Debunk This.

Originally posted by jimnuggits
Welcome to rational thought ladies and gentlemen of ATS...

I know it is against ATS protocol to shine light in the corners, but I feel compelled to try my hand at dispelling the ignorance that the propaganda of BOTH sides of the UFO/Alien question has submitted to the discussion.

First let me say that I am here to ruin the local skeptics and debunkers collective day.

Roswell, Exeter, Pheonix, Wsahington DC, Moscow, London, and your town too.

Literally every single place on the earth has many local stories associated with these phenomenon.

There are far too many witnesses, artifacts, proofs, stories, historical texts, anecdotes, photographs, videos, testimonies, radar signatures, pilot and military witnesses, physical evidences, ancient architectural anomalies, etcetera, for these ALL to be hoaxes.

To what end would such a vast and unneccesarily complex hoax be perpetrated? WHy would so many generations, whom could not agree on anything else, conspire to perpetuate this otherwise destructive and irrelevant game?

You may look at one particular incident and say, 'hoax' or 'swamp gas', but a cursory look at the bigger UFO/Alien picture paints a very telling story.

We are not alone.

We never have been.

Occam's razor states that the simplest answer is usually the correct one, and skeptics revel in using it as an argument against EBE and UFOs, yet, when all of these factors are taken into consideration, a very different paradigm emerges.

It is time to stop the denial and move on with the conversation. Agreed?

skeptics are irrelevant to begin with when dealing with facts, of which there's 4 kinds when dealing with ufos:

1. CG or practical fake (most common)
2. UFOs that are random flying objects or debris that civilians aren't educated about (also common)
3. human military/ scientific research UFOs owned by us (most sightings are local near known bases or thought to be known)
4. UFOs of aliens / extra or intra terrestrials/dimensional beings (take a pick)

Originally posted by watchdog8110

Originally posted by Xtrozero

Originally posted by Phage

How much consistency is there in the various reports? I mean the few reports which are not hoaxes, misidentified planets or meteorological phenomena, rocket launches, sky lanterns, and various others. There are huge objects, small objects, incredibly fast objects, slow objects, objects which make radical maneuvers, objects which simply zip across the sky, objects with lights, objects with no lights, fleets, singles, landings, no landings, submersibles...

One thing I find interesting is the advancement of spaceships over the years. They seem to advance linear to human imagination capabilities of the times. Today we have complex space craft, but 100 years ago they were rather simple. Just look at a site that shows the progression of UFOs and you all will get my point.

It really pushes us to see it is just a sub-cultural of us humans creating it all.


BTW why would a alien "SPACE" craft have lights at all...do they need to follow FAA rules?

How many different colors are in the spectrum and how many would one need to bend to make themselves invisible ?

I am glad this light issue has been brought up. If you see a UFO and it has no more that 2 or 3....and it is usually three colored lights....they are NAV. lights and they are ours reguardless of advanced design.

E.T. has cloak ability....it is when they are either refueling or attempting a Jump that they become VERY luminous...it is a byproduct of their means of travel. Probe type E.T. craft such as 6 to 10 ft in diameter Orbs that appear to be burning or glowing road flare orange...or small triangular probes that seem to be melting as they travel and give off light....it is also a byproduct of their method of travel.

Military Flares Glow Bright White and will fall at different speeds depending on purpose. Split Infinity

Originally posted by Xtrozero

Originally posted by watchdog8110

How many different colors are in the spectrum and how many would one need to bend to make themselves invisible ?

Visible light is rather narrow on the spectrum and if one "bended it" we would most likely see a bend across all the colors and not blinking lights, or steady lights, or lights at all, but maybe just a faint wave.

We still are theorizing all of it with zero tangible proof. I have as much proof in saying it is all just glowing flying elephants. I think that is just about every skeptic's point in there is no proof to say anything at this point in time. UFOs are just a cultural PHENOMENA and unless there is actually real evidence it will stay just that.

Being a cultural phenomena it doesn't take much effort to see why so much of your so called evidence pours forth.

Your not just saying that to keep me in stitches are you ?

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by jimnuggits

 

If they are not travelling great distances and if they are ET, where did they come from?

I was merely stating that when one combines ALL the variables, events and elements involved with an extraterrestrial visitation scenario, in the present and past, you have a much smaller amount of 'entities' in the equation than if you had to find disparate alternate explanations for them all.

How much consistency is there in the various reports? I mean the few reports which are not hoaxes, misidentified planets or meteorological phenomena, rocket launches, sky lanterns, and various others. There are huge objects, small objects, incredibly fast objects, slow objects, objects which make radical maneuvers, objects which simply zip across the sky, objects with lights, objects with no lights, fleets, singles, landings, no landings, submersibles...

You cannot "combine all the variables" because you've got apples, oranges, and kiwi fruit. You must look at each case in and of itself. And, if appropriate, you can then apply Occam's razor.

Without some common thread it makes no sense to just say "Well, it happens so much (even though it doesn't really) it can only be extraterrestrial". Of course, should ET choose to make himself known it would make it all moot.

I chuckled at kiwi fruit, hahaha.


The whole we don't know what it is it must be aliens thing, the aliens could simply be traveling within our solar system only?

UFO's are known to not land, or if in rare occurrences they may land and take off. Those characteristics are reminiscent of our space craft too, are they not? Unless someone thinks Grey aliens have landed and made contact, UFO's could be native to our solar system, and might not be able to do much, therefore non-threatening...

Occam's razor states that the simplest answer is usually the correct one, and skeptics revel in using it as an argument against EBE and UFOs, yet, when all of these factors are taken into consideration, a very different paradigm emerges.

Apply Occam's Razor then..

The simplest answer points squarely at terrestrial origin.

Originally posted by Furbs

Occam's razor states that the simplest answer is usually the correct one, and skeptics revel in using it as an argument against EBE and UFOs, yet, when all of these factors are taken into consideration, a very different paradigm emerges.

Apply Occam's Razor then..

The simplest answer points squarely at terrestrial origin.

FURBS....Occam's Razor does apply....but it applies to two realities. It is not the fault of Occam's logic that this is so....it is the very nature of the question that allows logic to dictate these answers.
Split Infinity

Originally posted by SplitInfinity

Originally posted by Furbs

Occam's razor states that the simplest answer is usually the correct one, and skeptics revel in using it as an argument against EBE and UFOs, yet, when all of these factors are taken into consideration, a very different paradigm emerges.

Apply Occam's Razor then..

The simplest answer points squarely at terrestrial origin.

FURBS....Occam's Razor does apply....but it applies to two realities. It is not the fault of Occam's logic that this is so....it is the very nature of the question that allows logic to dictate these answers.
Split Infinity

Your ability to use so many words to say absolutely nothing of value is astounding.

reply to post by jimnuggits


I'm still waiting for you to ruin my day.

Look. Today folks talk about aliens because the topic get less laughs than Big Foot , Gnomes and the Mothman.

Originally posted by Tearman
But people don't agree about what constitutes reasonable evidence of ET visitation. Somehow it must be established that a sighting involves a) something undoubtedly artificial, and b) from outer space.... and just to be sure someone doesn't call me on it, c) not originally form earth in the first place.

We obviously don't all share the same threshold for what counts as evidence of these three qualities.

I do see your point. Really. I'm not talking about a skeptic accepting evidence that convinces him of ET visitation though; I'm speaking of the step before that, even: those "skeptics" who will deny practically any evidence having to do with a case which, if it were to be accepted, would naturally and obviously be suggestive of a possible ET conclusion.

The sliding scale that's used by these skeptics, in other words, is not based on the quality of the evidence that's input. It's based on the inferences that might reasonably be drawn from that evidence were it to be stamped by them as "legitimate."

Even if there are radars and eyeballs involved which confirm a physical object, and that object is described as a disc or triangle or whatever ("manufactured", in other words), and the object is further described as having moved at speeds/accelerations that we simply know preclude human manufacture (and yes, there are such cases, going back to the late 40's. See Special Report 14), then... what is one to conclude from that? "Proof"? No. But... since not airtight proof, it therefore means nothing? NO!!!

The skeptics I speak of simply reject it all. For any reason they can come up with. Not because of data quality. The reasoning is working in the other (wrong) direction -- they're being deductive, not inductive. Because they know that to accept any of that evidence as legitimate means to open the door, something they're just not willing to do. And that's the unreasonable part, which is so much more obvious than these kinds of skeptics realize.

I'm definitely aware of people having different thresholds of evidence. That's fine. What *reasonable* threshold, however, simply dismisses corroborated evidence -- multiple people, plus radar -- that would be accepted were it ANY other topic, yet simply must be flawed once the acronym UFO creeps in, because those things "just can't be"?

This reasoning is alarmingly common. Until two years ago, I was guilty of it too! So I understand where it comes from. But then I read. There really ARE cases where the evidence for *something* quite odd is strong enough that it's just unreasonable to deny it.

Originally posted by Furbs

Apply Occam's Razor then..

The simplest answer points squarely at terrestrial origin.

The simplest answer to which case?

reply to post by Furbs


Just as you inability to not understand them is sad. Split Infinity
ps....that doesn't mean I don't have hope!

Originally posted by TeaAndStrumpets
This reasoning is alarmingly common. Until two years ago, I was guilty of it too! So I understand where it comes from. But then I read. There really ARE cases where the evidence for *something* quite odd is strong enough that it's just unreasonable to deny it.

Okay. But it has to be more that just evidence for something odd, it has to imply ET activity.

I'm happy to start with the minot b-52 case that you mentioned. Do you have a link that gives that event a thorough, and accurate description? So far I've read its profile on ufocasebook, but that writeup didn't go into very many details.

Originally posted by TeaAndStrumpets

Originally posted by Algernonsmouse

Can you offer up a quick list of the mountains of cases of independantly corroborated sitings of exactly what you stated above? I am focusing on the last part myself.

Ahhh... I see! One of "those" skeptics, are you? You're not actually aware of the strongest cases, right? A disciple of that special brand of ATS YoutubeFOlogy skepticism? Hoping I'll cite Billy Meier or something?

Or... you are aware of the truly puzzling cases, but are just betting that I am not?

Or... a third option... you're one of the naive ones who embraces those Phil Klass-style ridicu-bunkings?

That is it? 3 options? Too bad none of them fit me. You assume a lot for a "researcher." How is that working out so far? Have you proved anything to anyone with that yet? If I expected you to summon Billy Meier I never would have read past the first post.

I hate to be cynical and condescending,

It seems like you are enjoying it quite a bit. There are even snide personal comments in here.

but there's a strong hint here that you're either ignorant of the topic's history -- of the number and quality of multiple-witness and radar-visual cases -- or that you're exactly the kind of "skeptic" who would accept as evidence nothing short of the White House lawn scenario. And I no longer engage with such people. They're unreasonable. That's not skepticism. It's inexcusable head-in-the-sand denial.

Maybe you are just ignorant of the meaning of the word skeptic. You need to stop assuming so much about me as that does nothing but destroy any credibility you might have had.

If you tell me, however, that you've read Bluebook, Condon, McDonald, Sturrock, etc., and that there are actually UFO cases that genuinely puzzle you, then I'm thrilled to invest some time examining their strengths and weaknesses. But as it stands now, I'd bet money you've not even read most of the primary source material related to the UFO topic. ??

Wow, you assume sooo much and it is all wrong. Why do you assume I do not find any UFO cases genuinely puzzling?

I could be wrong, in which case I'd be sorry. But you must understand how your words have presented the odds.

You are wrong all over the place and no I do not understand. I do not understand how you leap from skeptic to denier the way you did at all. Not based on anything I posted. It just seems I need to understand you do not know what a skeptic actually is.

And finally, just so that I can't be accused of avoidance, I'll list only one case that I personally find highly strange, with quite a bit of corroborated evidence that I'm unable to simply dismiss, and that is the Minot B-52 case.

Super. When you find one that proves anything let me know.

Originally posted by Algernonsmouse

Originally posted by AwakeinNM

Thousands of photographs exist of something that resemble craft that people have witnessed and testified to (not necessarily in court). So basically skeptics maintain that every single one of those photographs must be hoaxed, witness testimony be damned?

Not very open-minded.

No. Where do you get this from?
Skeptics demand proof of just what exactly is in the photograph.
How can anyone claim to know exactly what they are or where they come from? So what is wrong with asking that what they are be proven?

One can use deductive reasoning for starters. You can eliminate the photographed object as something you are familiar with as an inhabitant of this planet. If you can safely assume that the object is not like any other than is known to exist on this planet, then your remaining options are very limited unless you keep an open mind. I agree with you, however - a photograph doesn't necessarily prove anything conclusively. Like if you showed me a picture of your mother and said "This is my mother." Why should I believe you?

As for my own sighting, I don't know what it WAS. I do know what it was NOT, and having an open mind, I can accept the possibility that it was an alien ship. Even so, I think that likelihood is very slim, but it can't be eliminated as a possibility.

Here's a list of all the solid evidence produced by UFOers. As well as a list of rational arguements put forward.













And there you have it.

reply to post by steveknows


Steve...I understand your disdane for some people to scream....E.T.! E.T.! everytime they see a random light in the sky.

I also know that many UFO sightings are just people seeing tests of advanced aircraft.

But there is evidence to solidly support the existance of E.T. Many U.S. Astronauts.....guys with everything to loose by making statements about Aliens....such as Gordon Cooper.....and a slew of others.

I know I can't provide you on this board solid proof....but I KNOW....by job.....they exist. And not just one race.

The rest is up to you. Split Infinity

Please do not lump skeptics in with pseudo-skeptics. A skeptic cannot assert that something is not true unless they can prove that assertion. Only a pseudo-skeptic will make an assertion such as "(insert phenomenon here) is not real" without proof of that claim. A skeptic merely refrains from making any assertions or reaching any conclusions without proof.

The difference between a skeptic and a pseudo-skeptic could be likened to that between an agnostic and an atheist. The former accepts the possibility of the existence of a deity or deities, but acknowledges that there is no proof of its existence. The latter denies its existence outright. (Which is their prerogative and right of course, but they are not the same as agnostics and should not be grouped with them.)

As others have said, there are unexplained cases, sightings, and experiences, however these do not yet constitute proof of the extraterrestrial or interdimensional hypothesis. They merely prove that a phenomenon which has yet to be explained has and does take place. A skeptic cannot say, "therefore, we have never been visited by aliens." But a skeptic can and must acknowledge the lack of irrefutable proof of contact.

Skepticism is actually an imminently open-minded philosophy.

Originally posted by jimnuggits
Welcome to rational thought ladies and gentlemen of ATS...

I know it is against ATS protocol to shine light in the corners, but I feel compelled to try my hand at dispelling the ignorance that the propaganda of BOTH sides of the UFO/Alien question has submitted to the discussion.

First let me say that I am here to ruin the local skeptics and debunkers collective day.

Roswell, Exeter, Pheonix, Wsahington DC, Moscow, London, and your town too.

Literally every single place on the earth has many local stories associated with these phenomenon.

There are far too many witnesses, artifacts, proofs, stories, historical texts, anecdotes, photographs, videos, testimonies, radar signatures, pilot and military witnesses, physical evidences, ancient architectural anomalies, etcetera, for these ALL to be hoaxes.

To what end would such a vast and unneccesarily complex hoax be perpetrated? WHy would so many generations, whom could not agree on anything else, conspire to perpetuate this otherwise destructive and irrelevant game?

You may look at one particular incident and say, 'hoax' or 'swamp gas', but a cursory look at the bigger UFO/Alien picture paints a very telling story.

We are not alone.

We never have been.

Occam's razor states that the simplest answer is usually the correct one, and skeptics revel in using it as an argument against EBE and UFOs, yet, when all of these factors are taken into consideration, a very different paradigm emerges.

It is time to stop the denial and move on with the conversation. Agreed?

I agree. And your reference to Occam's razor points out another important fact. Humanity has far, VERY far, to go when it comes to providing accurate explanations for unknown phenomenon.

Occam's razor says that the simplest explanation is generally better than complex ones. This is, on its face, a very primitive way of developing theories and explanations for inexplicable events. It embraces ignorance because it avoids investigation, based on the presumption that we already know the answer to mysteries. It points to the primitive nature of humanity's reasoning ability and how we prefer to avoid stepping out into the unknown and admiting that we don't always have the answer. It avoids LOOKING for an answer and instead, only allows a choice from among the possibilities that we already know. It also presumes that we have knowledge of ALL possible explanations and can then select the simplest from among them. This is the height of intellectual arrogance -- humanity knows so little about natural phenomenon that it is sadly humorous to listen to "scientists" blather on with such certainty that they can assign any explanation for events such as UFO sightings, crop circles, etc.

In the case of UFO sightings, these pseudo-intellects proclaim with a sickening, haughty air that these events are caused by mundane things of this world. Period. End of story. No need for further inquiry. They lack the inquisitiveness and imagination that a TRUE scientist should possess. Such curiosity and fascination with the unknown would be far more productive in advancing human scientific achievement than the ignorance that dominates the scientific community. Instead of trying to pin down what, who, and whatever is behind UFOs, pseudo-intellectuals draw conclusions before any testing, trials, investigations, etc are conducted.

You've asked great questions and come to an equally worthy conclusion. But unfortunately, those who should be leaders in this subject are cowards, relying on limited human knowledge to deny what is staring them in the face.

i can show you thousands of witnesses that shelled out $30 for a ruber band with a sticker of a hologram that all claimed it totaly gave them better balance and more energy.

i could probably show you millions who owned and cared for a pet rock. incidently they say the true genius in the succes fo the pet rock was the air/breathing holes in the box.

reply to post by Visiting ESB

You've asked great questions and come to an equally worthy conclusion. But unfortunately, those who should be leaders in this subject are cowards, relying on limited human knowledge to deny what is staring them in the face.

So, in other words. "I don't know what it is so it must be aliens."