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.
The popular nomenclature was the very first thing I mentioned when I explained the problem.
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
I have a big problem with that statement.
In fact I'm a big advocate of changing the term "UFO" to "UAP" or "Unidentified aerial phenomena".
That is explained well here:
Originally posted by neoholographic
What is extraordinary evidence? Why isn't the evidence enough? Is there some scientific measure of extraordinary evidence?
Who decides what's an extraordinary claim?
You didn't read the article very carefully. It doesn't say the existence of extraterrestrials is an extraordinary claim.
Originally posted by neoholographic
The website you linked to is nonsense. ....
Saying Extraterrestrials exist may be an extraordinary claim to the person writing the article but it's not to me.
Originally posted by Tearman
Let's compare that to another belief: some UFOs are the result of extraterrestrial activity.
Why it makes sense to be skeptical about this conclusion:
a) Accumulated evidence is uneven and a lot of it is from unreliable sources. Evidence cannot be reproduced and many important details cannot be confirmed.
b) There are an abundance of alternative explanations many to do with the limitations of human perception or the consequences of human psychology.
c) If it is true then it would change EVERYTHING!edit on 25-8-2012 by Tearman because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by neoholographic
reply to post by Druscilla
We're not talking about cake mix instructions or putting together a Christmas toy.
There's not some special process and that just sounds silly. If you have read my post, you would see that I have said "based on the available evidence."
I can give you some links if you want to look over these things but I read what you posted and it doesn't make sense. You were talking about step one, step2 and so on. Like I said this isn't cake mix instructions.
It took a couple of years for me to reach this conclusion and their wasn't any special recipe or process I used to reach this conclusion.
What is your logical process to reach a conclusion of Aliens?
In other words, you have no logical process, and reach your conclusions by jumping to whatever conclusion "feels" right to you.
Originally posted by neoholographic
I was channeling through different stations and came across a story about U.F.O.'s. There was a Police Officer describing what they saw and going over what they experienced. Then the skeptics comes on and talks about "wishful thinking" and "vivid imagination."
The skeptic just gave a silly opinion based on his belief against what the Police Officer actually saw and experienced.
If you had these same Police Officers, Astronauts, Pilots and people who are respected in their community say, I was an eyewitness to Mob crimes and some of them were even abducted by the Mob. Their eyewitness testimony would be given a lot of weight and I doubt you will hear any skeptic challenging their eyewitness testimony with silly opinions.
When it comes to U.F.O.'s these well respected people all of a sudden become blathering idiots with wild imaginations.
So at the end of the day, a skeptics opinion is meaningless when weighed against eyewitness accounts from Police, Pilots, Astronauts and more.edit on 24-8-2012 by neoholographic because: (no reason given)
On a single case, what process would you follow on a single stand alone case to reach a conclusion of aliens?
These may be ideas like the idea that aliens pilot UFOs. But none of them have conclusive evidence.
Originally posted by neoholographic
What logical process does a scientist use to come to the conclusion the multiverse exist?
What logical process does a scientist use to come to the conclusion we live in a holographic universe?
Depending on what this clock shows, he may actually collect some evidence that could convince people. So, the logical process is to collect evidence, present it, and try to convince people with it.
Now he is building the most precise clock of all time to directly measure whether our reality is an illusion.
These may be ideas like the idea that aliens pilot UFOs. But none of them have conclusive evidence.
Originally posted by neoholographic
reply to post by Druscilla
You have to be blinded by your beliefs because you're determined to show I just jumped to the conclusion that extraterrestrials exist. You just can't accept that I have reached a different conclusion based on the available evidence.
You're really giving skeptics a bad name along with Phage, eriktheawful, Quaesitor and Arbitrageur.
You said:
On a single case, what process would you follow on a single stand alone case to reach a conclusion of aliens?
If you actually read what I wrote in the previous post, you would no I didn't reach the conclusion that extraterrestrials exist based on one single case hence the cookie analogy from the previous post.
It's based on the totality of the available evidence, not a single case.
I have been saying this throughout the thread. You can't see it because you're blinded by your pursuit to show that I had to jump to the conclusion that extraterrestrials exist instead of excepting the fact that I reached this conclusion based on the available evidence.
Is that too hard to understand?edit on 26-8-2012 by neoholographic because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Druscilla
Originally posted by neoholographic
reply to post by Druscilla
a single case?
there is no single case that would on it's own lead to that conclusion and on it's own cannot easily be dismissed.
thats why i believe a lot of skeptics like to single every case out as separate from any others.
the evidence points to the e.t. possibility only when you look and consider ALL the evidence.