It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Jaellma
reply to post by mbkennel
What if I told you MULTIPLE radar receivers reported the SAME results almost simultaneously in several instances, would you still feel to hold onto that theory?
And please, don't tell me they are all being spoofed.
Originally posted by K-PAX-PROT
I have always held the perception that the apparent lack of open or direct contact by any ET intelligence visiting earth has one solid foundation to build on and that this very plausible possibility has been right under our noses all along and that is one of an "OBSERVATIONAL AGENDA" with minimal or no direct open contact.First they were observed from afar, then their curiosity led them to direct observations of the worlds aviation or air craft technological capabilities , hence UFO dog fights with ET observational probe crafts, missile launch interferences ect. Makes a lot of sense WHY no open direct contact has yet manifested to date.edit on 15/07/2010 by K-PAX-PROT because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Orkojoker
Lord Martin Rees has it all wrong. It's not "kooks" that see UFOs. According to Stephen Hawking, it's "cranks and weirdos".
Originally posted by JimTSpock
The UFO thing is kind of outside the area of science because you can't really study it very well. You can't do an experiment or go out and get a UFO to bring back to the lab.
"Most scientists have never had the occasion to confront evidence concerning the UFO phenomenon. To a scientist, the main source of hard information (other than his own experiments' observations) is provided by the scientific journals. With rare exceptions, scientific journals do not publish reports of UFO observations. The decision not to publish is made by the editor acting on the advice of reviewers. This process is self-reinforcing: the apparent lack of data confirms the view that there is nothing to the UFO phenomenon, and this view (prejudice) works against the presentation of relevant data."
Peter A. Sturrock, "An Analysis of the Condon Report on the Colorado UFO Project," Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol.1, No.1, 1987
Science and the failure to investigate Unidentified Aerial Phenomena
Originally posted by JimTSpock
There are skeptics who will outright dismiss everything and say basically anything they can think of. Some of the explanations I've heard are more fantastic than some of the incidents themselves.
Originally posted by karl 12
If a person can´t use the scientific method to study the UFO phenomenon then what method are they supposed to use?
Originally posted by xpoq47
Well, when James McGaha was on Larry King Live, he cited the lighthouse for the Rendlesham Forest sightings, even though the lighthouse had a shield installed to prevent the light from shining into the forest before it first started operation and has never operated without that shield in place.
For the Phoenix Lights case, of course he attributed it to flares, even though the flare drop was an hour and a half after the event.
The better debunkers don't use those arguments, because they know they don't hold up.
Originally posted by Ectoplasm8
With far too many post here dealing with alien Moon bases or anomalies, NASA feed UFOs, UFOs around the Sun, Mars anomalies and UFOs, crop circles, YouTube UFOs, abduction stories, etc... Do you think if Lord Martin Rees or Steven Hawking came to this forum, it would change their mind as to UFO enthusiasts being kooks and weirdos? The subject can't be taken seriously because of all these strange claims and this forum is one example of that.
I think including everyone in the visual sighting of a UFO as "weirdos" is wrong, but, if you believe UFOs are here and from another world (by means of your own research, someone else's scientific research, or your own sighting), you give the possibility to every other UFO connected claim.
If you believe they are in our atmosphere, logic would say they could be abducting people, making crop circles, be on the Moon and Mars and have bases there, dissecting cows or any of the other odd claims. The entire world of the weird and kooky open up once you believe. Some could be real, some made up. How would you know if you're basing your initial UFO belief on.... a belief?
Let's say the subject is taken seriously, as with J Allen Hynek. He's someone from 30+ years ago that routinely gets quoted and is used as the scientific, intelligent argument in favor of UFOs being something other than man-made. He listens to stories, studies any video, pictures or data and comes to the conclusion that in his OPINION, UFOs can't be from earth. Does it make it any more of a fact? Of course not.
Originally posted by Orkojoker
I don't think it would change their mind. In fact, using ATS as one's primary source of information on the subject would probably lead to just such misinformed opinions as those of Lord Martin Rees and Stephen Hawking. However, the core of the subject can be taken seriously despite all of the garbage surrounding it if one makes an effort to distinguish between the various degrees of reliability of the information that is often lumped together under the heading of "UFOs".
It's not necessary to posit the extraterrestrial origin of UFOs in order to accept the likelihood of their mere existence. Nor does acceptance of the ETH as a possible explanation for some UFO reports compel one to accept every "UFO-connected" claim regardless of its reliability.
I don't think that's an accurate representation of Dr. Hynek's opinion, but you are right that one person's opinion does not change the factual status of a proposition (unless the proposition happens to be about that person's opinion). The value of Hynek's writing is not rooted primarily in his opinion of the subject but rather in his extensive involvement with UFO "witnesses" and his intelligent, articulate and informed explication of the facts related to the reports they make.