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.

 

What are the most commonly used excuses to debunk UFO's?

page: 5
8
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Imtor

Originally posted by Ectoplasm8
The bottom line is there is no scientific tangible proof that beings from another planet visit us. Word of mouth, photos, videos, etc are not proof. If you don't have proof, you can't make a logical connection with a craft in the air to that craft being piloted or controlled by an alien race. Everyone here giving that possibility is doing so purely out of belief and not fact. Yet people argue like it is a fact.



However, these excuses are used for any type of aircraft, not just of alien origin. It may be some military craft they would still use sometimes ridiculous explanations thinking that people are that dumb.

The ridiculous claims don't lie in explaining away UFOs as swamp gas etc. I do however agree some of the "answers" are insulting to the believers intelligence. The ridiculous claims to me actually lie in the believers claim as UFO's being extraterrestrial. That's more of a ridiculous statement than swamp gas. Swamp gas, Venus, earthly aircraft etc is a given. They exist and are proven to exist. Extraterrestrials have not been proven to exist.
edit on 26-7-2012 by Ectoplasm8 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 03:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Ectoplasm8
 


OR not proven in the public's face. Unless it becomes clear what is this technology, where is it from and who is controlling it plus the strange things of non-natural origin that have happened since ancient times such as some non-natives coming from the sky, I do not think this has to be excluded as a possibility.

I am currenly evaualting, a former government or military official speaks out. Is he (that refers to anyone who speaks) still alive because those who would silence him know no one will believe him or because he is making up false stories? I think bluffing by making it look no one will believe these stories even if real, is a good weapon against today's ignorance and lack of awareness of people of things going on BEHIND the scene of their daily lives...

Which is pathetic, not seeing the things going on behind your back. I am sure if I recorded an alien and it looked like some of the fake videos, NO ONE would believe me. So tell me, what is proof? Like V series - spaceships over the major city?

I do not exclude what I do not know, and I am btw doubtful if aliens, it's just possible.



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 03:43 PM
link   
I see them all the time where I live, I've debunked myself everytime and put it down to bright satellites until the other day when one was approx 1000ft high and decided to move off in a 90 degree direction.

I've been a sceptical believer for a while, now I'm a believer, but I cannot say alien because I just do not know that.
Considering I live near military bases, I would put it down to military before alien.

Whatever, at the very least the military know about what I saw.


No longer will I debunk myself!



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ectoplasm8
The ridiculous claims don't lie in explaining away UFOs as swamp gas etc. I do however agree some of the "answers" are insulting to the believers intelligence. The ridiculous claims to me actually lie in the believers claim as UFO's being extraterrestrial. That's more of a ridiculous statement than swamp gas. Swamp gas, Venus, earthly aircraft etc is a given. They exist and are proven to exist. Extraterrestrials have not been proven to exist.


So anything not yet proven is ridiculous?

Regardless of the odds, or of the nuances and general thrust of the evidence?

Interesting principle. Do you apply it consistently?



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by TeaAndStrumpets
Regardless of the odds, or of the nuances and general thrust of the evidence?

That's the problem: the "nuances and general thrust of the evidence" does not point to "it was teh alienz". At best, in a very small number of cases, the answers remain unknown.



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 04:06 PM
link   
dissociative identity disorder!



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 04:23 PM
link   
LMAO you guys/gals are awesome!


I prefer to [insert] random logical fallacy.



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 04:48 PM
link   
I think the military/experimental/black project aircraft is overused as a ufo debunk.

1. Any black project aircraft is not going to be flown over major cities, they're flown out of area 51

2. If you counted all the black triangle sightings all over the world in a single day the USAF must have a huge number of black triangle planes to fly around

3. There are very few experimental/black project aircraft are built due to cost. Example... only 30 SR-71's were ever built and how many people ever saw an SR-71 flying ?

4. Stealth aircraft don't fly along commercial corridors inside of the US without broadcasting an IFF signal and consequently will be identified on FAA regional radar.



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 07:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by BagBing

Originally posted by TeaAndStrumpets
Regardless of the odds, or of the nuances and general thrust of the evidence?

That's the problem: the "nuances and general thrust of the evidence" does not point to "it was teh alienz". At best, in a very small number of cases, the answers remain unknown.


Yes, 'unknown'... except that you're hiding behind the common definition of that word, when most everyone knows (or should know) that the most reputable researchers in the field (Hynek, McDonald, etc.) -- and even the Air Force itself (with Battelle) in SR14 and the Condon scientists in their sections of the Report -- used the label 'unknown' to mean something more significant. Something closer to 'not identifiable', or 'inexplicable.'

Good unknowns are just not so mundane as the label implies. Rather, in some of those small number of cases you mention, the 'unknown' objects appear to be manufactured, seem to behave intelligently, and perform in ways that no man-made object could. Since their identity is unknown, should we ignore reliable information about them and confine ourselves to a strict and proper agnosticism on the issue, even though such characteristics are staring us in the face?

The problem is that misusing the term unknown, without regard for its historical significance (and much like the misuse of the 'UFO' definition) allows one to simply shrug off any unexplained incident. It allows debunkers to easily confuse and misguide those who are new to the topic, to confound, to imply that they're all just far away lights in the sky.

Even though what 'unknown' has often meant, in practice, is that all natural and ordinary explanations have been reasonably ruled out by those with the means, qualifications and expertise to do the ruling out.

This is why it actually doesn't matter to me if the UFO 'unknowns' are ET or whatever. (I do think that's the most plausible hypothesis.) But the primary point is that whatever those objects are, when they're finally revealed and accepted as reality, their identity is likely going to be as profound and significant as any ET explanation.



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 12:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by xpoq47
reply to post by ZetaRediculian
 


Yeah, yeah, As you may know, I'm working on camera-control software designed to detect anything that hovers in daylight, and swivel two other cameras along the first camera's line of sight within seconds so that all three can zoom and capture simultaneous frames with tracking data stamped on a bar below each image. It may take quite some time before anything shows up and gets captured, but when and if it does, it will be a whole new ballgame. Images will be streamed live, people in the area will be notified so they can look outside at the sky, and if something that looks like a flying saucer is captured FOIA requests for FAA and weather radar will be submitted, and we'll just let the data do the talking.


This sounds interesting...very ambitous though. I have been fiddling with some robotics lately...I would be interested in hearing more about this.



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 01:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by TeaAndStrumpets

Originally posted by Ectoplasm8
The ridiculous claims don't lie in explaining away UFOs as swamp gas etc. I do however agree some of the "answers" are insulting to the believers intelligence. The ridiculous claims to me actually lie in the believers claim as UFO's being extraterrestrial. That's more of a ridiculous statement than swamp gas. Swamp gas, Venus, earthly aircraft etc is a given. They exist and are proven to exist. Extraterrestrials have not been proven to exist.


So anything not yet proven is ridiculous?

Regardless of the odds, or of the nuances and general thrust of the evidence?

Interesting principle. Do you apply it consistently?


How is my comment specifically dealing with a topic on UFO's confused as an overall general statement?

Your "odds, nuances and general thrust of evidence" I'm guessing is coming from what you've read, videos, etc.,correct? Not first hand experience? I'm speaking of extraterrestrials, not UFO's in the skies. I don't debate that there are unusual objects in the sky, just the ET part of that "equation". So, you also must subscribe to the many levels of conspiracies out there in order for these "ET's" to be real. If that's the mindset that you have, there's an awful lot of assumptions in each level of this extraterrestrial answer. Assumptions, that you turn into "odds" in favor of extraterrestrial beings. Interesting.

You seem to reference Dr. Hynek a lot also. Did he have a strong belief that UFO's were ET controlled or have actual proof? I don't remember reading that he had proof.



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 01:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Chrisfishenstein
 



Kinda sounds to me that a lot is confusing for you my friend.....But don't worry, you will figure it out eventually.....

which part sounds like I'm confused?

I actaully am figuring it out. It's like a mass delusion. deluded people feeding other deluded people delusions. deluded people confirming their delusions from others that are deluded. its an infinite delusional feedback loop. this is what this thread is for. The purpose of this thread is to reinforce beliefs of like minded people. People who are "believers" need to band together and demonize, mock and call confused those that debunk.

....here is the problem...there may very well be an alien craft burried here somewhere but it is burried deep in this "soup". the ones that feed this beast are the ones keeping the truth burried. the ones that debunk are the ones who cut through the muck.



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 01:25 AM
link   
Vast majority of UFO sightings can be explained away by mundane conventional or atmospheric/astronomical phenomena such as weather balloons, Venus, airplanes, Chinese lantern, sun dogs, CGI, optical malfunctions, etc.

The problem areas when certain individuals try to pass off the very few high profile cases as mundane phenomena. One such example was the Belgian "black triangle" saga where it got to the point the Belgian Air Force scrambled jets to intercept them. Apparently, these same individuals tried to pass it off as astronomical phenomena and or the planet Venus, as if jets would be scrambled to intercept the planet Venus. This type of "debunking" is a not sound in its methodology as it attempts to force the data to fit the theory rather than vice-versa. That's not how scientific method works.

I guess some people just do not want to acknowledge the possibility that there are "crafts" of unknown origin penetrating our air space and there is absolutely nothing the government can do to stop it.



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 11:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by RadioactiveRob
Let's get a list going. I'll start with what I'm aware of.


Ice crystals
Mass Hallucinations
Venus
Weather Balloons
Thermal Inversions
Meteorites
RC Toy Airplane with LED's
Photoshop
Jupiter
Satellites
Aurora Borealis
Chinese Lanterns
CGI
Rockets
Airplanes
Birds
Ball Lightning
Lens Flares


My favourite: Rock Formation. Yes, for an UFO.



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by moniker

Originally posted by RadioactiveRob
Let's get a list going. I'll start with what I'm aware of.


Ice crystals
Mass Hallucinations
Venus
Weather Balloons
Thermal Inversions
Meteorites
RC Toy Airplane with LED's
Photoshop
Jupiter
Satellites
Aurora Borealis
Chinese Lanterns
CGI
Rockets
Airplanes
Birds
Ball Lightning
Lens Flares


My favourite: Rock Formation. Yes, for an UFO.


Yes you will laugh, but rocks (eg. craters and rocky structures) on moon have actually caused UFO "sightings", when part of the moon is in the shadow but the tip of a crater etc. reflects sunlight - already made some people believe they saw lights, "craft" etc. on the moon. tata.



posted on Jul, 28 2012 @ 01:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ectoplasm8

Originally posted by Imtor

Originally posted by Ectoplasm8
The bottom line is there is no scientific tangible proof that beings from another planet visit us. Word of mouth, photos, videos, etc are not proof. If you don't have proof, you can't make a logical connection with a craft in the air to that craft being piloted or controlled by an alien race. Everyone here giving that possibility is doing so purely out of belief and not fact. Yet people argue like it is a fact.



However, these excuses are used for any type of aircraft, not just of alien origin. It may be some military craft they would still use sometimes ridiculous explanations thinking that people are that dumb.

The ridiculous claims don't lie in explaining away UFOs as swamp gas etc. I do however agree some of the "answers" are insulting to the believers intelligence. The ridiculous claims to me actually lie in the believers claim as UFO's being extraterrestrial. That's more of a ridiculous statement than swamp gas. Swamp gas, Venus, earthly aircraft etc is a given. They exist and are proven to exist. Extraterrestrials have not been proven to exist.
edit on 26-7-2012 by Ectoplasm8 because: (no reason given)


Your the type of person that could look at the hubble deep field images that show thousands of galaxies and still not intellectually connect the dots that it is impossible that we're the only living beings in the universe, aren't you? You're an intellectual materialist and you can't reasonably explore any possibility that's absent of "physical evidence". It must limit you to sooooo many things.



posted on Jul, 28 2012 @ 03:13 AM
link   
reply to post by karl 12
 


well yes, look what happened with the 42 incident, they claimed aliens then retracted that, the government just isn't intelligent about these things.
while i could agree on unknowns existing, we don't know everything after all, the positive evidence just isn't enough for me.
i just don't see the logical step between unknown thing ---- > ET, or unknown -------> ED. on those weird ones i vote government, the 42 example is a good indication how how dumb the people in our government think we are.



posted on Jul, 28 2012 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by RadioactiveRob

Originally posted by Ectoplasm8

Originally posted by Imtor

Originally posted by Ectoplasm8
The bottom line is there is no scientific tangible proof that beings from another planet visit us. Word of mouth, photos, videos, etc are not proof. If you don't have proof, you can't make a logical connection with a craft in the air to that craft being piloted or controlled by an alien race. Everyone here giving that possibility is doing so purely out of belief and not fact. Yet people argue like it is a fact.



However, these excuses are used for any type of aircraft, not just of alien origin. It may be some military craft they would still use sometimes ridiculous explanations thinking that people are that dumb.

The ridiculous claims don't lie in explaining away UFOs as swamp gas etc. I do however agree some of the "answers" are insulting to the believers intelligence. The ridiculous claims to me actually lie in the believers claim as UFO's being extraterrestrial. That's more of a ridiculous statement than swamp gas. Swamp gas, Venus, earthly aircraft etc is a given. They exist and are proven to exist. Extraterrestrials have not been proven to exist.
edit on 26-7-2012 by Ectoplasm8 because: (no reason given)


Your the type of person that could look at the hubble deep field images that show thousands of galaxies and still not intellectually connect the dots that it is impossible that we're the only living beings in the universe, aren't you? You're an intellectual materialist and you can't reasonably explore any possibility that's absent of "physical evidence". It must limit you to sooooo many things.


I'm the type of person that has the clear understanding that intelligent life is not an easy hurdle in nature. That within our own solar system, only one planet has intelligent life. On that one planet, millions and possibly billions of lifeforms have existed. Of those m/billions of lifeforms, only one has been intelligent. In the billions of years of earths existance, a small percentage of time has contained that intelligence. In that small percentage is an even smaller percentage of intelligence that has had the capability to travel beyond earth. Of that intelligence, zero has figured out how to travel throughout the universe.

I've never said intelligent life doesn't exist, I said it's not as likely as everyone here makes it out to be.



posted on Jul, 28 2012 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by demongoat

while i could agree on unknowns existing, we don't know everything after all, the positive evidence just isn't enough for me.
i just don't see the logical step between unknown thing ---- > ET, or unknown -------> ED. on those weird ones i vote government, the 42 example is a good indication how how dumb the people in our government think we are.


Demongoat, thanks for the reply - I know there's no unequivocable proof as to the true nature of UFOs (or USOs) but I think it's got to said that certain 'actual unknown' incidents are incredibly compelling and certainly do make a person wonder WTF the objects involved actually are.

I also couldn't agree more with your comments about the government thinking people are 'dumb' - here are some examples of official USAF UFO explanations and I wonder just how much of a chump you have to be just to mindlessly and unquestioningly accept them.



The Portage County Incident:

Multiple Police Officers chase apparently structured, low level UFO that was '50 feet across and 15 to 20 feet high with a large dome on its top and an antenna jutted out from the rear of the dome' over 85 miles from Ohio to Pennslyvania - the object was witnessed by 'hundreds' of town residents and Police Officers reported it to be moving to side to side about 50 feet above the road before it shot straight up into the sky.

USAF Explanation:

The Planet Venus.

Thread

*Above BlueBook* - Ohio UFO Chase , Portage County April 17, 1966







The Minot Air Force Base Incident:

Multiple separately located U.S. Military personnel witness low level UFO over the ICBM missile fields surrounding Minot Air Force Base, the crew of a B-52 aircraft flying overhead also witness the object which the pilot described as 'a minimum of 200 feet in diameter and hundreds of feet long with a metallic cylinder attached to another section that was shaped like a crescent moon' - the UFO was confirmed on ground and air radar and proceeded to fly in formation along the same heading as the B-52 whilst exhibiting electromagnetic interference effects on the aircraft's transmitters.

Explanation:

Stars.

Thread:

The Minot AFB B-52 UFO Incident







The Red Bluff Incident:

During a six day period of UFO sightings in northern California involving dozens of town residents and at least 14 police officers, two policemen witness a low level, highly maneuverable, oblong shaped object with two definite red lights at each end - the UFO shone red beams of light down towards the officers and performed 'aerial feats that were actually unbelievable', they also reported they experienced strong radio interference each time the unknown object came towards them (the object was also witnessed by two other policemen and a town jailer).

Explanation:

Planets and stars.

Thread:

Red Bluff Incident, 1960 - Police nearly shoot at UFO







The Edwards Air Force Base Incident:

Several unknown objects described as having 'flashing red lights on the bottom and green, glowing lights on top' are witnessed by several U.S. Military personnel performing highly unusual flight characteristics over the restricted airspace of Edwards Air Force base - the UFOs were verified by five independent radar installations and the pilot of an F106 fighter jet sent up to intercept the objects stated one UFO gained a 'tremendous amount of altitude' and 'appeared to move right out into space'.

Explanation:

Stars and Planets and Balloons.

Thread:

UFOs Over Edwards Air Force Base


Cheers.
edit on 02/10/08 by karl 12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 03:01 PM
link   
Imagine using your supreme intelligence to come Jesus knows how many light years to visit Earth, and then suddenly become shy. It always baffled me as to why an alien craft would come so far and then hide. JUST LET YOURSELF BE KNOWN!!!!!!!!!!!!! Arrive in style, don't mess about causing UFO sightings, just land in a busy park and get it over with would you.




top topics



 
8
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join