ET UFOs are Not Real

First of all you said "UFO AND E.T are not real", Are you kidding me UFO are very much real unidentified flying objects are all over the place, second saying E.T are not real is just plain dumb in a vast universe full of over 100 billion galaxy's with hundreds of millions of starts in each galaxy every one having a goldylock zone with each one having a chance to support life.



Second there is overwhelming proof of some type of "beings" visiting us. Ancient time 100 ton blocks perfectly fitting together clean cutting, yeah like we did that! Countless accounts of alien abductions thousasnds each year sure some may be fake but out of all those don't you think even one could be real? So many damn sighting each year objects moving faster than we could dream of on radars, Yeah what are those people thinking its soo obvious our weather ballons go thousands of miles and hour. People seeing aliens looking in their windows and recording it what do you think it is a little kid with a mask on well I don't think masks have blinking eyes on them.



I recomnd looking at the facts then start deciding on things.

Originally posted by rigel4

Originally posted by Elzon

Originally posted by rigel4

Originally posted by ShedAlert
this thread comes up 20 times a day on other sites I browse. obviously people are passionate regarding this subject, but you're all just going to go around in circles. he quite clearly doesn't believe in aliens, and no amount of evidence you throw at him will change his mind, as he is clearly adamant in his decision.

i suggest we just say 'okay' and let it die.

Real Evidence would convince me, nothing else.
Which is, under the circumstances only fair.

You wouldn't hang someone for murder, because some else just believes it so.

Evidence needs to be corroborated and cross examined.

"Real Evidence"

Could you go ahead and define that for us please?

Remember, if you can't define your terms then they are unobtainable.

"Real Evidence"

Example

Probative matter furnished by items that are actually on view, as opposed to a verbal description of them by a witness.

For example, a weapon used in the commission of a crime would be classified as real evidence.

Is this evidence enough?
www.youtube.com...
I doubt it will be since all you want to do is rile up the masses and troll your thread but I will provide a description for everyone else.
This is an object flying close to Earth. We fired a rocket at it. It completely changed direction to get out of the way of the missile. You can clearly see the object, then the move, then the missile fly by. This is from NASA.

reply to post by Athin


No, this is uneducated people who don't understand the concept of perspective. There's lots of nasa videos with stuff floating around like this, and yet nasa releases it why? Because its just particles close to the camera illuminated by light, space debris, etc. Same way a bug close to a camera lens illuminated in light looks like a ghost flying around.
"it's VERY obvious what is going on here, a frozen chunk of debris is floating by the camera (this happens ALL the time) and a thruster fires (the flash of light you see) and when the gas hits the object, it sends it flying in another direction. The object seen slightly after (and from another angle) is more debris that was pushed by the thruster and was obviously much closer to the thruster due to it's velocity.

If you watch Nasa TV you see this stuff all the time. It's not a UFO." but hey lets claim its a missile and ufo with no evidence for such claim, just because it makes a cooler story.

Sorry but blurry youtube videos of DOTS is never "evidence".

reply to post by darkest4


Read up on Star Wars Defense by our government. To call one uneducated because you "think" you know what it is just shows how ignorant you are.

reply to post by Athin


I'm well aware of all the proposals of said program. However, it has nothing to do with the video just because you or the guy on youtube want to label it like that. I'm sorry that you think our govts would be retarded and suicidal enough to randomly fire missiles at supposed aliens with the technological superiority of traversing the vastness of space. The idea that you can look at two blurry dots and determine they are a missile being fired at an alien craft and be so certain just because it fits in with your fantasy conspiracy theories is just laughable. Wishful thinking is not evidence.

Like I said you see these videos all the time from those nasa cameras because it is space debris, that's why nasa releases them without caring, that's what they say it is when posed with these stupid silly conspiracies (they've been asked on at least one tv program I saw) because that's what it is. Sorry to burst your bubble.

Clearly you're the typical hands over your ears, lalala, don't want to hear the actual explanation "believer" because you've already embraced your fantasy story though, so pointless to argue further.

Originally posted by daggyz
Don't tell them they don't exist. What other meaningful existance will those who believe in real UFO's actually have if we talk them out of it.

Well, picking on people's belief of course, isn't that what gives meaning to *your* existence

-rrr

reply to post by rigel4


(to the OP). There is EVIDENCE to suggest otherwise, but I will grant you there isn't PROOF...(otherwise, there'd be no need for this forum, eh?).

As for Roswell, if you choose to believe that the military instituted cordons, secret (now not secret) flights of the debris to top foreign tech bases, and hushed up witnesses for a balloon project using off the shelf parts, well, I can't stop you, but you have to admit it's almost as much of a fantasy leap as alien craft.

So far, the military has even been caught at least twice, officially lying about Roswell, such as citing dummies as the bodies seen by witnesses, when that project was five years AFTER the Roswell event.

Sure, there are plenty of hoaxes and fakes out there, but it only takes ONE actual craft to make visitation a real thing, and for me, I simply can't rule out every single case as being explained. 99%, sure, but that 1% still leaves a LOT of cases as unexplained.

reply to post by rigel4


I think you need to re-title your thread to "ET UFO's are not real".
"UFO(s) are Not Real" misleads the reader into thinking you're saying that objects that can't be identified as convential aircraft or natural phenonema don't exist, which would be a silly statement.

I get what you're saying though, and I agree that no tangible evidence to support the existence of ET visiting Earth has made it's way into the public domain yet. However, without having access to the full picture, eg access to top secret facilities and their archives etc, it's difficult to come to a definate answer on this.

For the record I had a very clear sighting of my own over 20 years ago and I can say with confidence that what I saw that evening was certainly not conventional by any means, it's design, movement and the lack of noise told me this. As to who or what was controlling/piloting it, well, that's anyone's guess, but I won't cry "alien" unless I actually see one.

Originally posted by Beast Of Gevaudan
reply to post by rigel4

 

I think you need to re-title your thread to "ET UFO's are not real".
"UFO(s) are Not Real" misleads the reader into thinking you're saying that objects that can't be identified as convential aircraft or natural phenonema don't exist, which would be a silly statement.

I get what you're saying though, and I agree that no tangible evidence to support the existence of ET visiting Earth has made it's way into the public domain yet. However, without having access to the full picture, eg access to top secret facilities and their archives etc, it's difficult to come to a definate answer on this.

For the record I had a very clear sighting of my own over 20 years ago and I can say with confidence that what I saw that evening was certainly not conventional by any means, it's design, movement and the lack of noise told me this. As to who or what was controlling/piloting it, well, that's anyone's guess, but I won't cry "alien" unless I actually see one.

Too late to retitle the Thread, but i clearly say in the op that i am talking about Extra terrestrial craft.
I sometimes think people ignore this fact to make the sceptics look ignorant.

Originally posted by rigel4

Originally posted by miniatus

Originally posted by rigel4

Bring it on.

There is no proof, whether other members want to believe it or not.
If they show irrefutable evidence then i will ban myself.

The simple quote "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" fits well in this case... ( en.wikipedia.org... ) .. we simply don't know.. you can't possibly state one way or the other in a confident way..

I have a feeling you're intentionally just trying to rile people up

No, I am just sick of the unspoken lack of evidence.
Oh gratz on being the first quote this old and tired defence "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".

No evidence == NO ET CRAFT

Seems like you're quite un-educated. Let me use a very basic example: Evidence that Earth revolves around the sun. At one point, people thought that it was a fact that the universe revolved around the Earth. Some disputed it eventually, but because there was no evidence, people eliminated that possibility. Is that the intelligent way to go about thinking? No, not really. Regardless of what you think is absolute fact, if there is no evidence to support it, you are nothing more than a petty commoner blabbering about what you think is true. No one intelligent would possibly take you seriously. An example of such a person is myself.

Now you claim there is no evidence of ET-related UFOs. I will speak on 1 example which you can find if you bothered to do some serious research on the topic instead of seaarching brainlessly on youtube and poisoning this forum with your lesser mind:

1) France 1981: A saucer-like craft was seen taking off from the ground into the sky at a blinding speed by Renato Nikolai just outside of the Canjeurs base- used by the French Air Force. He reported no lights, no smoke, no flames emitted from the object as it took off. The police reports say that the craft had left a large imprint of where it had taken off from. The outline of the object was approximately 7 and 1/4th feet in diameter, and 3/4ths of an inch deep into the ground. The police took soil and vegetation samples from that spot and sent it to a lab called GEPAN ( Group for the Study of Aerial and Space Phenomena), which is a branch of the CNRS (National Center for Space Research), the French equivalent of NASA.

Now, in 1983, the preliminary report was released. The scientists attribute the strong circular outline to an object that took off due to an icnredibly strong mechanical pressure and at least 600 degrees Centigrade (~1100 degrees farenheit). Dr. Bounias, director of the INRA, which oversaw the examination of the plant specimens and studied the photosynthetic pigments such as chlorophyll and xantophyle, amino acids, etc. He then compared them to the control group which was outside of the outline created by the craft. The results are definite. They discovered that some of the plants had been dehydrated, but were not burned or charred at all as one might have expected. He made a formal statement saying that they worked on very young leaves. They all had anatomical and physiological characteristics of their age. However, the biochemistry of the leaves resembled that of senescence (OLD AGE)! Then he quite dramatically said that "This bears no resemblance to anything known to exist on our planet."

Professor Jean Pierre Petit which had been studying UFO cases for over 20 years said that he would gladly forfeit those 20 years of studies for this one study done by Dr. Bounias, because of the quality of the study and samples present to us now.

There are tons of examples like this with formal explanations, scientific examinations of the phenomena, and even published papers.

I'm sorry, but you are either a troll, or just someone without the necessary tools to do proper research. I don't blame you, you are the product of a society which has been conditioned by their media. You lack the ability to critically think, therefore haven't ever bothered to engage in work which requires you to do so, which easily explains why you have no idea how to properly do research on issues like this, which appear to be quite complex, but really are not. Just because you have a B.S, or M.S, or PhD doesn't mean you know how to research any topic on the planet. I've met many myself.

reply to post by rigel4


I re-titled the thread, since it's past your time allotment to edit the title. If this was not desired, please U2U me and let me know rigel4. Thank you.

Oh look, another thread spewing the exact same thing as the previous dozens.

Official Roswell story says it wasn't weather balloons but mogul balloons, i know its hardly a change but in terms of the OS its a big change, keep doing your research dude there is FAR too many unanswerable things. Not saying aliens but I'm saying something, 10000 cases since the 50's to which they say at least 5% is completely unanswerable, that's 500 cases, at least. Look at all the French, Mexican, UK and loads of other countries disclosed files too, cant just conclude that these were all fog gas, weather balloons and hallucinations, I would have thought military personal hallucinating would be a SERIOUS health and safety precaution, not just a "nothing happened" scenario (:.

reply to post by rigel4


It' seems that your intent on making the claims that UFO's are real, and more to the point, that they are piloted by some (snicker) Alien(s)..

By the Universes decorum, "there is no such thing as aliens, as "ALL" is relative to the universes existences..

I've already pointed out, that they are simply older remnants of prior civilizations we have had on this planet, some managed to "leave" this planet long ago, find another similar planet, and decided to procreate and continue their species existences..

But the "human genome (hint) is a remarkable thing, it is capable of adapting to nearly any state of environmental conditions, including new ones from another planet, but the outward appearances, will cause molecularities in DNA, between the "current" civilization, and the prior older ones..

Many of the older civilizations, have taken the "GOD's" route, and tried to strong arm the younger civilization ( never works out in the long run, they are always overtaken, and kicked out)..

This planet has had more civilizations then anything recorded in history, and the normal cycles of planetary wide alterations, make it impractical to try and find much evidence of the oldest forms of civilizations (crustal displacements, earthquakes, external body impacts, etc...)

As far as UFO's.. its a play with semantics, by definition alone, anything (and I do mean ANYTHING) that is in flight, that cannot be identified, is considered a "UFO", but a sub line of the primary definition, is what most seem to refer to, which involves a "specific" variation of "flying objects", that may or may not be piloted by outer world organisms.. Thats just an "allegory" in reality..

I did an earlier post, have seen DOD aircraft that would fit the common definition of what people consider a "UFO", but hate to break it to you, they are "human" designed, human built, and flown by black class pilots, using blacked mathematics, and are "nothing new"..

The 5% remaining, are simply older civilizations, that have been on this planet prior to our own, they are (for the most part) the rejects of their old society, and carry the same BS human flaws we have had for eons, few of the older civilizations move beyond the desire to "control" as evidenced by their continuing meddling in new civilizations after theirs was over with (just like ours is about to go through the same BS common everyday, garden variety shift in planetary geological upheavals....

Aliens are not real, and UFO's by primary definition are real, but by the way it is referred to, Are not..

Originally posted by Gazrok
reply to post by rigel4

 

I re-titled the thread, since it's past your time allotment to edit the title. If this was not desired, please U2U me and let me know rigel4. Thank you.

Thanks I wanted to change it.

reply to post by TheSeYeR

Official Roswell story says it wasn't weather balloons but mogul balloons, i know its hardly a change but in terms of the OS its a big change,

That's the problem though. Only the mission of Mogul was classified. The actual equipment used off the shelf parts...nothing that couldn't be identified by a 10yr old.

So, why did they establish military cordons (as described by sworn affidavits of witnesses) and fly the debris to top foreign tech bases such as Ft. Worth and Wright Field? (these flights are facts, not suppositions, there are both military and press records of the flights) How could intelligence officers at a base housing the only operational nuclear bomber wing, incorrectly identify balsa wood and foil paper (if Mogul). I mean, any 10 year old has seen foil paper on their Hershey bars.

So, either every officer at the base is an utter moron, or the Mogul story is manure. Which is more likely?

Im so glad I rejoined ATS but under a new name!!..I missed this stuff, Quite frankly id love to hear more about JAMESSACKERSONS(I think that is his name) story of other civilizations before us here on Earth, maybe that would prove a point and help the OP out some, like i said earlier, Ive witnessed something amazing and unexplainable so I have to say I believe and IMO its pretty arrogant to think we are the only intelligent life out there...Blu82

reply to post by rigel4


This isn't an original position, and it's not supported by the OP with any interesting data. What would be lots more persuasive would be a careful study of carefully screened reports showing no meaningful residual. I haven't seen such, but even then how do you show that something is "not ET" when you have no idea what that IS?

reply to post by jamesackerson


Id like to hear more from you and share even more if you are comfortable doing so,Im not here to derail the OP's thread because its a good one but your eyewitness accounts could make this discussion even better.

Originally posted by disownedsky
reply to post by rigel4

 

This isn't an original position, and it's not supported by the OP with any interesting data. What would be lots more persuasive would be a careful study of carefully screened reports showing no meaningful residual. I haven't seen such, but even then how do you show that something is "not ET" when you have no idea what that IS?

Isn't that the very point.. we have no idea, these phenomena are indeed unidentified, therefore there is no proof for making claims
that Aliens are visiting Earth in space vehicles.

The previous poster to you, is so mixed up he is even accusing me of supporting the belief that ET UFOs are real.