Anyone who thinks UFOs don't exist read this!!!

reply to post by JimTSpock


Study hypnotism.

It's feasible with this, no doubts.

Originally posted by PhoenixOD
reply to post by Komodo

 

I notice a lot in the UFO field that whenever people working for the military / government or have left the military / government say there are no visiting aliens everybody distrusts them because "they are military / government".

But if people working for the military / government or have left the military / government say there ARE visiting aliens then the same people say they are trustworthy because of their military / government background !!!

edit on 21-8-2012 by PhoenixOD because: (no reason given)

yup. same things happen with NASA. if someone is currently working for NASA and they make a certain claim (usually a differing opinion) they are shills and liars and so on. if they are former NASA and make a certain claim (usually a same opinion) they are to be trusted and respected.

funny how that is.....

As for Colares, here's the investigating officer's conclusion:

"But captain, do you still not believe?" I answered that I wasn't, that we needed more tests to believe that those things were flying disks. I had not seen any ship at that time. Only light, many and varied. I was still not
satisfied.

This could easily have been a sniper with a strange gun and a couple of '___' bombs!! Fascinating, again, I'd loved to believe it, but there's no proof and even the guy bringing the story to us doesn't believe it!

reply to post by Komodo

because the list of ex high ranking officers in the military WERE in fact on the research team, which lends weight to the doc itself without question.

Everyone, including military personnel, is entitled to their opinion. Even Edgar Mitchell. Even Jimmy Carter.

that's like saying the Apollo Astronauts don't have any knowledge of space flight now because they aren't in NASA

No it isn't. Do the military members of the team add anything other than their opinions to the report? Any first hand information? If so I must have missed it. Can you point it out?

Originally posted by JimTSpock
An interesting point is that just say you have 2 or more people who have never met or communicated with each other in any way who describe the same incident exactly. Then it must be true. What other conclusion can there be? Mass hallucination? How is that even possible.

If two people who never met before describe the same unexplainable event you just have an unexplainable event. Anything else is an assumption or leap of faith.

Also more than one person can be mistaken at a time. Ive seen magicians fool audiences of 100's people, each one of these people have essentially 'got it wrong' and when they talk of what they have seen they are not telling what really happened, only what they think happened.

reply to post by smurfy

It was also certainly a document for the French government, since it was sent to them.

That's like saying if I write an article for a magazine and send it to the White House its "for the government".
Please read the linked article in this post. Sending it to Chirac was a publicity stunt.

reply to post by greeneyedleo


You know what? You're right! Any politician says anything they must be lying. Who can you trust? No one. Just like that show with the files.

In my opinion this is a credible serious report and tries to tell it like it is. The incidents cited and investigated are extremely compelling and really I don't see any arguments against them. It was the planet Venus, it was a lighthouse. This stuff is real and there's no way around it.

reply to post by JimTSpock

Often it is Venus. We see people here on ATS calling Venus a UFO quite often. Lighthouse? I suppose you're talking about Rendlesham. Could be but that whole episode is pretty dodgy.

But you're missing the point. It is nothing but opinion that really puzzling cases are of extraterrestrial origins. And everyone is entitled to their opinion.

There is no evidence for visiting Alien craft.......................NONE.

reply to post by Phage


I agree with you there. But I believe there are a large number of well documented and investigated incidents which the evidence collected is extremely compelling.
Do you believe you've seen credible evidence of intelligently controlled craft with capabilities far beyond our technology?
I have to say I have.

I don't get why some are pointing out they are NOT alien, regardless of what they are the fact is the phenomenon is real and at least 5% of cases cannot be explained or dismissed as something earthly we are aware of.

It warrants further study and people should stop calling other people crazy because they saw a u.f.o (not saying anyone here is i mean in general day to day life).

numerous people have witnessed them (i mean the 90 degree angle turners at speed, not just a light in the sky).
remember that just because you have not seen them does not mean everybody else are making it up or are delusional or a faker.

Originally posted by lifeform11
I don't get why some are pointing out they are NOT alien, regardless of what they are the fact is the phenomenon is real and at least 5% of cases cannot be explained or dismissed as something earthly we are aware of.

It warrants further study and people should stop calling other people crazy because they saw a u.f.o (not saying anyone here is i mean in general day to day life).

numerous people have witnessed them (i mean the 90 degree angle turners at speed, not just a light in the sky).
remember that just because you have not seen them does not mean everybody else are making it up or are delusional or a faker.

I agree with you 100%, personally. Regardless of anyone's personal bias or prejudice, there is AMPLE evidence to suggest highly credible people of sound mind are seeing and experiencing strange things. I merely point out that it is hasty to conclude the UFO phenomenon can instantly be explained by beings from another planet, because, well.... it cant.

But I agree with you completely. People need to take the subject more seriously. While I myself have never seen one, Someone very close to me (whom I have no doubt is of sound mind, and not prone to fabricate facts at all...in fact he is a skeptic) saw a UFO quite clearly (even looked at it through binoculars as it hovered, and saw "port holes" and everything). He was on a ship, in port when the sighting occurred, and everyone who was on deck with him at the time, saw it.

So believe me when I say that I believe SOME of these reports, and I have no doubt that the 5% of cases which are potentially genuine, are unusual and worthy of further study. Where I disagree is that we should brand them "extra terrestrials" without giving further thought to other explanations. We should consider ALL possible explanations.

reply to post by rigel4



In a court of law the case would be proven beyond reasonable doubt 10 times over. People are sent to the death penalty on less evidence.

reply to post by JimTSpock

People are sent to the death penalty on less evidence.

Yes. Wrongfully so. Very sad but true.
That's why eyewitness testimony is not really relied upon in capital trials if it can be avoided.

Originally posted by JimTSpock
reply to post by rigel4

 

In a court of law the case would be proven beyond reasonable doubt 10 times over. People are sent to the death penalty on less evidence.

Ah. Criminal Law. My favorite topic
Fact is, witness testimony is factually the least reliable piece of evidence in all cases....and it is hard to win a case on witness testimony alone...now days.

And death penalty cases are being overturned thanks to the Innocence Project....you know why? Because witness testimony SUCKS...and well now we have the science to prove so

Originally posted by greeneyedleo

Originally posted by JimTSpock
reply to post by rigel4

 

In a court of law the case would be proven beyond reasonable doubt 10 times over. People are sent to the death penalty on less evidence.

Ah. Criminal Law. My favorite topic

Fact is, witness testimony is factually the least reliable piece of evidence in all cases....and it is hard to win a case on witness testimony alone...now days.

And death penalty cases are being overturned thanks to the Innocence Project....you know why? Because witness testimony SUCKS...and well now we have the science to prove so

edit on August 21st 2012 by greeneyedleo because: (no reason given)

While true, this does not render eye witness testimony useless. To even begin an investigation with such a premise would mean 60% or more of murder cases would never go to trial due to lack of evidence.

All investigations start with eye witness testimony. While it may not be the nail in the coffin in a court of law (but often is), one cannot investigate anything if one assumes everyone is delusional or lying.

A weak premise, imo.

For instance:

Let's assume that 30 people all see a defendant shoot a victim in broad daylight. None of the witnesses are connected personally, and further investigation reveals none of them have any relationship to the shooter or the victim. Let's also assume that the murder weapon is not found (as the shooter made his or her escape and effectively disposed of the evidence and the body, as the shooting occurred in a car).

The victims body is found later, but forensic evidence is unable to tie the shooter to the victim, despite 30 people witnessing the shooter and identifying him as shooting the victim.

By your logic, the shooter should be acquitted...

reply to post by greeneyedleo


Multiple highly credible witnesses good. One crack hoe not so good.

reply to post by JimTSpock

Multiple highly credible witnesses good.

Not really.

If the multiple eyewitnesses hadn't got nearly every detail about the killers wrong, the police might have caught them sooner and lives might have been saved.

news.discovery.com...

But are you talking about multiple eyewitness to a single incident or single witnesses to different incidents?

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by JimTSpock

 

Multiple highly credible witnesses good.

Not really.

If the multiple eyewitnesses hadn't got nearly every detail about the killers wrong, the police might have caught them sooner and lives might have been saved.

news.discovery.com...

But are you talking about multiple eyewitness to a single incident or single witnesses to different incidents?

edit on 8/21/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)

Case closed! *gavel*

I guess we should never investigate anything, ever, because eyewitness testimony can't be trusted! Thanks for clearing that up, phage.

Next time we have a murder in my city, I'll be sure to contact the police and tell them they can't trust eye witness testimony and shouldn't follow up on any leads

I'm sorry but that is a seriously weak argument.