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.

 

A skeptical view

page: 6
3
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 1 2012 @ 08:07 PM
link   
reply to post by thesearchfortruth
 


you started being hostile, mate! Remember:

Originally posted by thesearchfortruth


To be honest I'm getting sick of your viewpoint.





posted on Apr, 1 2012 @ 08:09 PM
link   
reply to post by dejarmaX
 


That was not intended to be hostile or offensive, it was the truth.

I am honestly very tired of that viewpoint.

I'm sorry you took it as me being hostile, that was not my intention.



posted on Apr, 1 2012 @ 08:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by thesearchfortruth
reply to post by dejarmaX
 


That was not intended to be hostile or offensive, it was the truth.

I am honestly very tired of that viewpoint.

I'm sorry you took it as me being hostile, that was not my intention.
so why are you classing my words as hostile then? again, you used the word 'hostile' not me



posted on Apr, 1 2012 @ 08:15 PM
link   
reply to post by dejarmaX
 


Bring me some hard evidence, not shaky grainy outta focus 1980 VHS video camara . Bring me a piece off a real flyin saucer, then I might begin to change my mind. Until then,it's all CGI!!!!!!!!



posted on Apr, 1 2012 @ 08:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Warlord5852
 
yeah, i agree



posted on Apr, 1 2012 @ 08:17 PM
link   
reply to post by dejarmaX
 


You seemed hostile because you were questioning every word I spoke as if I was a crime suspect or something.

I used the word 'cool' and you started questioning whether I thought of UFOs as only a form of entertainment.

As long as you weren't trying to be hostile that fine

Let's just move on...


ETA: gotta eat dinner mate, ill be back later

edit on 1-4-2012 by thesearchfortruth because: eta



posted on Apr, 1 2012 @ 08:22 PM
link   
Hostile because I'm questioning your opinion?? It's called debating in my book! ooow you've a lot to learn my friend

Originally posted by thesearchfortruth


ETA: gotta eat dinner mate, ill be back later

edit on 1-4-2012 by thesearchfortruth because: eta
i've got to go to bed now cuz of work!! i wish i had to stop typing because i'm eating


peace.

dej...
edit on 1-4-2012 by dejarmaX because: (no reason given)

edit on 1-4-2012 by dejarmaX because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 1 2012 @ 08:48 PM
link   
reply to post by dejarmaX
 





Hostile because I'm questioning your opinion??


In the manner which you responded, yes, I found it hostile.

Now I understand that was not your intention, and so no more has to be said about the matter.



posted on Apr, 1 2012 @ 08:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by thesearchfortruth
I don't think you entirely understand my position on UFOs. I totally agree, 90 percent of UFO sightings are misidentifications, hoaxes or other mundane phenomena. I am talking about the reports made by credible observers (like pilots, air traffic controllers, police officers, military personnel, astronomers, and multiple witness civilian sightings) when I talk about this weather phenomenon, not just ALL reports by unreliable civilians. I am totally with you that many different types of mundane phenomena are misidentified for UFOs, but, in the sightings that aren't identified, several patterns emerge.


Fair play.

I would argue that if 90% are east to debunk cases of mis-identification, then it suggests that some part of the remainder it just the harder to identify but still mundane stuff.



Originally posted by thesearchfortruth
Triangular shaped craft


OK, lets take those "Triangular shaped craft", as an example.

If you take any three points, they can only ever form either a straight line or a triangle, right?

Triangles can be made by many objects in the sky, such as stars, lanterns, satellites, high altitude aircraft, or even a mixture of objects. If one or all were moving, the triangle would appear to be moving or even turning/tilting is some points/objects were moving at different speeds/directions,

Reports that describe the "object" as appearing to have a "solid form" can easily be accounted for by an illusion - the area inside the triangle appears darker than the surrounding sky, but that is because our brains are interpreting a scene in a flawed way.

One of the reasons we are here today, is because we are good at recognizing patterns. It's an evolutionary advantage that has helped get us where we are today, but the downside to it is that we can sometimes see patterns/shapes even if they are not really there - looking at clouds and seeing faces and animals is one example of a manifestation of this ability.

Our brains tend to make assumptions when there are few visual cues (which is usually the case when looking at things in the sky and in the distance), but because we have evolved to be creatures which experience most of their lives at close distances, and on the ground, the assumptions that are made are usually wrong. In the case of a triangle, 3 points that make up the corners of a triangle, are assumed to be the corners of a solid object, and the shortest distance in a straight lines between the three points is assumed to be an edge.

Avery similar illusion can easily be demonstrated:




The Imaginary Triangle

Do you see a triangle in this picture?

The brain tries to make sense of the picture and assumes that it is a three-dimensional image of a white triangle on top of three circles.

This assumption leads the brain to perceive lines that do not exist but which complete the sides of the triangle. The color of the triangle also appears to be brighter than the area surrounding it, and that's an illusion as well.

Source: The Imaginary Triangle


It would also explain why these things "could not be photographed", since illusions can't be photographed.

The same might also explain the many claims of extraordinary maneuvers, and lack of footage. Have you ever come across such footage?



Originally posted by thesearchfortruth


So, which reports would you believe?


99 percent of them. It is very unlikely that the people are lying, but I wouldn't use that sighting as evidence of aliens. I would believe the meteor reports. BUT, you're missing something here. The people would describe the object the same way, but some would LABEL it a meteor and some would label it a UFO. The reports would be the same except for the conclusion made by the witnesses. People are accurate observers, but sometimes they just don't know what they are seeing.


I disagree again.

People think that they are accurate observers, but the fact that we are prone to illusions, such as the one I posted as an example above, proves without a shadow of a doubt that we are not.

The way I would put it is that, it may well be that because the brain is feeding us misleading/conflicting information, an observer can make a misidentification because of this.


Originally posted by thesearchfortruth
I usually am not that interested in 'orb' reports, because I think they can be explained as ball lighting or plasmas.


I agree, but would add "meteors" to the list, as they can occasionally be "orb-like". In particular Earth Grazing Meteors since they often have no or very little tail.



Originally posted by thesearchfortruth
The objects I am referring to is the sightings of metallic, solid, disc/triangle/cigar shaped craft (with or without lights on them) that display incredible maneuverability as well as the intellegence characteristics I listed in my last post—none of which you bothered to explain.


Sorry, but I don't have much time to spare at the moment, and putting a post together takes me a long time, but I've given you one example of just how easily our brains can be fooled (and there are more examples in the links I posted earlier in the thread).


Originally posted by thesearchfortruth
Thanks for the info about the moon illusion stuff, pretty interesting.



You're welcome



Originally posted by thesearchfortruth
I understand you are skeptical, there isn't much hard evidence for UFOs. Let's just agree to disagree, I don't think either one of us is going to convince the other on one side of the argument. Peace man, have a nice day


No problem. I respect your stance too, although I lean the opposite way on the fence to you, mostly as you say because of the distinct lack of "real" evidence for the ET hypotheses, but also because I know first hand from my own experience (and reading reports that match my own experience closely) how many pit-falls there are when it comes to observing.

Hope you also have a nice day.
edit on 1-4-2012 by FireballStorm because: ran out of room



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by dejarmaX
Hello FbS... I enjoyed reading your post. You see it pretty much the way I do!


Likewise. Good to see someone posting who has gone "full circle" (lie myself) and can now see through all the hype in the UFO subject.


Originally posted by dejarmaX
it's surprising how many people do not know satellites can be seen with the naked eye


I agree... and not only that, much of the remainder who do know that satellites are visible, are unaware of just how bright they can get - sometimes brighter than the moon (depending on the phase)!


Originally posted by dejarmaX
'what I saw stopped for a while & made a sharp turn at speed' ---- yeah course it did



I have tried to tackle the "sharp turn maneuver" claims in the past. You might be interested in the posts I made on the subject (under my previous username) - here and here.



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 09:58 PM
link   
It's very interesting that you explain this theory in the manner as you do--because 1) satellites' launch cycles usually are arranged in such a way to -avoid- this phenomenon, as it could potentially result in disastrous satellite collisions, and 2) if they were vertically isolated from each other (each satellite being in a separate orbital plane) it would be patently obvious through parallax.



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 10:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Warlord5852
 


This is a completely ridiculous viewpoint to me, if you can't find hard evidence of UFO's you either don't want to acknowledge the mountain of evidence that we have or you simply haven't looked into it enough. We have many many ground and air radar returns of UFO's, reports from pilots both civilian and military, reports from high ranking military officials, we have excellent photographs from the 40's, 50's and 60's before there was such a thing as photoshop that have yet to be debunked, there are videos out there, real videos that have yet to be debunked in any meaningful manner, cgi leaves tell tale signs especially if you're talking about late 70's early 80's cgi. Look at Ted Phillips landing trace cases as well, he has a literal mountain of physical evidence. The thing that kills me is that human testimony is considered reliable enough by itself to condemn an individual to fry in an electric chair but it's not good enough to be evidence of UFO's? It's beyond ridiculous in my opinion. Why don't we require criminal prosecutors to provide multiple angle photos and videos of a murder before we sentence someone to death? Because it's a ridiculous idea, cameras aren't always present and when they aren't we have to fall back on RELIABLE human testimony from police officers and other experts. Am I one of these true believers? No. A healthy skepticism is required when dealing with this subject in my opinion, but so is keeping an open mind and being willing to examine the evidence.



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by MoreThanTheSum
It's very interesting that you explain this theory in the manner as you do--because 1) satellites' launch cycles usually are arranged in such a way to -avoid- this phenomenon, as it could potentially result in disastrous satellite collisions, and 2) if they were vertically isolated from each other (each satellite being in a separate orbital plane) it would be patently obvious through parallax.


Not sure if you were referring to my post here, but if you were:

Yes you are correct that satellites are positioned in orbits calculated to avoid collisions, but that does not mean that satellites can't appear to be quite close to each other, especially when you take into account that they are being viewed from a very great distance away.

As for parallax - it only comes into play at short-medium distances, where as satellites are at relatively large distances:


Accommodation is presumably ineffective beyond about 2 m (cf. Arditi, 1986), and convergence (or, possibly, absolute binocular parallax per se) may be effective for distances as great as 8 m (Foley, 1980).

Source: Perceptual distance and the constancy of size and stereoscopic depth



Human visual system is very sensitive to these differences, and binocular parallax is the most important depth cue for medium viewing distances. The sense of depth can be achieved using binocular parallax even if all other depth cues are removed.

Source: Depth Cues in the Human Visual System

So remove the parallax depth cue, and what else remains?

There are no visual cues apart from if the satellite disappears behind the horizon or thick cloud, in which case you can tell that it was further than the horizon/cloud, but no more, and you need to be careful with thin clouds, since brighter satellites (and other objects eg meteors) can shine through cloud and seem as though they are below, even if they are not.

That's the whole problem with observing objects in the sky - there are few if any cues, which just so happens to be to be ideal conditions for optical illusions.

Getting back to the point though, without any depth/distance cues, satellites in completely different orbits, can seem to be very close to each other, even if they are not, and yes, as you said, the altitude will also separate satellites by at least some distance in most cases, but there is no way you could tell just by looking.



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 09:11 AM
link   
To be honest, this may lead me to reconsider objects claiming to be UFOs that are passing along a high-altitude ecliptic. However, the aforementioned category of sighting accounts for only a small portion of all reported UFO sightings. What about sightings that hover? Or sightings that are 100% visible for the duration and make wild changes in direction? Or sightings that are much lower than a traditional satellite's orbit?



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 07:02 PM
link   
Greetings,


I totally disagree with skeptics that there is no ET life........ that is scientifically impossible.......... with billions of stars with multiple planets each......... possibility of some of them having life is not impossible....... It is possible they are not advance enough and are not visiting us........ One of many possibilities........... to that notion i do agree......

As for the proof about ET visitation..... well we do not know for sure........ how old is Human race and how old is Human civilization........... ?? please do not post links to wiki or other sites that tell Human civilization is 5k-7k years old.......... archeologist found civilization ruin over 10k years old........... We do not know exactly our ancestry or evolutionary path........ Everything at the moment is just a guess....... an assumption......... Scientific Process accepts the best possible explanation........ well at the moment there is no Definite explanation to anything......... We still follow best Explanation........

I do agree most of the UFO sightings are Hoaxes,CGI,etc but some are true and from reliable people......though unexplainable..........

As for looking for 70 yrs and still no proof......... There is another possibility ( another being that ETs are not advance enough to visit us) that most of the Ufologist were looking in the wrong place all this time...........

There are many things Ufologist have overlooked........ they are mostly concentrated on events occurring in First world countries..... what if the actual proof and events are occurring in second and third world countries.........??

For instance does anyone know that there are two Doomsday Recovery base in the world....... One is in Europe in Sweden or Switzerland not sure which is correct.......... Other is in Asia in India at Leh (Indo-China border)..... well it is very strange that such a facility is not in a first world nation rather in a second and third world nation respectively.......... Even so more baffling is the fact that India made such a facility at chinese border....... because relations between them are not good...... well at least in world's eyes.......... Could it be an indication that there is a secret treaty between the powerful nations of Earth......... hmm........ maybe........

Also i came across a archive post of ATS......... about UFO sightings seen in Leh...... and some rumours that there is a secret Indo-China base in Leh....... well strategically thinking......... anyone would create Doomsday recovery facility were it can be protected at all costs.......... so could India and China be secretly be together..... along with US, EU...........??

Think about it.........



Have Fun,
Primus



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 07:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Primus87
I totally disagree with skeptics that there is no ET life

As for looking for 70 yrs and still no proof......... There is another possibility ( another being that ETs are not advance enough to visit us)
I'm feel quite confident in saying the existence of other sentient life forms in this vast universe is not in question in a place like this!

Peace.

dej...



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 09:25 PM
link   
Firstly, let me rephrase and slightly amend a statement I made in my previous post, where I said:

"There are no visual cues apart from if the satellite disappears behind the horizon or thick cloud"

That is not strictly true. Our brains would normally use the brightness of an object as a visual cue in depth perception.

That (once again) generally works quite well for objects on the ground. For instance, imagine that you are standing on a deserted and unlit road in the middle of nowhere. You can tell a car is a long way off down the road, since you can see the headlights, and because they are in the distance, they appear relatively dim to you.

If the car is only 10 or 15 feet in front of you, the same headlights would be dazzlingly bright. So we can gauge the distance simply by how bright a light is, but only if a light (or in this case headlights) are always roughly the same brightness to begin with.

This works quite well on the ground with familiar objects, but with things like satellites and meteors, which can vary in brightness tremendously due in a large part to other factors as well as distance, brightness cues can be downright misleading.

Since there are no other visual cues to go on, and our brains take it as given that being bright must mean an object is close, and dim must mean an object is much further away, a light in the sky that changes in brightness might easily be perceived to be changing in distance from the observer, even though the distance may not be changing much, or in the way the observer assumes.

I say "satellites and meteors", but the same can apply to almost anything seen in the sky, to one degree or another, depending on the circumstances.

Also, both satellites and meteors are notorious for taking inexperienced observers by surprise with their brightness and the way they can change in brightness in some cases, and although probably assumed to rare behavior.by inexperienced observers, most of these types of behaviors are not that hard to observe if you put in the time.

So, to get back to the point, I wanted to make - my statement should read:

"There are no reliable visual cues apart from if the satellite disappears behind the horizon or thick cloud"



Originally posted by MoreThanTheSum
However, the aforementioned category of sighting accounts for only a small portion of all reported UFO sightings.


The category may only be a small part of all UFO sightings, but many of the same principals apply, such as

1/ It's impossible to gauge speed/altitude/distance/size of an unknown light/object in the sky due to the lack of visual depth cues,

2/ Visual cues can be misleading, and a lack of them can result in an observer experiencing an optical illusion in many cases.


Originally posted by MoreThanTheSum
What about sightings that hover?


That could be explained by many potential sets of circumstances. A bright star or planet (even the moon, believe it or not) is surprisingly commonly mistaken for a hovering UFO. A jet in the distance, if it's heading close to/directly towards you can appear to hover for minutes at a time - but it's a perspective illusion, and without any visible strobes (which is not uncommon when an aircraft is flying towards you) to identify it as an aircraft, they are often misidentified as UFOs.


Originally posted by MoreThanTheSum
Or sightings that are 100% visible for the duration and make wild changes in direction?


Wild changes in direction could be explained by optical illusions in many cases I think.

For example - The autokinetic effect or a closely related illusion can make a satellite that moves along a straight path across the sky, appear to swing from side to side or deviate from that straight path.
Again, it's not just satellites that can do this (although it seems to be more common for satellites), and like most illusions, the primary cause is lack of visual cues.

Another possibility that can potentially account for all kinds of apparently odd behavior, is that multiple objects could be mistakenly identified as one, like the "satellites that make sharp turns" examples I linked to earlier.

Here's another example - The "moth-meteor"



Whilst I don't think "insect-meteors" account for a huge amount of sightings, it illustrates how easily two unrelated and rather ordinary phenomena can come together to produce a puzzle that might not be so easy to unravel unless you think outside the box ("one UFO must be caused by a single phenomena" mind-set).



Originally posted by MoreThanTheSum
Or sightings that are much lower than a traditional satellite's orbit?


The problem here is that, without any helpful distance (or "depth") cues, and due to a tendency for inexperienced observers to misjudge altitude when it comes to an unknown object/light, we can't be sure if an observer is correct about what they thought they saw - if the object was more distant or not as distant than the distance at which satellites orbit.

Ive come across people here on ATS that assumed that when an object/light is seen in the sky, but apparently only just above the horizon, it's closer to them, or very low in altitude, than an object seen directly above or apparently higher up in the sky, but that assumption does not always hold true.

Example: if you see the sun or moon setting or rising, it's seemingly "hovering just above the horizon", but neither is very close, so it's a mistaken assumption. An object seen just above the horizon could be 100 m away or 10 km away or 100000 km away, and there is no way to tell which it is (unless there are photographs/footage in which case there may be a chance), let alone what altitude it might be at, that is assuming it's even an object that is in our solar system!

If you consider the above, plus the fact that a bright meteor can be extremely bright, and we know that people often interpret bright as close. A meteor shooting seemingly downwards (perspective and the way our planet/atmosphere curve can make it hard to determine the actual direction), and disappearing below the horizon, could even explain some claimed "UFO crashes" I suspect.

I'm still only skimming the surface of possibilities for explanations. UFOlogy is full of pitfalls for the unwary investigator, and witness testimony should be treated with caution in all cases, especially where extraordinary claims are made.
edit on 5-4-2012 by FireballStorm because: ran out of room



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 01:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by dejarmaX

In my opinion I'd say it's highly unlikely, bordering on impossible that we are the only sentient life forms in this vast universe of ours!


Though I would agree with your assertion that sentient beings probably exist elsewhere in the universe, I wish to address your assumption that the odds favor it.

When considering the evolution of life on our own planet, we know that wings evolved separately at least three times. Birds developed wings. So did bats, along with flying insects. If there is any life out there in the universe, then yes, it is safe to say that it is highly likely that there are winged creatures.

I don't know how many times our earthly creatures had evolved eyes to see with, but since sight is prevalent in almost every species, then it is highly likely that eyes have evolved on other planets.

But, when it comes to the evolution of intelligence on the human level, this occurred only once. I've heard it said that eating meat and shellfish caused our brains to grow big enough to develop intelligence. Well, how many other species of animal eats meat and shellfish? And yet, humans are the only ones to come away as true thinkers.

So, is our intelligence a fluke? Dumb luck? Whatever the reason, because intelligence evolved only once on our planet it severely decreases the odds of it occurring elsewhere.


edit on 4/6/2012 by jiggerj because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 04:25 AM
link   
reply to post by dejarmaX
 


Greetings,


I also mentioned many more things........ And to reply to your post...... i did give some circumstantial proofs about alien visitation/knowledge/threat...... like secret treaties between arch rival nations......... such an event occurs only when there is an even greater threat...... Is it not.........?? ATS archive thread,etc.........

And if you do not agree to these claims/conclusion posted by me than do give me a better explanation for increased UFO/ paranormal activity/sighting in the regions around these Doomsday recovery facility....... lets hear your explanation....

1)why these locations were selected.......?? and specially in context to Indo-China border....... because its a disputed zone......... and please do not say these nations are Stupid........ lol.......

2)why there is increased paranormal/UFO activity/sighting in the region....... ??

and those who have not read my previous post....... do read it......... before replies.........


Think about it............Thank u........



Have Fun,
Primus



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 05:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Primus87

And if you do not agree to these claims/conclusion posted by me than do give me a better explanation for increased UFO/ paranormal activity/sighting in the regions around these Doomsday recovery facility....... lets hear your explanation....

Hello Prim.... I cannot speculate the reason why without knowing if these Doomsday facilities actually exist first.... Do they? Or is this also just speculation?



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join