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.

 

Does Military/Government insider testimony on the reality of UFOs constitute as proof to you ?

page: 7
12
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 10:13 AM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 



Yes, I agree, there probably are cases where witnesses have been mistaken, and yes, also ones where the 'witnesses' were lying. I just dont believe this is ALWAYS the case EVERYTIME. I dont think think that most pilots who come forward are either lying (they have a lot more to lose than to gain) or are mistaken (they fly for a living, and have seen stars/balloons/whatever and know the difference).

For instance, (as has been reported) if you have a Lufhansa pilot radio ground control to report seeing a 'fiery object' shaped like a rocket with a blue light on the front and flames emenating from the rear, passing him head on, same altitude at high speed, and then a second, British Airways pilot confirms the sighting from a different angle, are they 'mistaken' or 'lying'?

I think to assume that one of these options is always the case is both high handed and patronizing.

I also think that mistaking Venus for a spaceship is a 'massive' mistake!

edit on 16-8-2011 by Thunda because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thunda
I think to assume that one of these options is always the case is both high handed and patronizing.
That's why I included the possibility of the witness telling the true and not being mistaken, as I said the possibilities are really three, not two. *


I also think that mistaking Venus for a spaceship is a 'massive' mistake!
If we look at how many videos and photos have appeared on ATS, I think many people make that mistake.



* to be clear, the possibilities are: true, false, and, if false, they could be mistaken or lying, so the possibilities are really three.
edit on 16/8/2011 by ArMaP because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thunda
My, my- such vehemence amongst the skeptics in this thread!


Of course, you're right. You can't yell at people to make them learn the basics of logic, reasoning and how evidence becomes proof. No matter how long or loud you yell, they'll be just as ignorant. No reason to get all worked up about it.



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thunda
reply to post by dpd11
 


I think you are misunderstanding my point. I am simply voicing my opinion that we need to be able to trust our eyes in many situations, and I dont believe all eyewitness testimony can be so easily dismissed- especially when you have multiple witnesses, or witnesses who rely on their visual abilities to safely carry out their jobs (like pilots and surgeons) or when their testimony matches up with radar data (see Minot AFB incident for an example.)

We rely on our eyesight everyday to give us accurate data quickly in life or death situations (see driving a car or carrying out an operation), and yet according to the skeptics, they are some sort of feeble device that easily make massive mistakes, even when owned by trained observers. Im just saying I dont agree with that. I also dont agree that the other option is that the witness is always lying.


But if you look at the percentages... it doesn't have to be massive. Lets say an aircraft with a bare aluminum finish flew over a large city of millions at just the right time of dusk, that it created a large glowing effect, while being lit from the sun at a higher altitude. I have seen this myself... It does indeed look odd. But I know what it is and what causes it. Millions of people in that city might look up and think the same thing... It may look odd, but they know what causes it. Out of those millions, you might have ten people that looked up, saw that, and didn't know what caused it... Now you've got a UFO report. Overall, that is a tiny percentage of people. But add that report to other reports like that, and in many people's minds... all those reports put together equal "proof" of some collective thing happening. When in reality, it is not proof of anything... It's a minority of people not understanding something. You can't go by what the minority of people think... You have to go by the majority.



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 04:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by Pimander
Does that mean we should have a high level of confidence in the multiple witnesses of alien bodies at Roswell?
Higher than if it was just one witness (and if all say the same thing).

It would still be nice to have even one single tiny shred of physical evidence for everybody to look at. Not that it wouldn't stop the controversy. Look at the Shroud of Turin. But it would be nice to have something definitive that pretty much everyone could agree on.

We don't have that.



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 04:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by lme7898354
The problem in general is that anyone who even mentions anything about ufo's is automatically labeled a weirdo or kook.


I don't think that was ever the case, really. Or why would I continue to hear so much about UFOs, particularly on slow news days? The "problem," if you choose to call it that, is that UFOs are a particularly personal subject to those interested in it, having a lot to do with what a person believes, and since there's no agreed upon way to discuss it, people laugh and get embarrassed by it.

It's kind of like talking about your dreams. People generally don't talk about their dreams, or go into a lot of detail about them, unless they're talking to a psychiatrist. Strangers at a party don't want to hear dream details. And after a while, the discussion dissolves into tangents, because nobody can take it any further. I've heard a lot of UFO stories, but nobody's pulled an alien widget out of their bag to show it to me.

That's why the news treats it so lightly, too. There's no follow-up to it. Somebody saw something weird flying around. And...?

Maybe someday something huge will happen to help define what's going on with UFOs. But I wouldn't bet on it.



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by dpd11
But if you look at the percentages... it doesn't have to be massive. Lets say an aircraft with a bare aluminum finish flew over a large city of millions at just the right time of dusk, that it created a large glowing effect, while being lit from the sun at a higher altitude. I have seen this myself... It does indeed look odd. But I know what it is and what causes it. Millions of people in that city might look up and think the same thing... It may look odd, but they know what causes it. Out of those millions, you might have ten people that looked up, saw that, and didn't know what caused it... Now you've got a UFO report.

To be fair, that is very different to the crew of an aircraft reporting a near miss with a disk shaped object. It's also very different to the crew of a commercial airliner being harassed by a large glowing object or to personnel at a sensitive nuclear installation seeing what appear to be intelligently controlled objects at the same time as nukes being disarmed.

Your example could is valid for many reports. There are countless reports that are far more interesting than that though. Lets be real here!

 



Originally posted by Blue Shift

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by Pimander
Does that mean we should have a high level of confidence in the multiple witnesses of alien bodies at Roswell?
Higher than if it was just one witness (and if all say the same thing).

It would still be nice to have even one single tiny shred of physical evidence for everybody to look at. Not that it wouldn't stop the controversy. Look at the Shroud of Turin. But it would be nice to have something definitive that pretty much everyone could agree on.

We don't have that.

Of course it would be nice. However, if it appeared on ATS, it would be immediately considered to be a likely hoax.

The situation is this. If there is no cover up then the evidence will not appear because there is nothing to cover up. If there is an effective cover up then the evidence will not appear. If very good evidence appears it will be quickly discredited using well known disinformation techniques. There may be exceptions, but this is the general rule as far as I am concerned. Stuff like the Karl Wolfe clanger in the disclosure project is in my opinion not entirely an accident.

There is a small chance the evidence (if it exists) will be outed. The reason for that is that there are people (including a small number of members on here) who are (perhaps) smart enough to make it almost impossible to discredit when it is found. That would involve more than plonking a photograph or YouTube video on ATS - make no mistake about that.
edit on 16/8/11 by Pimander because: typo



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 05:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pimander

Originally posted by dpd11
But if you look at the percentages... it doesn't have to be massive. Lets say an aircraft with a bare aluminum finish flew over a large city of millions at just the right time of dusk, that it created a large glowing effect, while being lit from the sun at a higher altitude. I have seen this myself... It does indeed look odd. But I know what it is and what causes it. Millions of people in that city might look up and think the same thing... It may look odd, but they know what causes it. Out of those millions, you might have ten people that looked up, saw that, and didn't know what caused it... Now you've got a UFO report.

To be fair, that is very different to the crew of an aircraft reporting a near miss with a disk shaped object. It's also very different to the crew of a commercial airliner being harassed by a large glowing object or to personnel at a sensitive nuclear installation seeing what appear to be intelligently controlled objects at the same time as nukes being disarmed.

Your example could is valid for many reports. There are countless reports that are far more interesting than that though. Lets be real here


Not really... Because thousands of flights go off without an incident every single day. Are we saying that it is completely impossible that pilots of an aircraft could have some sort of one in a million, rare occurrence, which could make them believe something happened that didn't really happen? Or that they did in fact decide to make up a story for some unknown reason? Surely, out of millions of flights, there is at least a chance that COULD be the explanation. But sure, it's still a mystery... That's what makes SOME cases interesting. And that's why it is fun to look into what happened. I do believe that there are some few cases that had something truly unique happen. But the overall collection of reports/incidents together... do not prove any one single thing or another in transpiring world wide. That is an assumption that people are making on their own, and it's a highly flawed assumption.



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 05:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by dpd11
But the overall collection of reports/incidents together... do not prove any one single thing or another in transpiring world wide. That is an assumption that people are making on their own, and it's a highly flawed assumption.

You sound very sure of that. Be aware of the fact that there may be something you do not know and in fact they do.

There aren't many good investigators around who make that assumption. However, far more ridiculous is the assumption that, "Venus was in the sky that night so the pilot must have mistaken it for a UFO."

It never ceases to amaze me how discussions on ATS so often focus on the idea that anyone who provides evidence that contradicts a die hard skeptic was most likely mistaken. On the other hand when the unbelievable claims such as that above (Venus) are made to explain away so much evidence by the same die hard skeptics....



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 05:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pimander
It never ceases to amaze me how discussions on ATS so often focus on the idea that anyone who provides evidence that contradicts a die hard skeptic was most likely mistaken.
That's the problem with such a polarized topic with not enough real data, people only have each other's opinions to follow, and, as usual, some people prefer to choose the opinion that they think will be the most popular, despite of being the one that better explains the case.



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 06:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pimander

Originally posted by dpd11
But the overall collection of reports/incidents together... do not prove any one single thing or another in transpiring world wide. That is an assumption that people are making on their own, and it's a highly flawed assumption.

You sound very sure of that. Be aware of the fact that there may be something you do not know and in fact they do.

There aren't many good investigators around who make that assumption. However, far more ridiculous is the assumption that, "Venus was in the sky that night so the pilot must have mistaken it for a UFO."

It never ceases to amaze me how discussions on ATS so often focus on the idea that anyone who provides evidence that contradicts a die hard skeptic was most likely mistaken. On the other hand when the unbelievable claims such as that above (Venus) are made to explain away so much evidence by the same die hard skeptics....


Who's "they"? I don't understand why people look at the world and all it's people as being some sort of singular entity. Why are broad assumptions made, based on singular events? It's like if you had a 7-11 robbed by a guy who was Irish... Then that must mean that every other 7-11 that got robbed that day must have been robbed by an Irish person? That makes no sense. If a person sees a unique light in the sky in Idaho in March... and a person in Colorado sees something weird flying behind a mountain in May... and a pilot flying over Texas has what he thought was a weird light flying next to him in December... And this is just a few situations out of millions and millions of people that don't see anything at all... How does that prove that the same thing is responsible for all of those situations, and also prove that one particular thing is happening? That's not logical. The incredibly small minority of people that think they saw those things mean everything, but all the millions of people that didn't see anything at don't count?

You're doing exactly what you're accusing others of doing. I just said that there's cases where I think something unique genuinely did happen. But now after only a few posts, I'm officially a "die hard skeptic"? lol OK... I guess it's also easy to dismiss something someone says by throwing a generic label on them. So now anything I say will probably be deemed worthless, because I'm just a "die hard skeptic"? That's convenient.



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 07:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by dpd11
Who's "they"?

Sorry. Bad post.

I was talking about insider testimony but wasn't very clear (see thread title). Some insiders may know something you don't and therefore know what the evidence potentially proves. The difficult bit is working out which ones aren't liars or mistaken.

No need to be touchy. I was certainly not suggesting you are a die hard skeptic. You might be but that wasn't what I meant. I was generalising about the direction things often go on ATS. Apologies for the confusing post.


Originally posted by dpd11
How does that prove that the same thing is responsible for all of those situations, and also prove that one particular thing is happening? That's not logical.
Agreed. However, I don't think anyone has suggested that on this thread luckily. I'm definitely not the source of your confusion on this one.



edit on 16/8/11 by Pimander because: typo



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 07:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
That's the problem with such a polarized topic with not enough real data, people only have each other's opinions to follow, and, as usual, some people prefer to choose the opinion that they think will be the most popular, despite of being the one that better explains the case.
I can't honestly disagree with you mate. It gets so polar sometimes that we start thinking we're accusing each other of God knows what. I'd probably cry if it wasn't so funny.



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 07:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pimander

Originally posted by dpd11
Who's "they"?

No need to be touchy. I was certainly not suggesting you are a die hard skeptic. You might be but that wasn't what I meant. I was generalising about the direction things often go on ATS. Apologies for the confusing post.


Not being touchy... Don't worry, I'm not bothered by any of this stuff. I've been down this road before... Pseudo Skeptic, Super Skeptic, Denier, Sheople, Ignorant, Blind, Gov Disinformation Agent, Cattle Led to Slaughter, Naive, Simple Minded... These are but just a few of the names I'm more than use to.



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 08:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by dpd11
Pseudo Skeptic, Super Skeptic, Denier, Sheople, Ignorant, Blind, Gov Disinformation Agent, Cattle Led to Slaughter, Naive, Simple Minded... These are but just a few of the names I'm more than use to.

Well if you've been called all of those things after less than 30 posts....



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 09:28 PM
link   


It isn't worth anything without the accompanying photo, memo, piece of metal, or whatever.
reply to post by Blue Shift
 


Nope still isn't worth anything because it's Photoshoped, fake doc, Earth metal and so on. The fact is some people will not believe it unless one and/or 2 things happen.

#1 they see something in great detail.
#2 the MSM tells them it's true.



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 10:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Pimander
 


I have absolutely no doubt that UFOs DO EXIST!!! This argument is backwards! People that call UFOs "alien spaceships" (or whatever) are the ones that don't believe in UFOs! UFO stands for Unidentified Flying Object. Once an object's identity is confirmed, it is no longer an UNIDENTIFIED flying object!

So called "UFO believers" believe they have identified certain flying objects as alien spacecraft without the ability to study the vehicle, and confirm their conclusions. Therefore they are only making assumptions based on speculation. This is certainly not what I consider proof.

I don't doubt that there are likely far flung civilizations in our Universe, but the bottom line is: The existence of Extra Terrestrial life has NEVER been conclusively confirmed, and much less, any craft they may travel in!

The assumption that any one of the above mentioned civilizations is advanced enough to travel to Earth is still nothing but PURE SPECULATION.

What is it about "the unknown" that mandates us to attribute it to Gods or "Aliens"?

Why is it so damn hard to be honest enough with yourself to say, "At this time, I just don't know what the hell it is... YET!"?

See ya,
Milt
edit on 16-8-2011 by BenReclused because: Spelling



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 10:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by BenReclused
reply to post by Pimander
 


I have absolutely no doubt that UFOs DO EXIST!!! This argument is backwards! People that call UFOs "alien spaceships" (or whatever) are the ones that don't believe in UFOs! UFO stands for Unidentified Flying Object. Once an object's identity is confirmed, it is no longer an UNIDENTIFIED flying object!

So called "UFO believers" believe they have identified certain flying objects as alien spacecraft without the ability to study the vehicle, and confirm their conclusions. Therefore they are only making assumptions based on speculation. This is certainly not what I consider proof.

I don't doubt that there are likely far flung civilizations in our Universe, but the bottom line is: The existence of Extra Terrestrial life has NEVER been conclusively confirmed, and much less, any craft they may travel in!

The assumption that any one of the above mentioned civilizations is advanced enough to travel to Earth is still nothing but PURE SPECULATION.

What is it about "the unknown" that mandates us to attribute it to Gods or "Aliens"?

Why is it so damn hard to be honest enough with yourself to say, "At this time, I just don't know what the hell it is... YET!"?

See ya,
Milt
edit on 16-8-2011 by BenReclused because: Spelling


I think you may be playing word games, of course UFO stands for what it does but its also a popular name and term for an Alien Space Craft.

Of course if you wanted to use semantics, an Alien Space Craft (or Extra Terrestrial) (or Space Ship from another planet or race) be definition has been identified and then shouldnt be a UFO but I think we really know what the OP meant by this thread.



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 10:48 PM
link   
reply to post by MisterBurns
 



I think you may be playing word games

Nope... you're wrong! I was just stating my views. Once again, a conclusion based on assumption goes awry! It happens often, especially when UFOs (ASCs) are concerned.

Anyway:
There have never been any UFOs (Unidentified Flying Objects) that have been conclusively confirmed as ASCs (Alien Space Craft). Therefore, these objects would still be properly regarded as UFOs.

A funny thing just happened:
Google Chrome just told me that I misspelled ASC. I reckon that's some more evidence that ASCs are unconfirmed! That didn't happen with "UFO" or "UFOs".

See ya,
Milt
edit on 16-8-2011 by BenReclused because: Add a few words



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 11:13 PM
link   
reply to post by BenReclused
 

You are ranting in a completely inappropriate way!


If you read the post I was responding to you might understand the post you are ranting in response to. I have not claimed what you are saying so save it for someone else buddy!


I have absolutely no doubt that UFOs DO EXIST!!! This argument is backwards! People that call UFOs "alien spaceships" (or whatever) are the ones that don't believe in UFOs! UFO stands for Unidentified Flying Object. Once an object's identity is confirmed, it is no longer an UNIDENTIFIED flying object!
Congratulations for being the zillionth member to post what the acronym UFO stands for. Maybe you should get a prize.



So called "UFO believers" believe they have identified certain flying objects as alien spacecraft without the ability to study the vehicle, and confirm their conclusions. Therefore they are only making assumptions based on speculation. This is certainly not what I consider proof.
The thread is about "insider testimony" not UFO believers. Some insiders claim to have studied the vehicles that are alleged to have been obtained from crash retrievals. If - and that is a big if - even a single one of them are telling the truth then they have had access to the proof you can only speculate does not exist.


[I don't doubt that there are likely far flung civilizations in our Universe, but the bottom line is: The existence of Extra Terrestrial life has NEVER been conclusively confirmed, and much less, any craft they may travel in!
More speculation. If the testimony is not all lies then it has been confirmed but covered up and not disclosed to most scientists or the public. For example the testimony that many personnel have seen alien bodies from said crash retrievals.


The assumption that any one of the above mentioned civilizations is advanced enough to travel to Earth is still nothing but PURE SPECULATION.
Again, you don't know whether the testimony is true or where any potential aliens may be from. They might even be time travellers from Earth and not have to travel far at all. The assumption that they can't is also pure speculation.


What is it about "the unknown" that mandates us to attribute it to Gods or "Aliens"?
Who is us? If you do, I advise you to consider all possibilities - including aliens.


Why is it so damn hard to be honest enough with yourself to say, "At this time, I just don't know what the hell it is... YET!"?
I'm assuming that you are referring to me as it says reply to post by Pimander.

As one of the most active researchers of the unknown you could possibly meet, I must be the least appropriate member you could find to address that question to. If I though I already knew all the answers would I really spend hundreds of hours researching.


I have dedicated a lot of my life to research of one kind or another - both within and outside of science. Engage your brain before you post in future. If I spend a lot of time researching the topic it is precisely because I am not the type of person you seem to think you are addressing.

Now if you go back and read what I actually said you might begin to understand me rather than insult me. I said it is a reasonable hypothesis that some insider testimony is true. I also said there is abundant evidence of a cover up of something. Many insiders claim it is of an alien presence. They might be lying or mistaken. However, if one person testifies that there is an alien presence and is not mistaken or lying then that is VERY IMPORTANT INDEED AND IS WHY I POSTED THAT I DISAGREED WITH KANDINSKY.

Because some of the testimony may not be lies, I think we would be foolish to dismiss it. Especially in view of the evidence that there has been a cover up. Sure, we should treat any claim with skepticism. However, that is very different to dismissing it out of hand.

Please don't treat me like some half-wit making ridiculous claims or present me as someone who can't admit what they don't know. I am neither.
edit on 16/8/11 by Pimander because:




new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join