposed. I think they are flaws in the print or a result of the scanning of the photograph. Notice how there are more "stars" in the bright area (a cloud?) than anywhere else in the sky.



posted on Jul, 16 2010 @ 03:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Those things popped in my mind as well.



posted on Jul, 16 2010 @ 03:39 PM
link   
reply to post by OldDragger
 

A bit like this image but...
Different moon phase. Shorter intervals. Moonset rather than moon rise. And this one probably involves some digital stacking of images.



[edit on 7/16/2010 by Phage]



posted on Jul, 16 2010 @ 03:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 
Sorry Phage, I think you are wrong.

That photo that you posted is obviously a giant snake UFO creature. Jaime Maussan posted one a while back.



posted on Jul, 16 2010 @ 04:17 PM
link   
reply to post by AnthraAndromda
 


AnthraDromedary.....



I'm sorry IRM, but it is past time for you and your "homies" to wake up to a few truths.


Here's something for you..... you angry little alien you!




Cheers
Maybe...maybe not



posted on Jul, 16 2010 @ 07:39 PM
link   
reply to post by OldDragger
 


OP i guess it's all down to how lucky you are personally...I've seen 3 ufo's in my life, starting at age 9, again age 18 and again 33, so I dont need proof from anyone to verify what i witnessed. I hope one day you can hold your hand up and say you shared such a wonderful experience



posted on Jul, 16 2010 @ 09:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by nexusferox
reply to post by OldDragger
 


OP i guess it's all down to how lucky you are personally...I've seen 3 ufo's in my life, starting at age 9, again age 18 and again 33, so I dont need proof from anyone to verify what i witnessed. I hope one day you can hold your hand up and say you shared such a wonderful experience


What experience? What did you see?

Why is it that anyone who finds something that nobody can identify is suddenly in charge of defining it? Just because we don't know what that dot in the sky is doesn't mean you're correct in whatever assumptions you're making.

If you see an insect in a picture that's blurred out because it was moving, does that give you the right to determine what species it is? So why is that right suddenly given when there's an unknown object in the sky?

Just because it's unknown or unidentifiable doesn't mean it's special. And just because you saw something that didn't seem to function in accordance with anything else you know doesn't mean it's special either. It's still unknown, still unidentified, still undefined.

Something that's "undebunkable" works the same way for those trying to attribute it to aliens as those trying to find a terrestrial explanation. It's unidentifiable, and pointless.



posted on Jul, 16 2010 @ 10:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Thanks for the reply, Phage. At least you took the time to understand what I was talking about and not wave it away like the rest here. I appreciate that.

So I'll relent and call that one a hoax. The rest of you guys trying so hard to prove everyone wrong can take a lesson from Phage's book. When you provide analysis in a non-combative and non-aggressive manner and actually take the time to understand what the other side is saying you come off looking a lot more credible and a lot less like douches.



posted on Jul, 16 2010 @ 11:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by AnthraAndromda
Firstly; its not a giant squid ... its a jumbo. Second; his name is Bob.


No.. it's a squid and his name is Trevor!


I'm not the one bringing the UFO community into disrepute.


Yes you are... but given all the other evidence you've presented in having aversions to reality, it's understandable that you live in denial of that fact too.


You do not apply scientific principals to your work.


And claiming you're alien when ALL of your DNA is human is a scientific conclusion? Sorry what scientific principals are you working off? 2+2=5? Sighting gobbledygook on data mining is completely meaningless in regards to DNA analysis.


Further when someone makes an outrageous claim, and backs it up with viable evidence, all you can do is condemn that person.


100% Human DNA is viable evidence?


and use the evidence against the claim.


Your 'evidence' works against itself. We are merely pointing out the obvious flaws in you logic... and 'scientific method'.


Again, you have no reason to call me and my evidence a lie or hoax


Okay, how does pathetic sound?


Do I have a valid argument?


No!


The data would seem to support that idea.


2+2=5 again?


The failure here isn't me or my data


That's exactly where the failure is!


Quit crying lie and hoax, and get to work proving it.


No need to. You disprove yourself!


I'm sorry IRM, but it is past time for you and your "homies" to wake up to a few truths.


Oh how very original of you! We have your number mate!


IRM :shk:



posted on Jul, 17 2010 @ 12:32 AM
link   
reply to post by InfaRedMan
 




And claiming you're alien when ALL of your DNA is human is a scientific conclusion? Sorry what scientific principals are you working off? 2+2=5? Sighting gobbledygook on data mining is completely meaningless in regards to DNA analysis.


And YOU ar an expert in DNA analysis? How about data structure design and analysis, or data mining? No? Didn't think so.

You haven't really looked at the data, you have absolutely no understanding of what it implies and predicts, yet you seem very sure that it says anything but what I said.

I'm not a biologist, I've said that before, but, I can ask biologists questions, and I can read. Everything I've been lead to beleive about biology and genetics says that we are all made from genes taken from each parent. Some are dominant, others recessive. However, what ever our individual phenotype is, the genes must be present in our DNA. Yet you seem to think that this simply isn't true, or at least not in all cases.

Once again, I'll go slow so you can begin to understand. I ... look ... like ... a ... European ... yet ... have ... no ... European ... DNA.

Did ya get it that time? What I'm saying is that a person of Indo-African descent does not have fair skin, hair, and eyes. Nor would they have typical Nordic bone structure, and other features. At least not without some indication of that in their DNA. You really need to stop for a minute and study the evidence!

You need to stop with youe psudo-skeptic thinking, and adopt some semblance of scientific thought and proceedure, without it you are lost.

By the way, when I was in college, one of my professors show us the math proof that 2+2=5.

Again, I feel I have to say that it is the UFO community that is bringing all the disrepute upon itself. Through the refusal to properly examine evidence, and not using proven scientific methods. By the way, data mining is a very solid and proven method of gathering information that isn't normally visible in a given dataset.

I really think that your biggest objection here isn't so much that I've made a claim, but that I've used a method that you don't understand to illustrate the evidence. Thats not my problem, it is yours. All your argument is is your opinion, you have no substance to what you are saying. It is only what you want the reality to be. On the other hand, I have provided hard scientific data, and an analysis of that data. What do you have?

And again, to any out there that think this is a lie or a hoax ... prove it! As it was said once; "bring it, don't sing it." I am fully prepared to entertain any alternative analysis of the data, however, be warned, I will hold you to a rather high standard.

Etharzi od Oma


[edit on 17-7-2010 by AnthraAndromda]



posted on Jul, 17 2010 @ 01:23 AM
link   
reply to post by AnthraAndromda
 


Arthur Dromedary.....

Just for the record.....

How do YOU spell "Andromeda", you cute little alien genius, you.....?

Yours in alieness
Maybe...maybe not

[edit on 17-7-2010 by Maybe...maybe not]



posted on Jul, 17 2010 @ 02:40 AM
link   
reply to post by AnthraAndromda
 


Arthur Dromedary.....



And YOU ar an expert in DNA analysis?


One of my family members just majored in genetics at a prestigious university.

I might ask that family member to have a look at your proof of being a dromedarian lifeform.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not



posted on Jul, 17 2010 @ 04:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by nexusferox
reply to post by OldDragger
 


OP i guess it's all down to how lucky you are personally...I've seen 3 ufo's in my life, starting at age 9, again age 18 and again 33, so I dont need proof from anyone to verify what i witnessed. I hope one day you can hold your hand up and say you shared such a wonderful experience


You have seen 3 UFO's? 3 UNIDENTIFIED Flying Objects? We believe you. Honestly. I just wish that you found out what they actually were.
Personally, to see something that ignites your curiosity due to being unsual and UNIDENTIFIABLE, doesn't seem like such a wonderful experience. It would absolutely bug the tits off me until I knew what it was.



new topics

top topics



 
85
<< 53  54  55    57  58  59 >>

log in

join