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.
Originally posted by Welfhard
reply to post by FlySolo
Why would people have to see in the dark? Of the cropcircles known to me man made, how many of those people had trouble making intricate designs in crop at night time? If only there was some kind of gadget that allowed someone to see in the night. Something like goggles that ... I dunno, enhanced light. Nocurnal light-up glasses? And you don't have to have a high IQ to be a graphic designer.
I mean for goodness sake, there's a company that makes cropcircles by night on commission. One was even for a british comedy quiz show.
How many times does it need to be demonstrated that it's perfectly within human ability to make cropcircles?!
But I do wonder why aliens would come interstellar distances to put graffiti in our crops. If they wanted to send a message, there are better information mediums than corn. Metal is a good one. Do you suppose aliens have no smith technology?edit on 18-4-2011 by Welfhard because: (no reason given)
Why are the OP's assumptions taken more seriously than other peoples?
A couple of post ago you were saying he was right. Then you downgraded this to saying he has a hypothesis. which has'nt been tested and cant be proven to be correct.
All your arguments so far are from the possition that science cant be wrong.
I don't think it's impossible that the standard scientific view is wrong, but I recognise that it's all we've got to go on and there's no evidence anything else, ie. alien visitation, is the case.
Originally posted by coolottie
reply to post by andre18
Here are 5 NASA Astronauts that say you are wrong. Now how do you think I am going to believe. Not you.
*New* Released Documentary for Disclosure.
Please, stop skirting my questions. A graphic designer is one thing, but an artist is another. We both would have to agree these images are very artistic. Not just anyone can pull these off.
Originally posted by Welfhard
reply to post by KrypticCriminal
Why are the OP's assumptions taken more seriously than other peoples?
Well firstly OP's assumptions are the SAME TWO everyone else here makes, the point is they're the only two he makes. OP's, or rather mainstream sciences' hypothesis, everyone else who are saying aliens are here are making many more baseless assumptions. That hypothesis is favoured because it relies on the least number of unknown variables.
A couple of post ago you were saying he was right. Then you downgraded this to saying he has a hypothesis. which has'nt been tested and cant be proven to be correct.
It's as right as you can get. People say lack of evidence is not evidence of absence, but I disagree. It is evidence of absence, just not conclusive proof. It's the best guess we have and the most conservative.
Originally posted by Welfhard
Well firstly OP's assumptions are the SAME TWO everyone else here makes, the point is they're the only two he makes. OP's, or rather mainstream sciences' hypothesis, everyone else who are saying aliens are here are making many more baseless assumptions. That hypothesis is favoured because it relies on the least number of unknown variables.
Originally posted by Welfhard
reply to post by KrypticCriminal
Ok. Fair enough. I don't think that OP is necessarily right, it's not something we can know.
But it's not an educated guess, it's the educated guess. The other guesses you refer to in this thread don't measure up because they make all sorts of baseless assumptions. For example:
There are ET civs in ear shot of the solar system,
ETs have transluminal travel
That communicating in crop circles makes more sense than communicating via books, megaliths or face to face conversation -OR- ETs come here to carve artistic graffiti into our crops,
that ets are here to bag and tag humans,
etc.
Occam's Razor plays favourites. We can't know incontrovertibly who's right, but we can say, based on how rational they are, whose positions are more likely.edit on 18-4-2011 by Welfhard because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by KrypticCriminal
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.
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.
Originally posted by Welfhard
reply to post by yic17
I appreciate your view but I disagree that "baseless" is a subjective term. Something is either baseless or it isn't. For example. Someone sees a light in the sky moving in mysterious ways over a city. A baseless assumption is that because it might not look natural means it must be alien. It's the same logic that lead people to think rain was magic or lightning bolts were sent from atop Mount Olympus by Zeus himself.
Thinking an abduction experiences means you must have been abducted by aliens and not hallucinating is a baseless assumption.
Thinking that its impossible that humans couldn't create all of the crop circles, is also such.
As far as I or any of the leading scientists at NASA, SETI etc. can figure, the only assumptions that aren't baseless for sure is that life most certainly exist elsewhere and that by sheer numbers of galaxies, stars and planets, intelligent life must also exist is.
Originally posted by andre18
Originally posted by KrypticCriminal
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.
The problem with the ancient astronaut theory is every one of those cave paintings are depictions of anthropomorphised human looking spirits. The cave painting are exactly the same nature as Egyptian god's that had human bodies and animal heads. They're just attributing themselves into their god's and since greys look like us, then of course you're going to make a connection that aren't there. I'm sort of confused why no one else realises that - sort of obvious.
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.
Now hold on there, what i base my opinion on is the same as the scientists that are actually doing the search's for aliens including NASA. Now in the real word there's really only the space programs like the european or japanese programs and SETI who know the most likely ways to find alien life. The difference is alien abductions and ufo's are pseudoscience so i don't really think it's fair to say both our reasons are based on the same level of reasoning and evidence and i think you know that but still enjoy the thrill of the thought that it might be true.edit on 18-4-2011 by andre18 because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by yic17
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.
Originally posted by andre18
Originally posted by yic17
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'll ask you this. Do you acknowledge that the people at SETI and NASA would now more then you and the average person about aliens? If your answer is yes, then don't you think it would be wise to inform and educate yourself around what these sort of enterprises do? Because that's exactly what i do. I base my opinions from what i learn from the very best in the field that would have the highest understanding of these sorts of things.
So i think it's only natural that my logical stand point would be more alertive to reason, since everyone here on ats else seems to think the efforts of NASA are against the very foundations it's actually supporting.
Originally posted by KrypticCriminal
If NASA are so straight up then why do they blur out parts of images they get from the moon and Mars? Why did they stop the live feed they had going when people started to see strange things appearing? If you used some of your sceptisism and directed it at these Organisations that you put so much faith in. You might get a shock. You should never assume that what your being told is the truth. Everybody knows that the best lies are based on ellments of truth.