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.

 

Aliens have not contacted us, therefore theres nothing to disclose

page: 18
30
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 01:51 PM
link   
reply to post by KrypticCriminal
 


Giving an alternative theory is'nt debunking. Im yet to hear a solid argument from a scientist as to what some UFO cases are.
It's not their job to be able to explain every ufo case ever. They don't owe you that. And to stress the point, they're called UNIDENTIFIED for a reason.


Then theres crop circles
There is no crop circle to date that couldn't be man made. All the original ones were, mostly by just two men.


Why? If theres a perfectly natural explanation then show us.
It's perfectly possible for there to be a natural explanation that isn't fully understood - ball lightning and earthquake lights come to mind.

You remind me of the farmer in the Socrates play who asks Socrates where the rain comes from, if not the gods. Socrates points out that rain comes with clouds, so presumably the rain occasions as clouds come. The farmer asks about the lightning of Zeus which strikes down the wicked. Socrates points out that the lightning strikes the good and bad alike and even the temple of Zeus itself.

Moral of the story is that just because you cannot comprehend of a natural explanation does not therefore mean there is none.



Yet scientists wont accept that theres anything starnge going on because again it challenges what they think they already know.
No, scientists aren't convinced yet that the unidentified objects must be - at least in part - of extraterrestrial origin. Again, they're unidentified. For all you know, they could be angels or demons as some religious people point out. OR they are an intelligent species but they actually come from under the seas and oceans as the USOs would indicate - it's more likely than them coming from other planets.



Being a professor does'nt automaticly make you an expert on everything.
Being a professor doesn't make you a scientist either. However, in virtually all cases, were undeniable, tangible evidence, like the recovery of an alien craft or them landing on the white house lawn, professors and scientists alike would change their minds. Unlike you lot, though. No number of natural explanations could convince you that there are no aliens visiting us. No amount of debunking or declassifications would convince you. That's pretty much the definition of close-minded.
edit on 18-4-2011 by Welfhard because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by KrypticCriminal
You assume that if aliens want to visit us then they must be intelligent. Your right. But what does it have to do with whether they've contacted us or not, or intelligently chose not to, or have in ways that scientists refuse to acknowlege because it goes against everything they think they know.


Hang on, my thread is in response the growing idea that aliens crashed here in 47. My thread's explaining in logical terms why that isn't.

1, Aliens wouldn't know we're here unless they either searched for us or received our broadcasts. They've had 3.3 billion years to come here to intently discover life on earth, but just happened to come now when we invent photo's so we can fake them. If they received our broadcasts maybe they're here now but out of the 2000 stars that have been exposed to our signals, that's too small a number to just happen to have intelligent aliens on them.

2, Let's say one planet of the 2000 planets had intelligent aliens and they were here because of the broadcasts, any aliens that have the technology to come here as fast as the speed of light are obviously a thousand or more years ahead of us and aren't going to look like the greys as i've already explained so then what's the cause of the stories surrounding the greys? That would be the Roswell conspiracy that's actually a balloon.

3, That means the only aliens you can count on actually existing right now in our skies, are ones that have nothing to do with any conspiracies. That means nothing to with Roswell, nothing to do with the fanciful stories of the greys or reptilians or pleiadians, nothing to do with our government - which means they know nothing and aren't hiding anything. So all you've got are aliens that ironically are being covered up by not by the government, but by the conspiracies that you think are somehow enlightening you on the truth....wow..
edit on 18-4-2011 by andre18 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 01:59 PM
link   
reply to post by ALOSTSOUL
 


No you don't. Take a page from Bertrand Russell on burden of proof.


Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time
[Wiki]

edit on 18-4-2011 by Welfhard because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 02:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Welfhard
 





It's not their job to be able to explain every ufo case ever. They don't owe you that. And to stress the point, they're called UNIDENTIFIED for a reason.


I never said it was their job to explain every UFO case ever. I said theres some that even they cant explain. Theres a difference. At what point have i declared that they are identified. So whats your point?




There is no crop circle to date that couldn't be man made. All the original ones were, mostly by just two men


Thats your oppinion and i dont share it. I could engage in a debate with you about crop circles but thats not what this thread is about. I will however post this vid which may change your mind if you can be bothered to watch it.
As for the two hoaxers, crop circles have been around for a lot longer than they have.







It's perfectly possible for there to be a natural explanation that isn't fully understood - ball lightning and earthquake lights come to mind.


So why dont scientists do what they do best? Look in to the phenomenon and work out whats going on. Those scientists that have found some strange things that cant be explained by hoax theory. They may not be alien in nature but at the same time they could be. No scientist or debunker has ever convinced me there definatley not.




Being a professor doesn't make you a scientist either. However, in virtually all cases, were undeniable, tangible evidence, like the recovery of an alien craft or them landing on the white house lawn, professors and scientists alike would change their minds. Unlike you lot, though. No number of natural explanations could convince you that there are no aliens visiting us. No amount of debunking or declassifications would convince you. That's pretty much the definition of close-minded.


How can they change their minds on something if they wont even look in to it. To say o.k i'll just sit back and wait for a UFO to land and then i'll accept its true is'nt very scientific. They did'nt sit around and wait to see whether an attom could be split. I actualy accept a lot of the explanations that are put forward. You've got me pegged as some kind of one track mind believer. I dont know where you got that impression from to be honest. Unless thats how you simply see everyone who's interested in this. Which is a bit narrow minded. However like ive said about fifteen times on this thread alone. Theres certain cases were the explanations put forward just are'nt good enough.



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 02:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Welfhard
 


I don't understand the quote. Surely in all discussions of this nature wether it be aliens or religion, you need proof for and against.

ALS



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 02:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by GeeGee
Firstly, I didn't say that at all. I don't believe an alien craft crashed at Roswell. There's no hard evidence that aliens crashed there. I don't even know where you got that from.


Sorry you're right, I just presumed because you're for the belief that aliens have contacted the government, that you'd believe those aliens are the greys.....


I was talking about your argument that the alleged greys look a certain way contrary to our forecasts of future technology that enables individuals to transcend biology. I'm simply pointing out that it is incorrect in assuming that an alien race is biological simply because they appear to be. It may just be that they look biological, but are actually mechanical or heavily augmented. We wouldn't know unless we had one on an examination table.


Your point is meaningless. So what if they are, because my point is those aliens you are now suggesting may appear to be flesh and bone but aren't, are still not going to be the greys that everyone seems to believe they are - because they greys conspiracy originated from Roswell so if you don't support Roswell then you there's no reason to defend the grey alien belief.



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 02:51 PM
link   
reply to post by andre18
 



but the point is that, that argument doesn't matter because they don't know about us. So if they've come now, that's enormously coincidental. My question to those are convinced that we're being visited, why isn't this evidence good enough to be put into the local science museum? The answers are always that there is good evidence but it's being covered up, well that's an argument from ignorance. That's saying i've got a cure for cancer but they've taken it away from me and locked it up so i can't tell you…..that shouldn't convince you.


Your only evidence is that the aliens would have needed to pick up on our broadcasts to find us? There's a major hole in this logic. Fifty years from now WE may not even be able to pick them up, as we may have moved to different types of communications and simply wouldn't be looking for it, if we were in their shoes. Without a converter, a TV from 20 years ago is pretty much a planter now, it can't detect current TV broadcasts (as in digital).

Signal detection is a crapshoot, and we all know it. It's like trying to find a particular grain of sand, on a particular beach, on a particular day of the week, and we don't even know the beach or the day.

The other caveat is that they could have found us long before we stupidly started broadcasting our location into space.

The Hill Case is an interesting example of why they may have found us. In this case, the aliens related they were investigating other yellow stars like their own.

In addition, there are many who think we sent out a galactic wakeup call when we split the atom. Perhaps this is something the aliens look for.

As for a coverup, we already KNOW there is a coverup. This is an almost indisputable FACT. The Roswell case is the best example here showing a coverup. There have been numerous official investigations now. The last one however, really erred as they claimed dummies from a project five years after the incident were to blame for descriptions of bodies.

There are numerous other examples, such as the official stance that the US Government was no longer studying the phenomenon, and then released papers showing this was NOT the case. So, it is a FACT that the US Government has covered up its investigation of the subject matter.

While it can't be proven they have made contact, or even that they exist, we also cannot categorically dismiss the idea.

Statistically, it's doubtful we're the only intelligent life out there.
Likewise, we're probably not the OLDEST civilization out there.
Using our only benchmark (us), we've seen technology advances exponentially, so there isn't much reason to doubt that an older race is more advanced, and may have solved distance issues we feel are impossible.

200 years ago, the idea of crossing the planet in hours was unfathomable, and yet we have craft that can do it now, and don't even think twice about it.

Yesterdays impossibilities have a funny way of becoming today's trivial ideas.



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 02:58 PM
link   
reply to post by KrypticCriminal
 


At what point have i declared that they are identified. So whats your point?
My point is that its no one's responsibility to explain any ufo case to the satisfaction of the believer making the fact that some aren't explained or even inexplicable is entirely besides the point.


I will however post this vid which may change your mind if you can be bothered to watch it.
There's no level of complexity in a crop circle that makes its impossible or even unlikely that it was man made. Even a fractal crop circle is well in our ability.


As for the two hoaxers, crop circles have been around for a lot longer than they have.
So has Hoaxing.


So why dont scientists do what they do best? Look in to the phenomenon and work out whats going on.
They have been but its very early days yet. Up until recently scientists didn't believe either ball lightning or earthquake lights definitely existed until they were photographed.


No scientist or debunker has ever convinced me there definatley not.
Not their responsibility to. It's yours to convince us, that's the burden of proof.


How can they change their minds on something if they wont even look in to it.
Look into what?! UFO sightings? Stories of alien abductions? Crop circles? None of these things have been shown to necessarily have anything but natural explanations. The few scientists who actually see any point in trying to find the tell tail signs - since not all scientists are astrobiologists and cosmologists - have committed their time to finding evidence of extraterrestrials; SETI and the scientists behind the Mars rovers spring immediately to mind.

These other phenomena aren't compelling to someone to approaches the world with the scientific method rather than faith.


Theres certain cases were the explanations put forward just are'nt good enough.
And as I've said explicitly in this thread multiple times (as well as in my signature), having a lack of an explanation for something doesn't mean anything. You cannot draw any conclusions from a lack of an explanation. For any case which is unexplained - practically the definition of UFO - the true explanation could be ANYTHING, so to jump to any conclusion is just taking stabs in the dark.


"It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories instead of theories to suit facts." - Sherlock Holmes: A Scandal in Bohemia

edit on 18-4-2011 by Welfhard because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 03:12 PM
link   
reply to post by ALOSTSOUL
 


Because there are a lot of beliefs out there, be they gods, aliens, past lives, etc., that aren't disprovable.

Staying with the aliens example, if they aren't visiting earth, the UFO phenomena is entirely down to the natural explanations so there's be no way to prove that none of the UFOs are alien cos that evidence cannot exist. It means the hypothesis of Alien visitation is unfalsifiable. To science that makes it a bad hypothesis because if you believed it and were wrong, there's be no way to find out if you were. Part of the scientific method involves trying to disprove forwarded hypotheses.

For unfalsifiable ideas therefore are assumed false to begin with (null hypothesis) until those who purport it prove it conclusively.
edit on 18-4-2011 by Welfhard because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 03:15 PM
link   
reply to post by andre18
 





1, Aliens wouldn't know we're here unless they either searched for us or received our broadcasts. They've had 3.3 billion years to come here to intently discover life on earth, but just happened to come now when we invent photo's so we can fake them. If they received our broadcasts maybe they're here now but out of the 2000 stars that have been exposed to our signals, that's too small a number to just happen to have intelligent aliens on them.


Aliens could have found Earth without knowing there was life on it. Therefore they niether needed to search for us or recieve a signal from us. What makes you think they may have just came? They could have been here a lot longer yet we did'nt have the technology to document it, and in more supersticious times, they could have easily been classed as demons or angels or gods. Now lets assume they did only come here because they picked up our signal. Without completley mapping every one of those 2000 stars and all the planets that surround them. Then sending probes to check them all out. You cant say with certainty that non of them support life. Although its irrelavent because them finding us does'nt have to relly on a signal of any kind. Putting many more stars out there as possibiltys. If you'd just get over that idea and consider other possibilitys then you would see.

As for what they would look like. Ive already gave you my points of view on this. You claim that aliens could'nt be the greys that people claim to have seen. yet you've got nothing but a theory to prove it. So its a pointless argument. They say yay, you say nay and so the circle goes.



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 03:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Welfhard
 





My point is that its no one's responsibility to explain any ufo case to the satisfaction of the believer making the fact that some aren't explained or even inexplicable is entirely besides the point


And my point was, i never said it was. So why are you bringing it up.




There's no level of complexity in a crop circle that makes its impossible or even unlikely that it was man made. Even a fractal crop circle is well in our ability.


Theres a lot more to them than just there complexity. If you had of watched the vid you would know that.




So has Hoaxing.


Very true.




Not their responsibility to. It's yours to convince us, that's the burden of proof.


Again i never said it was. I was reffering to those that did and failed.




These other phenomena aren't compelling to someone to approaches the world with the scientific method rather than faith.


Well maybe they should be, if people are going to jump to science to disprove those that do find it compelling.




And as I've said explicitly in this thread multiple times (as well as in my signature), having a lack of an explanation for something doesn't mean anything. You cannot draw any conclusions from a lack of an explanation. For any case which is unexplained - practically the definition of UFO - the true explanation could be ANYTHING, so to jump to any conclusion is just taking stabs in the dark.



I completely agree. Try telling this to the OP.



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 03:43 PM
link   
reply to post by KrypticCriminal
 


So why are you bringing it up.

That therefore your point is irrelevant.


If you had of watched the vid you would know that.

So explain to me exactly what it is about crop circles that means that some of them can't be man made?


Well maybe they should be, if people are going to jump to science to disprove those that do find it compelling.

You can't prove a negative, that's the whole problem with believing in stuff before its well demonstrated. People are wrong to find it compelling.


Try telling this to the OP.

Why? He didn't say anything wrong as far as I can tell.



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 04:00 PM
link   


That therefore your point is irrelevant
reply to post by Welfhard
 


What point?




So explain to me exactly what it is about crop circles that means that some of them can't be man made


No! im not doing the leg work for you. If you want to know what i mean watch the vid. I cant be bothered to lay it all out.

This thread has nothing to do with crop circles so it would be off topic. If you want to disguss it at length then start a thread.




Why? He didn't say anything wrong as far as I can tell.


Are you joking or have you just been selectively reading posts. Go back and read them. I'll let you decide.



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 04:15 PM
link   
reply to post by KrypticCriminal
 

You said:

Giving an alternative theory is'nt debunking. Im yet to hear a solid argument from a scientist as to what some UFO cases are.

and so I said it that didn't matter.


If you want to know what i mean watch the vid.

I can't watch youtube videos.


Go back and read them. I'll let you decide.

He said there's nothing to be disclosed because there's no Aliens here because there's no reason there could be, or at least the chances that they are by pure coincidence is negligible.

How is he wrong?



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by andre18

Haven't you ever researched ancient alien theories? They were coming here long before the 1950s, your argument is weak.


Not at all, there's no logical motive aliens would visit us unless we contacted them first.


I just have to respond to this ... how can you use your personal logic to think that you know that the aliens do not have their own logical motive? you know your logic does not mean their logic. just because you, one person, cannot come up with a logical motive does not mean "I" cannot come up with one (or hundreds of) logical motive or that the aliens cannot come up with a logical motive. your logic is only your own - it is ONE perspective out of the infinite perspectives of other people and beings. once you learn to change your perspective, perhaps then you will find many logical motives for them to visit us or have visited us.

I just want to point out that your logic of thinking that someone else doesn't have a different logic than your own is a very ignorant one. I know the word ignorant may be attached with negative meanings but I am not trying to attack you.

Now, let me just come up with a few possible logical motives as to why aliens have already visited or are visiting us right now.

1. Our technology is advancing to the point where we may be able to enter their planets very soon (starting when we visited the moon). This brings warning signs to them that they want to start checking us out to see if we are people of peace or destruction.

2. There are theories saying that humans are actually the product of these aliens. To follow this line of theories, it means aliens have been here before we were even created because THEY created us. So they have been monitoring us ever since the beginning of mankind. Why are they coming more often now than ever? Again, I would say it's because of our technological advancement.

3. We have resource they need - hence the alien abductions. Perhaps there is something within our DNA that can benefit them (or some of them because I believe there are more than 1 type of aliens out there). So Earth is like a farm to them - they visit us to pick up a few bodies here and there for experiment or for whatever reason.

And yes, THEORIES count here because we do not have proofs (you or me). We do not have information to know for sure that they have or have not visited us so we use information that exist - UFO eye witnesses, abductees, ancient alien artifacts, and so on.

So there .. 3 possible logical motives for them to visit us and I am sure there could be hundreds more if we just either have more information or take the time to think about it.



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 04:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Welfhard
 





I can't watch youtube videos.


Thats unfortunate, and very convienient.




He said there's nothing to be disclosed because there's no Aliens here because there's no reason there could be, or at least the chances that they are by pure coincidence is negligible.


How is he right?



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 04:36 PM
link   
reply to post by KrypticCriminal
 


Some of us have to make do with dialup.

He's right in that there's nothing to disclose because no aliens have come here because there's no reason they would have.



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Welfhard
reply to post by KrypticCriminal
 


Some of us have to make do with dialup.

He's right in that there's nothing to disclose because no aliens have come here because there's no reason they would have.


Hi, please read my post above. Just because he and you cannot think of a logical reason does not mean other people or the aliens cannot think of a logical reason.



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 04:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Welfhard
reply to post by KrypticCriminal
 


Some of us have to make do with dialup.

He's right in that there's nothing to disclose because no aliens have come here because there's no reason they would have.


He's not right. He has a theory which he can not back up with the same scientific reasoning he's relying on to make his argument because his argument itself is based on too many assumptions and speculation.

Ive already went through point by point on posts to him personaly using the same scientific logic, that he's based his theory on. Yet you accept everything he says to be true and what i say to be rubbish. Despite them being one and the same really.

Remeber. To assume that science can explain everything is foolish. Any respectable scientist would agree.



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 04:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Welfhard
 




There is no crop circle to date that couldn't be man made. All the original ones were, mostly by just two men.


Two Supermen, perhaps. No way 100 men could do that all over the world. That being said, explain this:



new topics

top topics



 
30
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join