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: 6
8
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 12:50 PM
link   
reply to post by loves a conspiricy
 


The only thing I said in the entire post was PROVIDE evidence against it....

Innocent until proven guilty....Or in our case on ATS, real until proven fake!!

Same thing goes with video or "proof"

Be a skeptic all you want, but don't spout nonsense about it being fake without the reasoning behind it......I never come into a thread and say, yep looks real......I might give a little insight to what it may appear to me, but never YEP or NOPE it's fake, without offering some kind of proof.....

You always try with me loves a conspiracy, but you just can't seem to get there other than the typical nonsense you spout...."well people like you keep the cash cow going"....Or some crap like that, try a little harder next time to blast someone when they are offering an OPINION!!!
edit on 8/1/2012 by Chrisfishenstein because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 07:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ectoplasm8
I don't debate that there are unusual objects in the sky, just the ET part of that "equation".


I'm curious to know what you consider to be the distinguishing characteristics of these "unusual objects in the sky", as anyone reasonably familiar with the topic should realize that there are certain fascinating traits that have continued to crop up among the "unknowns" for about seven decades. If you aren't familiar with these characteristics and the reports that describe them, your comment about the "ridiculousness" of the possible extraterrestrial origin of some UFOs makes more sense.



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 01:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Orkojoker

Originally posted by Ectoplasm8
I don't debate that there are unusual objects in the sky, just the ET part of that "equation".


I'm curious to know what you consider to be the distinguishing characteristics of these "unusual objects in the sky", as anyone reasonably familiar with the topic should realize that there are certain fascinating traits that have continued to crop up among the "unknowns" for about seven decades. If you aren't familiar with these characteristics and the reports that describe them, your comment about the "ridiculousness" of the possible extraterrestrial origin of some UFOs makes more sense.

"Unusual" as in unidentified, unexplained. An unusual earthly answer, rather than an unusual unearthly answer. I'm just acknowledging that objects in the sky exist. Be it aircraft, stars/planets, meteors, blimps, satellites, balloons, etc. So, many different types of objects in the sky is a fact. Therefore, with a variety of so many, one can draw a logical conclusion that some can look unusual or unexplainable to many people. Just use this board as an example. Many people here jump on a youtube video with the first thought in their mind of a possible alien UFO. Only to find out later that it's a balloon, hoax, or some other realistic explanation. They approach an answer as to what this object is, with something that's still questioned and not proven. Thats the "ridiculous" part in this.



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 03:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ectoplasm8
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".
On what basis is the ETH "ridiculous", as I believe I've seen you state a few times now? (In the first sentence you'll say it's ridiculous, then in the next next sentence emphasize that there's no proof. That's why I asked that prior question -- there's a LOT of room in between 'no proof of' and 'ridiculous' that you seem to be ignoring.)



So, you also must subscribe to the many levels of conspiracies out there in order for these "ET's" to be real.
WHY would you draw such a conclusion? MY conclusion is that a tiny percentage of UFOs may be extraterrestrial in origin, and therefore, you say, I likely also believe in Bob Lazar, vast government conspiracies, alien abductions, cattle mutilations, etc.?????

What kind of logic is that? Do you want to be taken seriously?



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.
Ahhh, now I see why you needed to make that assumption up above. It's much easier to to discredit me if you assume I believe in all the UFO fringe stuff, right? Nicely played, and very original. (Haha.) And note that you just did EXACTLY what Brighter and Orkojoker have been talking about in Brighter's "Critical Thinking..." threads.




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.
What does 'belief' have to do with anything I've mentioned? I think Hynek was a man who was led by the evidence. You seem to be consistently having a hard time dealing with those gray areas that lie in between 'probably' and 'proof'. Have you ever taken a course in statistics? Do you understand the concept of levels of certainty?

Why is the following idea so perplexing to some? It is possible to recognize that something has not been 'proven', yet still say that there is 'evidence' for it, with the weight of that evidence seeming to support a temporary or working hypothesis X, Y or Z. And my personal opinion, based on the evidence I've seen -- yes evidence, not proof, but evidence -- is that the extraterrestrial hypothesis best explains the UFO data that I find convincing, like multiple-witness radar-visual cases.

The level of certainty regarding the answer to "are there any true UFOs?" is much different than the level of certainty regarding the answer to "does the ETH best explain them?" They're distinct questions, of course. That I have personally concluded, after looking at quite a bit of evidence, that the ETH is the "least implausible" explanation for the most convincing UFO cases in no way implies that I believe that old chestnut "unidentified = alien", or any of the absurd, fringe stuff.

And finally, if you're suggesting that you only believe things that are 'proven', then there's a tiring old discussion regarding what science is and what it isn't that may need to be repeated again.



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 07:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ectoplasm8

Originally posted by Orkojoker

Originally posted by Ectoplasm8
I don't debate that there are unusual objects in the sky, just the ET part of that "equation".


I'm curious to know what you consider to be the distinguishing characteristics of these "unusual objects in the sky", as anyone reasonably familiar with the topic should realize that there are certain fascinating traits that have continued to crop up among the "unknowns" for about seven decades. If you aren't familiar with these characteristics and the reports that describe them, your comment about the "ridiculousness" of the possible extraterrestrial origin of some UFOs makes more sense.

"Unusual" as in unidentified, unexplained. An unusual earthly answer, rather than an unusual unearthly answer. I'm just acknowledging that objects in the sky exist. Be it aircraft, stars/planets, meteors, blimps, satellites, balloons, etc. So, many different types of objects in the sky is a fact. Therefore, with a variety of so many, one can draw a logical conclusion that some can look unusual or unexplainable to many people. Just use this board as an example. Many people here jump on a youtube video with the first thought in their mind of a possible alien UFO. Only to find out later that it's a balloon, hoax, or some other realistic explanation. They approach an answer as to what this object is, with something that's still questioned and not proven. Thats the "ridiculous" part in this.


Your answer makes it clear that you are unfamiliar with the serious literature on the subject. Like many, you are probably simply unaware that there is a body of serious literature on the subject, so your opinion is understandable. Certainly the readiness with which people on ATS declare a video of a Chinese lantern to be a likely spaceship is a bit ridiculous, but that has nothing to do with the actual topic. Have you read any books on the subject of UFOs? If so, which ones?



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 12:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Orkojoker

Originally posted by Ectoplasm8

Originally posted by Orkojoker

Originally posted by Ectoplasm8
I don't debate that there are unusual objects in the sky, just the ET part of that "equation".


I'm curious to know what you consider to be the distinguishing characteristics of these "unusual objects in the sky", as anyone reasonably familiar with the topic should realize that there are certain fascinating traits that have continued to crop up among the "unknowns" for about seven decades. If you aren't familiar with these characteristics and the reports that describe them, your comment about the "ridiculousness" of the possible extraterrestrial origin of some UFOs makes more sense.

"Unusual" as in unidentified, unexplained. An unusual earthly answer, rather than an unusual unearthly answer. I'm just acknowledging that objects in the sky exist. Be it aircraft, stars/planets, meteors, blimps, satellites, balloons, etc. So, many different types of objects in the sky is a fact. Therefore, with a variety of so many, one can draw a logical conclusion that some can look unusual or unexplainable to many people. Just use this board as an example. Many people here jump on a youtube video with the first thought in their mind of a possible alien UFO. Only to find out later that it's a balloon, hoax, or some other realistic explanation. They approach an answer as to what this object is, with something that's still questioned and not proven. Thats the "ridiculous" part in this.


Your answer makes it clear that you are unfamiliar with the serious literature on the subject. Like many, you are probably simply unaware that there is a body of serious literature on the subject, so your opinion is understandable. Certainly the readiness with which people on ATS declare a video of a Chinese lantern to be a likely spaceship is a bit ridiculous, but that has nothing to do with the actual topic. Have you read any books on the subject of UFOs? If so, which ones?


You can't write off people that don't believe in extraterrestrial piloted UFOs as: "simply unaware that there is a body of serious literature on the subject". That's a naive assumption, especially in a world of the internet where everything is out there to read or watch. As I'm sure with most other non-believing members, I don't come here uninformed of the subject. I'm fully aware of a majority and probably most UFO claims. Obviously the major claims since the 40s. It's convenient for people like yourself to read a post and chalk it up to -well, just one more of the uninformed- while at the same time having no actual proof of extraterrestrials yourselves. If you do have proof, tell me what it is. Because before you can even make an assumption that a UFO in the sky is in fact an ET controlled craft, you need to prove the existence of those extraterrestrials first.

Why not say UFOs are piloted or connected to bigfoot? They seem to fly in remote areas at night searching for something. There have been many reports and photos of bigfoot. I'm sure there are stories somewhere of a connection. So there's all the proof you need right there. There's the catalyst for the story and therefore the "good possibility of" in the minds of the believers. That's the foundation of the "open mind" isn't it? Photos + Word of Mouth = Proof



posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 08:42 AM
link   
The problem with UFOlogy is that most people, not including this group, do not take the topic serious. When we walk into a library or bookstore we tend to find UFO books in the same section as bigfoot, chupacara, ghosts, etc. Not once have I found a UFO related book in the non-fiction section. This is because proof of little green men, proof beyond a reasonable doubt that can muster all criticism, is lackluster at best. The best we have is a good handful of credible witnesses and once in a while a worthy photo or video to analyze. The burden of proof lies on us to come up with hard physical evidence that would accepted by the masses.



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 09:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by UFOskeptic
The problem with UFOlogy is that most people, not including this group, do not take the topic serious. When we walk into a library or bookstore we tend to find UFO books in the same section as bigfoot, chupacara, ghosts, etc. Not once have I found a UFO related book in the non-fiction section. This is because proof of little green men, proof beyond a reasonable doubt that can muster all criticism, is lackluster at best. The best we have is a good handful of credible witnesses and once in a while a worthy photo or video to analyze. The burden of proof lies on us to come up with hard physical evidence that would accepted by the masses.


The problem is you instantly correlate UFO's with "little green men", when no serious researcher in the field has ever made the correlation. Yes, some have come to the conclusion of the "Extraterrestrial hypothesis", but that is simply because it is considered to be the only explanation while ruling everything else out.

And, what do you consider evidence? Seems the same people would dismiss everything short of a white house landing captured on national TV, and even then there might be claims of a media conspiracy and CGI. There are quite a number of UFO cases of solid, unknown air craft that have been spotted on military bases. Many times these craft have been spotted on radar and in some cases military jets were scrambled to intercept these UFO's such as the Belgian UFO wave, and that's just one of the many cases.



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 11:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ectoplasm8
You can't write off people that don't believe in extraterrestrial piloted UFOs as: "simply unaware that there is a body of serious literature on the subject". That's a naive assumption, especially in a world of the internet where everything is out there to read or watch. As I'm sure with most other non-believing members, I don't come here uninformed of the subject. I'm fully aware of a majority and probably most UFO claims. Obviously the major claims since the 40s. It's convenient for people like yourself to read a post and chalk it up to -well, just one more of the uninformed- while at the same time having no actual proof of extraterrestrials yourselves. If you do have proof, tell me what it is. Because before you can even make an assumption that a UFO in the sky is in fact an ET controlled craft, you need to prove the existence of those extraterrestrials first.

Why not say UFOs are piloted or connected to bigfoot? They seem to fly in remote areas at night searching for something. There have been many reports and photos of bigfoot. I'm sure there are stories somewhere of a connection. So there's all the proof you need right there. There's the catalyst for the story and therefore the "good possibility of" in the minds of the believers. That's the foundation of the "open mind" isn't it? Photos + Word of Mouth = Proof


When did I say anything about extraterrestrial craft? I'm talking about UFOs. I'm not sure what "UFO claims" you're referring to, but the only one I tend to make is that some of the people who report seeing these things - the unknowns, that is - actually do see them, and that the things they describe are there to be seen, pretty much as the witnesses describe them. That's about as far as I can comfortably go, but I think that's far enough to make things interesting.

Most of your remarks seem to be directed, not toward the ideas discussed in the serious literature, but more toward the UFO "pop culture". That's what makes me wonder whether you've taken the time to read any books by the likes of Hynek and Vallee or papers and articles by McDonald and Swords. To paraphrase Bernard Haisch (have you read him?), it's one thing to look at the evidence and come away unconvinced, it's another to not look at the evidence and be convinced against it nonetheless.

It's just that I've found several times that people who display an ignorance of the best that has been written on this topic do indeed eventually cop to never having really looked into it. Maybe I'm wrong about you on that point.
edit on 13-8-2012 by Orkojoker because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 12:36 AM
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.
edit on 26-7-2012 by Ectoplasm8 because: (no reason given)


But I do have to disagree with your notion that the ETH is ridiculous simply because "extraterrestrials have not been proven to exist". A certain subset of the unknowns are reliably reported as metallic or light-reflecting objects generally symmetrical in form and moving - or apparently maneuvering - as though they were under some kind of intelligent control. The behavior of these "objects" (if that's what they are) is repeatedly described as being unlike that of any man-made aircraft that we know of.

There are many reports from military, commercial and private pilots of encounters which follow a pattern that is repeated in one case after another. The objects are described as approaching, pacing and maneuvering impressively around the airplane before darting off at a sharp angle and disappearing rapidly into the distance. If you haven't read it yet, I recommend Aviation Safety in America: A Previously Neglected Factor by Richard Haines.

For the cases such as those described above (and lots of others virtually just like them reported by observers on the ground), the extraterrestrial idea is not such a bad guess - that is, unless you assume at the outset that the witnesses cannot have seen what they said they saw, or that the vastness of space would all but preclude the visitation of one planet by the occupants of another, regardless of the advancement of their technology or their understanding of the universe. I don't think we know enough to rule out or even meaningfully gauge the probability of others coming to our planet from elsewhere - and we certainly don't know enough to declare the idea "ridiculous".




edit on 14-8-2012 by Orkojoker because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 12:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ectoplasm8

You can't write off people that don't believe in extraterrestrial piloted UFOs as: "simply unaware that there is a body of serious literature on the subject".


No, but when a person makes statements that seem to indicate that they are unfamiliar with a topic, and if they appear to dodge my inquiries into their familiarity with the serious literature on the topic, then I can probably write them off in regard to their opinion on that material.



posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 02:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ectoplasm8


Why not say UFOs are piloted or connected to bigfoot? They seem to fly in remote areas at night searching for something. There have been many reports and photos of bigfoot. I'm sure there are stories somewhere of a connection.


Funny you should mention that...






top topics



 
8
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join