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.

 

To the Skeptics

page: 2
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 4 2012 @ 08:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by NotReallyASecret
I will ask the skeptics this:

What about radar reports showing the incredible speeds and directional capabilities of these craft?

This has been testified to over and over again by reputable individuals. We even have the actual radar pictures etc.

And since these have reported since the 1940's, don't tell me they are human technology.
edit on 4-5-2012 by NotReallyASecret because: (no reason given)


What exactly is the subject of your thread here? Is it about Kecksburg? If so, what aspects of it would you like to discuss?

Or have you merely created a thread to start a flame war with skeptics and/or debunkers?

It would seem that you are not really here to discuss anything other than to try and provoke emotional responses from people.

How about instead of doing that, you actually POST something about the subject, show what the skeptics said, and then show why you disagree, and get responses from people that way?

Otherwise, again, your thread is nothing more than a poor attempt at starting a flame war.




posted on May, 5 2012 @ 05:02 AM
link   
I am a skeptic up to a point where I have overwhelming information. No-one knows for sure what happened at kecks-berg, but only people who have the research regarding ufo crash retrieval cases know that this is a very plausible case.

I bet you when the day disclosure is forced by the public which maybe sooner than all you realize, this case will be revealed and the public will be absolutely shocked at how such operations are kept under wraps and how easily the most intelligent people in science/academia can be so easily brain-washed and indoctrinated along with the masses of sheeple by those intelligence agencies involved in maintaining the conspiracy of silence.



posted on May, 5 2012 @ 08:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by karl 12

nor the closed-minded rejection of the scoffer masquerading as the skeptic.



Now THAT is a perfect description


I think I will use that in my signature


Exactly the lines I was looking at!

" neither the gullible acceptance of true belief nor the closed-minded rejection of the scoffer
One should be skeptical of both the believers and the scoffers. The negative claims of pseudo-skeptics who offer facile explanations must themselves be subject to criticism.".

From now on, all you who just start calling everything - Venus; balloon, Chinese Lanerns - I will call you scoffers. That's correct - this IS PSEUDOSCIENCE as well - calling everything some explainable objects, what do you think my criticism against some ATSers is about? This exactly...

- I will add this note to some who are 'scoffers' and deniers of things in Ancient Astronaut Theory - the most bashed part of ufology. The problem is you cannot be sure about some 'myths' because just like Troy was a myth and the battle with Goliath was a myth and the red hair giants was a myth - it was all discovered. SO keep silence about things you are not sure!

However, the majority of videos could be that, especially if there have been sky-divers at night, etc. So here comes the problem - how do we know how real something is and who is wrong - the believers OR the ones who arrogantly start giving explanations as if they know for sure. When it comes to videos, unless they show absolutely strange motions nothing to do with debris or shooting stars, not flying at constant velocity, I can say are UFOs, all the rest to me is also normal terrestrial or belonging to humans objects.

Anyway this is what I've been all saying and I am neither of these, opened for both possibilities.
edit on 5-5-2012 by Imtor because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 5 2012 @ 10:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
In the 40's radar was not quite as it is today but even today there is some interpretation required.

Anomalous propagation makes "things" jump around and accounts for false returns. Showing things that aren't "there" doing things that shouldn't be done. You can start here, a basic beginning. Radar "mirages", just like optical mirages.
www.radartutorial.eu...



You're aware of the many cases where anomalous propagation has been eliminated as a possibility, and the tracked / sighted object remains classified as a highly strange "unknown"?

A few are in the Condon Report itself:

"This must remain as one of the most puzzling radar cases on record, and no conclusion is possible at this time. It seems inconceivable that an anomalous propagation echo would behave in the manner described, particularly with respect to the reported altitude changes, even if AP had been likely at the time. In view of the meteorological situation, it would seem that AP was rather unlikely. Besides, what is the probability that an AP return would appear only once, and at that time appear to execute a perfect practice ILS approach?"

"There is a small, but significant, residue of cases from the radar-visual files that have no plausible explanation as propagation phenomena and/or misinterpreted man-made objects."

Dr.'s James McDonald and J. Allen Hynek have each also pointed out the patent absurdity (and impossibility) of the Anomalous Propagation explanation in several cases where it was used by Bluebook or the Condon Report as an explanation for a certain UFO.

For example:
"Actually, various hypotheses (radar anomalies, mirage effects) are weighed in one part of the Condon Report where this case is discussed separately (pp. 136–138). But the suggestion made there that perhaps an inversion near 2 km altitude was responsible for the returns at the Carswell GCI unit is wholly untenable. In an Appendix, a very lengthy but non-relevant discussion of ground return from anomalous propagation appears; in fact, it is so unrelated to the actual circumstances of this case as to warrant no comment here. Chase’s account emphasized that the GCI radar(s) had his aircraft and the unknown object on-scope for a total flight-distance of the order of several hundred miles, including a near overflight of the ground radar. With such wide variations in angles of incidence of the ground-radar beam on any inversion or duct, however intense, the possibility of anomalous propagation effects yielding a consistent pattern of spurious echo matching the reported movements and the appearances and disappearances of the target is infinitesimal."
Dr. James E. McDonald, Professor of Atmospheric Sciences, U. Arizona
"Science in Default: Twenty-Two Years of Inadequate UFO Investigations"
American Association for the Advancement of Science, 134th Meeting
(General Symposium, Unidentified Flying Objects)
December, 1969

Cases in which multiple radars appear to track the same object (and there are surprisingly many of them) are usually unlikely to be explainable by Anomalous Propagation, for reasons made obvious even by the material you cited....

If it's truth we're really concerned with here, then at some point the burden is indeed back on the skeptics to supply reasonable possible explanations for such cases... at least if they wish to continue proclaiming there is "no evidence" for the extraterrestrial hypothesis, and especially if they wish to continue ridiculing it. What does it say about Shermer, Shostak, Skeptical Inquirer, Bad Astronomy, Robert Shaeffer at BadUFOs, etc., that they never address this particular issue?

In my opinion, the skeptic who can admit that a fraction of a percent of cases appear to justify serious consideration of the ET hypothesis is on much more solid ground, logically speaking.



posted on May, 5 2012 @ 11:19 AM
link   
reply to post by TeaAndStrumpets
 





If it's truth we're really concerned with here, then at some point the burden is indeed back on the skeptics to supply reasonable possible explanations for such cases... at least if they wish to continue proclaiming there is "no evidence" for the extraterrestrial hypothesis, and especially if they wish to continue ridiculing it.


Just because something does not add up, does not mean it is alien.

I still see no evidence for extraterrestrials. How to explain a unexplainable point of light on a black radar screen?

I don't know. I don't care too. You claim alien you prove alien.

As for hypotheses.. I go with the rare earth one until proven otherwise.

Not guilty





edit on 5/5/12 by D.Wolf because: some typoos



posted on May, 5 2012 @ 12:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by D.Wolf

Just because something does not add up, does not mean it is alien.

I still see no evidence for extraterrestrials. How to explain a unexplainable point of light on a black radar screen?

I don't know. I don't care too. You claim alien you prove alien.

As for hypotheses.. I go with the rare earth one until proven otherwise.

Not guilty


Try reading my post again, but more carefully. To put it in terms of your "not guilty", not guilty does not mean there was no evidence suggesting guilt, does it? And "not guilty" certainly does not mean that the prosecutor's case was preposterous and merits ridicule.

You might also consider that my post was a response to another which implied that radar evidence was of little consequence, given the phenomenon of anomalous propagation. That claim is easily discounted by the most primary of primary sources.

More pseudo-skepticism is not what's needed around here. More honesty is. On both sides.

One would have to be almost completely unfamiliar with, for example, Lakenheathi-Bentwaters or the RB-47 case, to say some of what you've said....
edit on 5-5-2012 by TeaAndStrumpets because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 5 2012 @ 04:50 PM
link   
I always think that there are correlations between Kecksburg, and the Cash-Landrum sighting, arguably both approximate to a bell shape, (as in Kecksburg) or an aborted diamond shape, as in The Cash-Landrum sighting' just 15 years later.

science.howstuffworks.com...

I used the link above, but there is more info on the Wiki page, but linking is difficult here. Ironically, it is most likely that Betty Cash lost her claim against the government for what she had endured, to preserve secrecy, evil is the word, that's how stuff works.



posted on May, 5 2012 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by schuyler
You're being terribly vague here lumping thousands of reports together. If you want to talk about Kecksburg, we can talk about Kecksburg, but just claiming we have "radar pictures" (We do???) isn't saying anything definitive enough to argue about. It's like saying: "Debunk this! Many people have been abducted by aliens!"


It is argument by verbosity, Gish gallop. Throughout out a lot of arguments and changing the subject, so that no one can discuss any point in any sort of intimate detail. It is a spaghetti-in-the-wall tactic, throwing everything you have, hoping something, anything, sticks. If just one thing stumps the opponent, the arguer claims it proves all his points valid. Creationists often use such tactics in debates.



posted on May, 5 2012 @ 05:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by NotReallyASecret
Explain what happened in Kecksburg, PA.

This incident had definitive American military involvement among other agencies.


And that means, what? The American military is involved in a lot of things. Their involvement does not automatically equate to "alien presence".



posted on May, 5 2012 @ 05:46 PM
link   
reply to post by TeaAndStrumpets
 





Try reading my post again, but more carefully. To put it in terms of your "not guilty", not guilty does not mean there was no evidence suggesting guilt, does it? And "not guilty" certainly does not mean that the prosecutor's case was preposterous and merits ridicule.



Given: not guilty does not mean it wasn't alien, it means (to me) that alien isn't the conclusion to make. It's a jump as would be to conclude it was hollow earthers ; moonnazivrills; inter dimensional travelers; timejumpers, sliders; broomgirls; swampgass; flares; chinese lanterns; and whatnuts, zipping around.




You might also consider that my post was a response to another which implied that radar evidence was of little consequence, given the phenomenon of anomalous propagation. That claim is easily discounted by the most primary of primary sources.



Given, I shouldn't have butted in like I did.




More pseudo-skepticism is not what's needed around here. More honesty is. On both sides.



Given:Honesty is the one way to go. Anything else will destroy any opening to debate.What pseudoskepticism is I don't know. I can only be the skeptic that I am. Can't realy care what name is hung on it.




One would have to be almost completely unfamiliar with, for example, Lakenheathi-Bentwaters or the RB-47 case, to say some of what you've said....



Given: I tent not to get involved into discussions that lean towards believing. I skim ufo and alien threads merely because I am fond of sf. Thusfar I have seen a few diamonds but most is well.. bad sf.

To me, anything that goes beyond knowing is not knowing. Knowing: earth is the only place life has been found. Anything beyond that is (still) not knowing. I try as hard as I can to not believe - believing is religious - I rather not know than do religion, tricking myself into thinking I know something. (thus being dishonoust to myself). This does not mean I am not considering out of this world scenarios though. I have a very vivid fantasy and a rather large collection of sf novels to feed it.

I might have come across the cases you mention and enjoyed the reads. I will seek them out in the near future to see if I did, Wouldn't want to miss out on some good stories.


Thanks in advance



posted on May, 5 2012 @ 08:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by D.Wolf
I still see no evidence for extraterrestrials. How to explain a unexplainable point of light on a black radar screen?



Its not merely a "point of light".

Speeds and directions etc. are all available.
edit on 5-5-2012 by NotReallyASecret because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 6 2012 @ 12:41 AM
link   
Oke it must be alien then.

How does one pray to them? I'm new at this.



posted on May, 6 2012 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by D.Wolf
Oke it must be alien then.

How does one pray to them? I'm new at this.

Why are you here?

Apparently you will only accept something that will air on all major TV news, while the governments of the world verify the existance and reality of the phenomenon.

And you won't get this type of evidence on ATS. If such evidence were available, well, ... it would air on the major news and would be verified by the governments.



posted on May, 6 2012 @ 11:13 AM
link   
to the OP

how about a summary of the evidence you feel is the most compelling. please no links

in your own words



posted on May, 6 2012 @ 11:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
to the OP

how about a summary of the evidence you feel is the most compelling. please no links

in your own words

Why do you care?
You have the links to the information, if you care about information.

But maybe you just want to attack OP based on what he deems to be important, ... then of course you would need his own words.



posted on May, 6 2012 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
to the OP

how about a summary of the evidence you feel is the most compelling. please no links

in your own words



This is one of the problem with the skeptics.

They are so vastly unaware of the evidence out there, yet they claim there is none.

In other words, they refuse to accept the facts......similar to creationists.



posted on May, 6 2012 @ 12:03 PM
link   
reply to post by NotReallyASecret
 


Also, the thing about skeptics is that they don't want to accept the proof of somethings existence but they also don't want to provide proof of its non-existence. They throw away info that is provided for them and don't do anything to prove there disbelief. Skeptics are broken people.

Any UFOs seen in the world today are from this earth, either from reptilians or the government.



posted on May, 6 2012 @ 12:15 PM
link   
I ask the skeptics. What about this video, filled with the testimonies of many ex-govt people?

www.youtube.com...
edit on 6-5-2012 by NotReallyASecret because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 6 2012 @ 01:28 PM
link   
I think some secret craft went down in kecksburg. I would love to believe that we are being visited by aliens, but i still have'nt seen enough good evidence.



posted on May, 6 2012 @ 09:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xenoglossy

Originally posted by D.Wolf
Oke it must be alien then.

How does one pray to them? I'm new at this.

Why are you here?

Apparently you will only accept something that will air on all major TV news, while the governments of the world verify the existance and reality of the phenomenon.

And you won't get this type of evidence on ATS. If such evidence were available, well, ... it would air on the major news and would be verified by the governments.


There is more to ats then the alien/ufo topic. I merely skim this topic for the fun of it and maybe just maybe there may be even a good mysterie once in a while. I however am not looking for evidence. I don't expect to see that in my lifetime.

The alie believers say it's aliens, the holloweartherbelievers say it's hollow earthers, the godbelievers say god did it, the whateverbelievers claim whatever is whatevering, whenever there is a gap in knowledge. But what if someone does not believe?

When someone comes to a notbeliever showing a radarscreen with a blimp on it with direction and unbelieveble speed indication, asking what it is, All a notbeliever can put in that gap is..

I don't know.

Why is that wrong?




top topics



 
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join