It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Does this make you believe in UFO's?

page: 2
<< 1    3 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 03:35 PM

Originally posted by K-PAX-PROT
Sorry but trying to compare a list of quotes be they credible or not on a subject such as the GOD perception or reality is rather missing the facts that the UFO reality has much more circumstantial evidence in its favour than the reality of a GOD.

Can you say that with any sort of confidence? Do you have data on circumstantial evidence for god vs. that of alien visitation? It is absurd to think there is a difference.

posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 04:14 PM
reply to post by IgnoreTheFacts

And all the old military quotes like the one you posted in your op, well those people were simply stating those things based of nothing more than witness testimony, not like they had any hard evidence.

1) Simply not true.

2) Another reason could be attributed to that era. In the 1940-1950s, few people even understood how insanely difficult it is to go from one star system to another. To them "aliens" was new concept. Who were they to ridicule it?- thus people were not laughed at or scorned on the subject like they are today.

It would take a person who had all eyes on them while they publicly state such things (such as a sitting US president, etc) for me to not roll my eyes at it.

That is odd because you just said: some of these people are "prominent people", so you ignore that fact they are human first and prominent second in your desire to believe what they are saying.

So not only do you contract yourself there, I would like to make another point:

Having "all eyes" on an individual will not necessarily make them want to open up with everything that is in their heart. Former Presidential hopeful Dennis Kucinich addressed the subject of UFOs as I'm sure you remember (a few years back).

Here is the youtube: Kucinich talking about UFOs

Notice- as soon as the term "UFO" is brought up there is a general chuckle from the audience. The stigma is there stymieing prominent people and average joes alike. And let's face it, NO ONE wants to be sat down to have a bunch of people roll their eyes and giggle at you. If you ever meet someone who enjoys being laughed at then please let me know. Because I can assure you that they probably aren't human!

So yeah, these quotes don't compel me to blindly believe, because these quotes lack supporting substance. But, they do compel me to want to know more and not give up my lifelong search.

Well that is actually good to hear. I wouldn't want you to "give up." Perhaps you are searching through the wrong material?

What conclusions have you come to on the following:

-1976 Tehran UFO (as documented in the gov't own FOIA docs)
-1967-68 Minot AFB UFO
-1967 Malmstrom AFB UFO
-1986 JAL Flight 1628


posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 04:32 PM
reply to post by Turiddu

If I am to believe in such an amazing idea as intelligent alien beings visiting us on Earth, I am going to need much stronger evidence than some quotes written on a website.

Lol, why is the idea of "aliens" visiting earth seem so odd to you?

Doesn't it seem odd to begin with that you are on a giant rock spinning around a giant fireball in the middle of nowhere, with no idea on how you got here, or or why you're able to understand anything at all?

I do understand the value (and necessity) of being skeptical of far out claims. However, you do realize that life doesn't always give you everything you want exactly how you like it? Just making sure..

[edit on 4-8-2010 by Scramjet76]

posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 06:30 PM

Does this make you believe in UFO's?

It all depends.

Are these people speaking from secret first-hand knowledge that they possess -- i.e., hard evidence that is not known by the general public and they know only because of their position in the government?...
...OR, are these people only talking about their personal feelings and their personal beliefs?

If it's the former, then this is meaningful. However, if it's the latter, then -- being that these are only personal beliefs, just like yours, mine, and my neighbor's personal beliefs -- it would be far less meaningful.

Everyone can have personal opinions on ETs that has nothing to do with their position in the world -- including astronauts, military officers, an accountant and my plumber.

[edit on 8/4/2010 by Soylent Green Is People]

posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 07:46 PM
[edit on 4-8-2010 by freelance_zenarchist]

posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 07:47 PM
Simply put: No.

One of Peirce's Methods of Fixing Belief:

Method of Authority

This states we're likely to blindly believe the words of a figure we deem to hold a position of authority over ourself, whether they're right or wrong, simply because of their status.

It's a fallacy of rational thought, and I'm sorry, until there's some hard evidence, stating "I know aliens are here" is only half the equation.

I agree with IgnoreTheFacts, I don't want to believe, I want to know.

I've spent a good portion of my life believing in aliens. Well eventually I realized how fruitless that belief was, and just how illogical a belief can be. I'm a student of psychology, I understand how our mind works and just how poisonous a belief can be. Until there's some sort of fact backing it up, I don't care who comes out and claims X or Y, it's all meaningless.

posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 03:43 AM
Ive seen UFOs (on a few occasions) whether they were ET or not is unknown.

The smoking gun UFO incident to me is the Rendlesham forest incident. The more you dig into that incident, the more and more it will wow you.

posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 12:02 PM

Originally posted by DoomsdayRex

Originally posted by K-PAX-PROT
Sorry but trying to compare a list of quotes be they credible or not on a subject such as the GOD perception or reality is rather missing the facts that the UFO reality has much more circumstantial evidence in its favour than the reality of a GOD.

Can you say that with any sort of confidence? Do you have data on circumstantial evidence for god vs. that of alien visitation? It is absurd to think there is a difference.

Well as i said , it would be up to the jury on my court assumption to decide WHAT and if any circumstantial evidence was more apparent on either the UFO reality or GOD reality.Surely the circumstantial evidence gathered for the UFO reality over the years since 1947 would weigh heavily in favour of a UFO reality than a GOD reality by the jury.

The absurdity is not the fact that there is circumstantial evidence in favour of a certain percentage of UFOs that have NOT been identified to this day, that's the difference.I am saying this through a non religious perception, maybe the jury could be highly religious and find the GOD reality in their favour.Are we dealing with ones own personal perceptions in any frame work of "reality".How many pictures or Videos of GOD do we have.

posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 12:31 PM

Originally posted by K-PAX-PROT
Surely the circumstantial evidence gathered for the UFO reality over the years since 1947 would weigh heavily in favour of a UFO reality than a GOD reality by the jury.

How many wars were fought, pyramids built, cathedrals erected, or races decimated in the name of UFO's?

Just sayin'.

posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 12:50 PM

Originally posted by XxRagingxPandaxX
Your thoughts? Flag if it is worthy

Your question isn't really logical

UFO's ARE REAL the term is Unidentified Flying Object there's plenty flying objects which have been classified as Unidentified. Anyone to say UFO's don't exist would be insane.

It's like the debate of climate change, noone can deny the climate isn't changing, the debate is whether it's manmade or not

The question I think you should be asking is "Do you believe UFO's are of alien origin?"

posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 12:56 PM
Numreous threads already on this subject. Yes, it's quite interesting. I just don't believe that so many reputable people can all be wrong. We're still picking the wheat from the chaff...

to get you started....

posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 01:01 PM
I never understood why people need government confirmation for everything... especially in regards for extraterrestrials.

I tend to understand the governments point of view and why they don't tell people... most can't handle it.

Most people traded in their Freedom's for Security long ago, that comes with consequences such as secrecy and subservience.

I guess what Im trying to say is that no one needs to tell me they're real because I already know they are...

and the evidence is strongly there...

if you can no longer trust creadible 1st account witnesses that also work within our gov't and are prevy to that information... I think no amount of information short of your own encounter of the third kind will convince you.


posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 01:02 PM
You know what's really funny, and ironic?

If not for all the stigma, dogma, and hullabaloo surrounding the UFO issue - in other words, if the concept of alien visitation were a new idea, just now materializing as a theory... scientists and philosophers all over the world would take it quite seriously. I am not saying people would accept it as proven fact. I am saying people would consider it an interesting theory, and probably a LOT more people would try to research and explore it.

Only recently have more scientists begun to take the idea seriously, and of course they are finding their statements falling on many deaf ears:

"We are in the curious situation today that our best modern physics and astrophysics theories predict that we should be experiencing extraterrestrial visitation, yet any possible evidence of such lurking in the UFO phenomenon is scoffed at within our scientific community," contends astrophysicist Bernard Haisch.

ET Visitors: Scientists See High Likelihood

I mean honestly, let's think about this for a minute. Let's really think about it. What is the main argument against alien visitation? Quite simply, it is:
"Where are they?"

Obviously the lack of any verifiable evidence - and by that I mean evidence that anybody can go and verify for themselves, like any other real science - is a perfectly good reason to avoid the conclusion that we are being visited. And I am not even suggesting people should reach that conclusion. But people should consider it a valid scientific theory.

Why? Well, for two reasons.

1) Hypothetically, what would it take to -not- be seen? Now I'm not trying to suggest that all theories of invisible unicorns should suddenly be taken seriously. But you have to be a fool to think that there is -no- reason to suspect that alien life exists beyond our planet. There are plenty of reasons and the scientific community has known this for a long time. So at least as far as aliens, it is reasonable to ask: What would it take for them to visit us without being seen?

Well, it would take invisibility technology. And what would that entail? In principle it is incredibly simple. You just have to move light around you or through you, so that it doesn't bounce off you or get absorbed. In practice, of course, it's a different story. The technology to accomplish this would have to be VERY advanced.

But... how advanced? A thousand years more advanced than us? A million, even? Let's say it's a million, even though personally I think we'll have it ourselves much sooner than that.

If it takes technology a million years more advanced than our current technology to make an object invisible, then there are MANY, MANY alien races that are capable of this already, because the universe has already been around for 14 BILLION YEARS.

2) What would it take to get here? This is the big question, I think. The concept of travelling between stars is commonplace in science fiction, but in reality it is ENORMOUSLY difficult. But again, we come to the question of technology, and if you believe that sufficiently advanced technology could accomplish this, then you must accept that many alien races with this technology probably already exist.

We all know that faster-than-light travel, for our current civilization, is impossible. So the question becomes:
Do you believe faster-than-light travel will ALWAYS be impossible?
... Or do you believe that it might SOMEDAY be possible?

When you really think about it, the entire credibility of the UFO theory, from a scientific standpoint, comes down to this question, because surely if an alien race is capable of traveling faster than light, they are probably capable of invisibility. So it all comes down to whether or not you think faster-than-light travel is something that nobody could ever achieve, no matter how advanced they are, and no matter how much infinitely smarter they are than you.

I for one think we have a lot to learn.

posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 01:10 PM
reply to post by DoomsdayRex

Can you say that with any sort of confidence? Do you have data on circumstantial evidence for god vs. that of alien visitation? It is absurd to think there is a difference.

You're right! It doesn't take many degrees of seperation for one being to be indiscernible from "God" from the perspective of another.

However, you if you look at a UFO case like the 1976 Tehran UFO, you'll find that nothing manmade can account for that report. Likewise, using Occam's Razor, there is no reason to invoke a supreme universal creator to explain the encounter.

Imagine you are leaf on a tree. You've never been hit with a drop of water before. However, you do notice that occasionally this liquid stuff builds up and "drips/falls" off you... accelerating rapidly to a strange world beneath you. One day you get hit by a huuuge drop of strange liquid. Puzzled you look above you only to see a maze of other leaves as far as you can see.

Do you explain it as an all-powerful leaf that can do anything, knows everything, and is all good? Or do you explain it as another leaf somewhere above you, which likely came into being well before you- and thus, has had plenty of time to slowly accumulate a lot of moisture on it's surface?

Just sayin'....

posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 02:07 PM
reply to post by Magnus47

Very well said my friend.

People always try and view the puzzle from their perspective:

1) How would they get here? Anything near the speed of light = impossible

2) Why would they come here? All that distance just to observe our little world, buzz some of our planes and take a few semen & soil samples.

^^^Ever seen those gems posted on ATS...!

This is their failed attempt to rationalize what seems to be irrational. This is their failed attemp to rationalize things from their personal point of view. Instead, they should try and rationalize the UFO from the perspective of evolutionary timescales, and the sum total of all human thought/knowledge which has been accumulated and passed on for eons!

What they also fail to grasp is the evidence that is us. If you think someday mankind will suddenly stop wanting to advance their mind, body, spirituality, technology, etc... you'd likely be wrong! History has shown, that although we have (at times) taken 1 step backwards, we eventually make up with it and take 2 steps forwards. It's always been this way.

The search for truth leads to knowledge. The seed of knowledge is like a good cancer that never goes away. Knowledge makes us "better." The desire to better ourselves through knowledge is ultimately what it comes down to. It is the ultimate purpose. Our good friend agent Smith had it correct in the movie the Matrix:

Agent Smith: There is no escaping reason, no denying purpose, because as we both know, without purpose, we would not exist.

Multiple Smiths: It is purpose that created us. Purpose that connects us. Purpose that pulls us, that guides us, that drive us. It is purpose that defines, purpose that binds us.

The bottom line:

*Respect the powerful combination of father time and information sharing.

*Don't always trust your gut when it comes to universal truths.

posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 02:42 PM

Originally posted by Scramjet76

This is their failed attempt to rationalize what seems to be irrational. This is their failed attemp to rationalize things from their personal point of view. Instead, they should try and rationalize the UFO from the perspective of evolutionary timescales, and the sum total of all human thought/knowledge which has been accumulated and passed on for eons!

I was just reading in Richard Hall's book "Uninvited Guests" his response to skeptics/scientists that use these types of explanations to avoid the ufo question. He has a chapter on "Skeptical Presumptions" and uses critical thinking, reasoning and logic to discount their knee-jerk reactions. A quick quote since I'm short on time...

These scientists would flunk out of my logic course, unless I were willing to grant their basic premise: "Man is the measure of all things." Then their logic is flawless

WE have no way of knowing what the thinking or psychological states or reasoning of an extraterrestrial intelligence would be, we cannot measure it using our own knowledge, experiences, thoughts or beliefs...

posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 03:20 PM

Originally posted by FoxStriker

and the evidence is strongly there...


In short, no, it's simply not.

The notion of the conspiracy is there, but certainly not the evidence.

To date there is no hard (i.e real) evidence of E.T encounters.

The so called evidence you speak of is nothing more than thousands of wild accusations and shoddy accounts that don't mesh into a cohesive hole.

There is certainly evidence of UFOs, but not of actual E.T.

Unfortunately, at the present time UFOlogy is nothing more than a dog chasing its tale. It's going to be that way until someone throws us a real bone, unless UFO's being E.T is just smoke and mirrors.

Only time will tell.

Based on the actual evidence I have seen, I do believe we'll know about life off earth within the next decade. But not the kind of life that would get most of you excited.

Bacterial/microbial life on Titan, Enceladus, Europa, Mars, and even possibly the clouds of Venus.

posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 03:59 PM
CONvincing others concerning the existence of UFOs is a waste of time because it simply DOES NOT WORK. At least it will not work with your intended audience here. Why? Because a) You are not a charlatan attempting to persuade the weak minded & gullible, and b) skepticism is a VERY misunderstood concept, and indeed for most, it's more of a religion than it is a rational practice.

If we claim to be a skeptic and blatantly deny the existence of UFOs, we are not only rationally flawed, we are utter delusional fools. If we simply admit that we do not understand the phenomenon and what it represents, we are honest and healthy skeptics.

Only an utter moron would out and outright deny the existence of "UFOs" If we did not all KNOW deep down inside, despite our misgivings, that "something" termed UFOs exist, we would NOT be here to begin with.

Too often skeptics mistake themselves for referees in a game of perceptive rationale. To be a skeptic one must simply remain aloof in reason. This being while neither cementing one's own observations in a mistaken perceptive overlaid transposition of suspect hypothesis, neither should we deny the possibility of facts as such just because the same are not presently tangible nor reproducible.

In short the skeptic well understands that the absence of evidence if not meaningful evidence of absence.

I suspect those "skeptics" who do practice a real and unwavering sense of irrational skepticism and displaced reason are in fact suffering more so from a basic insecurity complex.

The existence of UFOs is not absent, it's the understanding of what they truly are that is.

posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 04:32 PM
reply to post by Toxicsurf

Thanks toxic, I have not read that particular book, but an reader review says it reads alot like Keyhoe's Flying Saucers are Real.

I'm not saying that a UFO is 100% undeniably an alien piloted spaceship from another planet. I'm saying that the logic is sound.

You don't need to (visually) see an alien being moving levers or pushing buttons to link the UFO to ET spaceship.

An astronomer does not need an extremely long tape measure to determine the distance between us and a distant star. It is inferred through sound logic and framework.

A primitive way to determine the distance to the Sun in terms of the distance to the Moon was already proposed by Aristarchus of Samos in his book On the Sizes and Distances of the Sun and Moon. He noted that the Sun, Moon, and Earth form a right triangle (right angle at the Moon) at the moment of first or last quarter moon. He then estimated that the Moon, Earth, Sun angle was 87°. Using correct geometry but inaccurate observational data, Aristarchus concluded that the Sun was slightly less than 20 times farther away than the Moon. The true value of this angle is close to 89° 50', and the Sun is actually about 390 times farther away.

Although Aristarchus didn't have access to the scientific goodies of today, his geometrical framework was sound and was a small step towards what astronomers today call Parallax. Framework being the key word.

Our model for understanding and knowledge is nothing to sneeze at! We are talking about an extensive framework of the sum total of all human thought/knowledge over millions of years (from the chest beating caveman to the nuclear engineer of today). That is powerful stuff! When something is odd and out of place like the 1976 Tehran UFO, it is sound logic to infer "ET" when no manmade device or natural phenomenon can explain it.

[edit on 5-8-2010 by Scramjet76]

posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 07:21 AM
Seen the latest Winston Churchill cover-up news?

"Winston Churchill was accused of ordering a cover-up of a Second World War encounter between a UFO and a RAF bomber because he feared public "panic" and loss of faith in religion, newly released secret files disclose."

That comes from UK's newspaper, The Telegraph. Read the rest, here:
A multi-source online new organization also took the story. They quoted The Guardian, Sky News, ITN and The Telegraph. Watch it, here:

So now what do you think of UFO's? Churchill kept the files secret for 50 years due to his fear the discovery would cause mass panic.

top topics

<< 1    3 >>

log in