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.

 

The reason why you're not taken seriously

page: 7
38
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 05:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Motive
 


Well said.

I have no interest in any of the alleged claims such as these, i skim this site for interesting news.

Too many weirdos and crackpots in here for my liking!




posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 06:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by phoenix103
Too many weirdos and crackpots in here for my liking!


I can easily imagine Aliens saying the same thing about the entire planet.

edit on 9-3-2011 by Hitoshura because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 06:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jezus

Originally posted by Motive
2. Alot of people seem to be of the view that, if you don't believe that ET's are already in contact with Earth, or that there isn't a massive government coverup going on, then YOU MUST BE A NARROWMINDED SHEEP.


This is true to a certain degree...


This isn't true to ANY degree. It would only be true if the said theory was true. Get it?



Originally posted by Jezus

Originally posted by tallcool1
And to anyone with the eye-rolling response that I'm skeptical due to "fear" - that is pretty much the same as name calling when someone doesn't believe the same as you. I would be absolutely thrilled to have undeniable proof of intelligent life visiting us. It's not "fear" of the unknown, it's just believing in a more logical explanation.


Fear is a simplification.

It is really just firm preconceived notions.

Many would argue that the undeniable proof already exists; and plenty of it.

However, it is easy to rationalize the evidence away if you want to.

This "want" might be on a subconscious level and it might not be motivated by fear but the point is that it distorts your objectivity.



I'm also bored of the "You're just fearful of the unknown" arguments. The whole "it distorts your objectivity on a subconscious level" is even worse, basically saying that our subconscious has made our mind up for us hence we can't have our own true opinion.

Many may argue that there is undeniable proof, those are the people I'm talking about in the OP. If there were truly undeniable proof of Aliens visiting Earth, it would be out there, accepted by society and the media, this undeniable proof you talk about is the single event of "disclosure" that dozens of people make threads about every week, which obviously hasn't happened yet.

For example, simply using the argument of "Look at all the abduction cases! Look at all the UFO's reported! There are thousands and thousands, so atleast some of them must be true" is weak. I challenge you to show me this undeniable proof that the many people you speak of rave about.

I find it so strange that people make jumps from UFO to Alien Spacecraft. Most UFO videos are completely bogus or easily explainable, even as commercial jets in some cases. There are the few videos and reports that are extraordinary, that you can't easily explain, the juicy ones - yet these get thrown straight in the Alien pile for some reason. There was another post a page or two back about the U2 bomber, no one knew it existed until it was finally shot down, I really don't think its unlikely at all that military's worldwide hold technology far in advance of whats available commercially, and with the diverse change in aircraft shapes and such, aswell as the speed of technological advancement we've seen in the past 50 years, it's not at all unreasonable to think that they could well be utilizing the kind of aircraft that would look totally "out there" in their shape and the way they move. And like that U2 poster said, its also not unreasonable to think that there still is a cold-war type cat and mouse game still going on between Governments which thrust this kind of recon technology race forward.

Just look at that incident a while ago where Israeli Agents assassinated that guy while using British passports, I can't claim to of done much research if any on it - but from what I read in the papers and saw on the news (mainstream yes I know) it seemed like everyone accepted that they were with Mossad, but it didn't seem to be that big of a deal and I'm sure it was resolved behind closed doors, I'm sure there are PLENTY of these kind of incidents that simply just dont get out into public knowledge. They go through the motions in resolving it, such as enraged MP's etc, but thats for the public - nothing much will ever come of it in the public view.



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 07:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by RemiLP

There is a HUGE step from unexplainable to alien air craft.


Yes, obviously, unexplainable does not equal extraterrestrial. It's evidence of the sad state of affairs around here that you'd feel you needed to point that out, but I honestly do understand why!

My point is, if you actually read those top cases I'm referring to (and it's obvious that some do not read them, and do not care to... because they already know it just "can't be" true?), what is seen by the pilots, radar operators, eyc., is often so amazing that the ET hypothesis becomes the most obvious explanation, at least to any reasonably open-minded person. We're not talking a few drunks in the trailer park seeing distant, unidentified lights in the sky; we're talking the best cases here... close up views of huge, manufactured, intelligently controlled objects following along on the wing of a plane, for example, and confirmed by several independent radars, and observed by trained, educated pilots and officers... people with lots on the line.

How can a person read the reliable info about, say, the RB-47 case, and simply dismiss it? The only way that I can see to do that is by first simply assuming that UFO's can't be real, and therefore concluding that someone *must* be lying. (And you'd also have to simultaneously ignore the astronomical odds against independent *passive* radars "lying" in the same way as the people, at the same moments).

The inconvenient truth seems to be that there are a small percentage of cases that can simply not be explained away as hallucinations, mis-perceptions, secret gov't aircraft, etc....

Can anyone on here explain the RB-47 case? (Truthfully, the only ones who ever even try anymore are the uninformed skeptics who haven't yet read about the case, but always seem to retreat pretty quickly when presented with the facts.) I would honestly love to hear anyone's explanation. There may well be one, but how can the ET hypothesis reasonably be avoided as among the most likely possibilities?



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 08:15 PM
link   
good points and argument for the "non-biased" open minded folks who want to believe but need physical proof.......anyways if everyone was open minded and turned to reading moreso than watching tv, we'd be living in a whole lot better of a place



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 08:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Motive

Originally posted by Jezus

Originally posted by Motive
2. Alot of people seem to be of the view that, if you don't believe that ET's are already in contact with Earth, or that there isn't a massive government coverup going on, then YOU MUST BE A NARROWMINDED SHEEP.


This is true to a certain degree...


This isn't true to ANY degree. It would only be true if the said theory was true. Get it?


A "narrow minded sheep" is just a sensational term.

The "government" is a vague generalization.


Originally posted by Motive
The whole "it distorts your objectivity on a subconscious level" is even worse, basically saying that our subconscious has made our mind up for us hence we can't have our own true opinion.


It is your true opinion.

The problem is that it is based on emotional reactions instead of objective reasoning.

You view everything from a preconceived conclusion.

How do I know this? You admitted it.


Originally posted by Motive
If there were truly undeniable proof of Aliens visiting Earth, it would be out there, accepted by society and the media,


This is extremely naive.



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 08:25 PM
link   
Thnkz for dis info. Nowz i noes why they don't take me seriously!

S&F for u.



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 09:14 PM
link   
reply to post by TeaAndStrumpets
 


I notice you start your reply by agreeing that unidentified does not equal extraterrestrial, but then point out an unsolved case about an unidentified object and lead us toward an extraterrestrial conclusion.

The RB-47 case is intriguing because of its mystery, but it's also infuriating for the same reason. While many, many people here see that case (and many other unsolved cases) as evidence of aliens, I can only see it as evidence of mystery. Nothing in that case is tied in any way to extraterrestrials, and nothing about it even hints toward aliens as a cause for the unknown craft. Aliens have to be inserted into the equation by someone who wants to believe that aliens are the cause, not because it's a particularly realistic answer to the questions the case asks.

Also, keep in mind that people do not simply dismiss these cases and pretend they never happened. Something obviously happened, and whether it was something to do with the pilots or device operators, something natural but mistaken, something terrestrial, or something extraterrestrial, we don't know. Chances are we never will, considering there's been over 50 years to look at the case, so what does that leave us? It leaves us with what we have, and nothing more. We can't use this case as any sort of evidence of extraterrestrials, because there's nothing within this case that involves them unless they're the ones inside the anomaly, and we'll never know that.

In other words, a lack of knowledge does not equal paranormal evidence. Just because we don't know what that anomaly was doesn't allow us to define it by fantasy.



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 01:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by EsSeeEye
reply to post by TeaAndStrumpets
 


I notice you start your reply by agreeing that unidentified does not equal extraterrestrial, but then point out an unsolved case about an unidentified object and lead us toward an extraterrestrial conclusion.

The RB-47 case is intriguing because of its mystery, but it's also infuriating for the same reason. While many, many people here see that case (and many other unsolved cases) as evidence of aliens, I can only see it as evidence of mystery.



In other words, a lack of knowledge does not equal paranormal evidence. Just because we don't know what that anomaly was doesn't allow us to define it by fantasy.



If it is a knee-jerk retreat to fantasy to even entertain the ET hypothesis in a case like the RB-47, as you imply, then how would those of you not fantasizing explain the "responsive" behavior of the object as the RB-47 changed heading and speed? (Again, all as confirmed by multiple eyewitnesses, a few onboard passive radar units, and ground radar.) Or do you simply dismiss it all by saying those people (and radars) must have all been independently mistaken, i.e., mistaken at the same times with the same distances + bearings?

I find that interesting. So, what natural or man-made phenomenon do you think could mimic such behavior?

(You seem to have accused me of fantasy for saying that the ET hypothesis is actually the best explanation in that case. For you to say that the ET hypothesis is fantasy, you must believe that either something natural could mimic that object's behavior, or that something man-made could mimic that object's behavior, OR you must dispute the object's reported behavior. Which of those three? I don't see where, logically, there is another alternative. Are you sure that the ET hypothesis is total "fantasy" here?)

Oh, and you're not being logical when you state "[I] point out an unsolved case about an unidentified object and lead us toward an extraterrestrial conclusion." You do realize that it's possible to not have all information about something, yet still draw reasonable inferences, right? (I hope so. We all do this about a thousand times per day.) For example, if something is flying around the sky, and it seems to act responsively and intelligently, and it flies in ways that man could not have engineered... well, since you are surprised by my conclusions, why don't you tell me what some of the other reasonable inferences are there? I would especially love to hear how, under those circumstances, entertaining the ET hypothesis is "fantasy."



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 08:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by fishspeaker
we "BELIEVERS" know teh truth and will not toleraet the lies of your ilk anymore


BELIEF and TRUTH are to different things he who speaks for fish
Once TRUTH is revealed, the BELIEF vanishes

Think about it

I've revealed plenty of truth on this forum in my time, and only in extremely rare cases has the (erroneous) belief "vanished."

Harte



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 08:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jezus

Originally posted by Motive

Originally posted by Jezus

Originally posted by Motive
2. Alot of people seem to be of the view that, if you don't believe that ET's are already in contact with Earth, or that there isn't a massive government coverup going on, then YOU MUST BE A NARROWMINDED SHEEP.


This is true to a certain degree...


This isn't true to ANY degree. It would only be true if the said theory was true. Get it?


A "narrow minded sheep" is just a sensational term.

The "government" is a vague generalization.


Originally posted by Motive
The whole "it distorts your objectivity on a subconscious level" is even worse, basically saying that our subconscious has made our mind up for us hence we can't have our own true opinion.


It is your true opinion.

The problem is that it is based on emotional reactions instead of objective reasoning.

You view everything from a preconceived conclusion.

How do I know this? You admitted it.


Originally posted by Motive
If there were truly undeniable proof of Aliens visiting Earth, it would be out there, accepted by society and the media,


This is extremely naive.


I dont think so, do you understand the term "undeniable". If it was undeniable, no mass of people would be able to deny it....

Also, skepticism is much less based on emotion than the majority of people that blindly accept anything, because they WANT it to be true, over the facts. Thats emotional attachment to an idea that effects a belief. I think you have the two groups mixed up. I didn't admit what you're implying, shh.

Like I said, it's not naive at all, see my first sentence.



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 08:55 AM
link   
reply to post by TeaAndStrumpets
 


Just to be clear, you would like me to solve a 50-year-old unsolved case, or else you're right and it's likely aliens?

Rather than doing that, why don't you do what should have been done already, and show me how the anomaly has anything whatsoever to do with aliens? Moving erratically, following a jet, performing amazing maneuvers, none of these things say anything about what that anomaly is, and who or what may be operating it.

Yes, we all make conclusions without complete available knowledge every day, but when we put our best guesses forward, it's usually using all available knowledge to form that best guess. We don't even know if aliens exist elsewhere in the entire universe yet, let alone if they're actually visiting this tiny speck we call home, so it's absolutely unreasonable to just assume they're the ones responsible for every strange anomaly in the sky.

As for me, I'm actually alright with saying "I don't know." I wasn't there, and we don't have all available information about that, or any other case where the general consensus is "It must be aliens!" Considering we don't actually know if and what intelligences are behind them, it's foolish to just assign aliens as a placeholder. Some strange stuff has happened in the skies, but that's the beginning and end of it thus far.



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 09:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vickfan
good points and argument for the "non-biased" open minded folks who want to believe but need physical proof.......anyways if everyone was open minded and turned to reading moreso than watching tv, we'd be living in a whole lot better of a place


Why is reading inherently better than watching TV? Both are a medium and allow choice of content.

It is what one choses to read or view that counts, not the medium. I find this trite cliche a little grating these days.



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Motive

Originally posted by Jezus

Originally posted by Motive
If there were truly undeniable proof of Aliens visiting Earth, it would be out there, accepted by society and the media,


This is extremely naive.


If it was undeniable, no mass of people would be able to deny it....



You've repeated yourself...and it is still extremely naive and ridiculous.

Reality is not a democratic election.

The idea that the general notions of society reflect empirical truth is completely absurd.


Evolution is a perfect example...

---

You have admitted that you are judging evidence by how the general population perceives the topic that evidence concerns rather than objectively dealing with the evidence.

You are starting with a conclusion and working backwards.
edit on 10-3-2011 by Jezus because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 05:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Motive
If there were truly undeniable proof of Aliens visiting Earth, it would be out there, accepted by society and the media

Are you basing that viewpoint on the unwavering honesty, good will, transparency, and respect shown by the governements and the media to people over the past few centuries...?



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 07:06 PM
link   
I have said it before and I will say it again, that one of the main problems is people not knowing what a skeptic and debunker is and getting into arguments over it.

In another post in another thread I tried to make the distinction I don't know how clear it was or if anyone disagrees with my distinctions but hopefully i made it more clear.

False researchers are the people who bring up cases that have no real bearing because they did not perform true research before posting. False researchers are also responsible for derailing a possible interesting case by providing reiterated facts from another case that just because on the surface it seems similar without actually research the case.

These are the reasons we are not taken seriously.



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 07:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jezus

You've repeated yourself...and it is still extremely naive and ridiculous.

Reality is not a democratic election.

The idea that the general notions of society reflect empirical truth is completely absurd.


Evolution is a perfect example...

---

You have admitted that you are judging evidence by how the general population perceives the topic that evidence concerns rather than objectively dealing with the evidence.

You are starting with a conclusion and working backwards.
edit on 10-3-2011 by Jezus because: (no reason given)


I have to repeat myself because you don't seem to understand the meaning of the word undeniable. So I'll help you out, my superiority-complexed chum, seeing as that is the only part of my post you want to focus on "lol you said something twice". Oh dear.
Definition of UNDENIABLE
1: plainly true : incontestable
2: unquestionably excellent or genuine

IF IT IS UNDENIABLE. IT CANNOT BE INTELLIGENTLY DENIED. You seem like a semi-intelligent person at first, but soon it becomes apparent that you have an overwhelming urge to try to prove this intelligence. For example =


Reality is not a democratic election. The idea that the general notions of society reflect empirical truth is completely absurd.


Reality is not a democratic election? I've no idea where you come up with this stuff. It also frustrates me that yet again you struggle to understand my post, you're right in that, the "general notions of society" don't reflect "empirical truth", I never said it did. I simply said, those people you refer to that claim there is ALREADY undeniable out there for anyone to see, simply do not understand the meaning of undeniable. *Sigh* this is getting tiring. If the proof was undeniable, then it wouldn't be so widely criticized, debunked and.... wait for it... DENIED. Nothing can ever really be truly undeniable in the way that you've taken it in your last post concerning evolution, which is a bit hypocritical because you're also taking the extreme opposite stance, that it can be undeniable proof to small groups of people.

And it's not objective as you say it is, the general populace are the only ones to prove it to, if only a bunch of people on ATS accept it as true, yet the majority of the "general populace" look at the same thing, and deny it - it's not objective at all, if anything its objective by saying that "Well, these UFO enthusiasts say its undeniable proof, although the general populace dont agree, but the UFO enthusiasts must be right" is objective, as they're already engrossed in the subject.

But, who else do you want to prove it to other than the "general populace"? Seriously, stop trying to bull# your way through the thread with complete twisting of posts, then backed up by almost philosophical comments that add upto nothing but making you look even more transparent.



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 07:53 PM
link   
reply to post by FOXMULDER147
 


Damn that made me smile. I guess he is really that naive.
The government would never lie to us. Never! I pity him but only a little bit.



posted on Mar, 11 2011 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Motive
If the proof was undeniable, then it wouldn't be so widely criticized, debunked and.... wait for it... DENIED. .


Again, the simple fact is that something that is scientifically and logically undeniable can still be denied by both individual people and large groups of people.

That very fact that you think that something undeniable must be accepted by the general population to actually be undeniable proves that you are starting with a conclusion and working backwards.

Three issues come into play here.

The availability of information.
The comprehension of information.
The rationalization of information.

Again evolution is a PERFECT example.

It is scientifically, empirically, and logically undeniable that animals change over time.

Believe it or not...many people deny it...

40 Percent Of Americans Still Believe In Creationism
www.huffingtonpost.com...



posted on Mar, 11 2011 @ 06:05 PM
link   
I have proof of alien existence! Race responsible for human existence, photo inside!

I took a friggin' picture of the lazy punch bucket standing outside of my flat in the frickin' snow smoking a fat one! The slammy couldn't even climb a frickin' mountainafter I zapped him with a mutha ---- energy egg, better known as the guardian angel.

I had just enough time to take out my camera and take the boobeck's mug.

I ain't takin' no crap.

I got his friggin' photo and he got narly even yelling nasties, including jump down and stand up!

I noticed he had the apple weave and probably wanted a hero sandwich for a ride in a gypsy cab.

His name is apple streudel and he wants to go back! That bum gnawin'.

I said, in reply, get back you fuddmucking nelly boy!

images3.wikia.nocookie.net...


signature:


edit on 11-3-2011 by bossnoo1 because: (no reason given)

edit on 11-3-2011 by bossnoo1 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
38
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join