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.

 

Eyewitness accounts and U.F.O.'s

page: 4
22
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 12:37 PM
link   
reply to post by luciddream
 


To legitimize the study of bigfoot and other cryptids the field of Cryptozoology was developed. Maybe it's time ufology became more specific to standardize the various categorizations various abductees, researchers, and witnesses claim to have seen. That way we can get something more specific than an unidentified flying object which could as well have human occupants.



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 12:41 PM
link   
I am glad when I see posts like this. Skeptics are in denial and probably deny their own existence. How many times does one have to hear the same stories in the same detailed manor with the type of participants in the story realize that something is going on? High ranking officials, pilots with hours of flight experience, police officers, credible witnesses with nothing to gain and everything to lose. I don't believe in a lot of things but alien visitation is one thing I believe in, only because of the vast amount of info surrounding the subject. If I was to try to convince someone (a logical person) that alien visitation exist, then I wouldn't know where to begin...

Skeptics aren't logical, they've made up their mind on what exists and what doesn't already and are sticking to it.

The ego is a hell of a drug.



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 12:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by draknoir2

Originally posted by neoholographic
reply to post by ZetaRediculian
 


This makes zero sense.


Thanks for the warning.


After reading your post I am in complete agreement.


Heh. I think I should start off all my posts like that.



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 12:48 PM
link   
reply to post by neoholographic
 





This a complete misunderstanding of the importance of eyewitness accounts. Again, these accounts mean nothing in the eyes of the skeptics but in the eyes of the world we use eyewitness accounts in all other areas of life.


It might have meaning in other areas as those areas have been verified to exist in our reality.

Murder, Theft are real and happen every second of every day to many.




We know accept U.F.O.'s as true because of eyewitness accounts. So many of these accounts have occurred over the years the existence of U.F.O.'s is now an accepted truth.



What are you talking about? UFOs or Aliens?


No one denies UFOs, its just not rational to deny that there are unidentified things.

I assume your talking about aliens/extra terrestrials if so use the correct term because no one denies that UFOs exist.



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by blackreign2012
Skeptics are in denial and probably deny their own existence.

This makes zero sense:

this is quite true. Why just today I denied my existence. I can't even really be sure anything exists. That whole "I think, therefore, I am" is just garbage! There is absolutely no evidence of thinking. None. Zero. Zilch.



edit on 10-4-2013 by ZetaRediculian because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 01:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by blackreign2012
I am glad when I see posts like this. Skeptics are in denial and probably deny their own existence. How many times does one have to hear the same stories in the same detailed manor with the type of participants in the story realize that something is going on? High ranking officials, pilots with hours of flight experience, police officers, credible witnesses with nothing to gain and everything to lose. I don't believe in a lot of things but alien visitation is one thing I believe in, only because of the vast amount of info surrounding the subject.


So you're saying the problem with skeptics is that they don't necessarily believe what they are told? And what are they called when they do believe what they are told... "sheeple"?

Can't have it both ways. Unconditional belief can't be a good thing only when it happens to be your personal belief


Originally posted by blackreign2012
If I was to try to convince someone (a logical person) that alien visitation exist, then I wouldn't know where to begin...


And that would give a logical person no good reason to believe you.


Originally posted by blackreign2012
Skeptics aren't logical, they've made up their mind on what exists and what doesn't already and are sticking to it.

The ego is a hell of a drug.


What you are describing there is an unconditional believer, not a skeptic.



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by blackreign2012
Skeptics are in denial and probably deny their own existence.


No they don't.



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by CarbonBase
I think 'eye' witness accounts are very good places, to start. I think the profession of the person who makes an eye witness account is critical in evaluating the 'object'. I have seen a U.F.O., and make no bones about it. I am not alone. I have seen things that I, a retired military person, can ONLY classify as 'U.F.O.'. It would probably benefit the human race extensively if we would just make a concerted effort to resolve the question once and for all. But yep, they are out there, and if you look long enough and close enough, your bound to see one, WHATEVER they may be !
. This is the kind of thing the AIR FORCE, in particular, SHOULD be looking into, since they are supposed to be 'defending' our air space right? Why not just get it done. it's not like we don't already have 99.9% of the Earth under continual surveillance anyway right? What are all those super secret government recon and surveillance platforms for anyway? Write your Congress-Chimp and demand to know!



With countries that exist that wish to blow each other up this will never happen.
Armed forces of each country will use this phenomena (ufos) as cover for their own operations which are to be kept secret.

Testing advanced technology for social and psychological reasons has and will only increase not decrease.



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 01:30 PM
link   
reply to post by ZetaRediculian
 


Your post really shows the dishonesty of some skeptics.

Again, we weigh the credibility of the witness all the time. One of the reasons U.F.O.'s have been accepted as a real phenomena is because of these high profile witnesses.

Ask a lawyer who he would rather have as a witness in a murder case. A drug dealer or a Police Officer? The reason is because we weigh the credibility of the witness. Humans use this thing we have called reason and logic.

Is this saying that they will be correct 100% of the time? No, but it's saying there account is given weight because of their attention to detail in high pressure situations.

Most skeptics know this and this is why they do everything to try and belittle eyewitness testimony as meaningless. They know that in a common sense world the credibility of the witness is always taken into account. In the bizzaro world of the skeptics eyewitness accounts mean nothing and the credibility of the witness means nothing. It's just a dishonest argument.

If there wasn't any eyewitness accounts from Pilot's, Police Officers, the Military and more this would be the central argument coming from skeptics. They would say:

"Why haven't any Pilots or Police Officers seen U.F.O.'s? Why hasn't no one in the Military seen a U.F.O.? These are people we trust with our lives, why haven't the aliens shown themselves to them."?

This is the argument you would here from skeptics if there wasn't any high profile eyewitnesses.

Again, you can't have an honest debate with pseudoskeptics about these things because their whole position starts from a point of dishonesty.

What they should say is yes, eyewitness accounts are useful and it's interesting that so many high profile individuals are seeing these things but that doesn't mean they're extraterrestrials. There is probably another explanation for these things.

Instead the pseudoskeptics acts like eyewitness accounts are meaningless and these people lose all objectivity when they see these things which is just nonsense. You do this because the case for the ET Hypothesis is so strong. In the last thread you didn't even know what a hypothesis was but we're supposed to listen to your opinion over a Pilot's eyewitness account?

edit on 10-4-2013 by neoholographic because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 01:59 PM
link   
reply to post by neoholographic
 





One of the reasons U.F.O.'s have been accepted as a real phenomena is because of these high profile witnesses.


It was never accepted because it was never denied, unless your talking ET not UFO.




If there wasn't any eyewitness accounts from Pilot's, Police Officers, the Military and more this would be the central argument coming from skeptics. They would say: "Why haven't any Pilots or Police Officers seen U.F.O.'s? Why hasn't no one in the Military seen a U.F.O.? These are people we trust with our lives, why haven't the aliens shown themselves to them."? This is the argument you would here from skeptics if there wasn't any high profile eyewitnesses.


No, no one with any I mean any intelligence would deny that a person can witness something they cannot identify.


Please clarify what your thread is about when somethings are witnessed in the sky,

you are constantly making up crap about skeptics denying or saying this and that, clarify your stance because no one denies UFOs exist, No one unless they do not understand what the acronym means.

What are talking about when Skeptics render eye witness testimony meaningless, are you saying when the observer says its of ET origin or just that they observed something unidentified?



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 02:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by neoholographic
reply to post by ZetaRediculian
 


Your post really shows the dishonesty of some skeptics.

How so? I am trying to have an honest discussion. Which parts do you think are dishonest? Calling someone dishonest without any backup is dishonest.



Again, we weigh the credibility of the witness all the time. One of the reasons U.F.O.'s have been accepted as a real phenomena is because of these high profile witnesses.

Sounds good but what do you do with the cases where it is proved these "high profiled" witnesses misidentified something? Do you discount that? That would be dishonest.


Ask a lawyer who he would rather have as a witness in a murder case. A drug dealer or a Police Officer? The reason is because we weigh the credibility of the witness. Humans use this thing we have called reason and logic.

Why are you implying that I wouldn't agree with that? Dishonesty maybe? I think you are projecting your dishonesty onto me for some reason,



Is this saying that they will be correct 100% of the time? No, but it's saying there account is given weight because of their attention to detail in high pressure situations.
OK, if that's the case, back it up with something. I don't believe that's the case entirely but I'm open.


Most skeptics know this and this is why they do everything to try and belittle eyewitness testimony as meaningless. They know that in a common sense world the credibility of the witness is always taken into account. In the bizzaro world of the skeptics eyewitness accounts mean nothing and the credibility of the witness means nothing. It's just a dishonest argument.
the dishonesty is generalizing a group called "skeptics". I haven't seen anyone belittle anyone except for you with comments like this. Why not show some real examples. Everyone has different opinions. I don't agree with every skeptics point of view. Suggesting that all "skeptics" think and act alike is just dishonest and is really not the case. Just have a discussion. It's not that hard.


If there wasn't any eyewitness accounts from Pilot's, Police Officers, the Military and more this would be the central argument coming from skeptics. They would say:

"Why haven't any Pilots or Police Officers seen U.F.O.'s? Why hasn't no one in the Military seen a U.F.O.? These are people we trust with our lives, why haven't the aliens shown themselves to them."?

This is the argument you would here from skeptics if there wasn't any high profile eyewitnesses
that's true but the case is that anyone can have this experience. Is it unreasonable to look at each case individually? I don't think all unknown cases are related other than being unknown.



Again, you can't have an honest debate with pseudoskeptics about these things because their whole position starts from a point of dishonesty.

This is most likely your own psychological projection. Why don't you actually try to have an honest discussion? If you disagree with a point, just say you disagree and explain why instead of accusing people of being dishonest. It's perfectly fine to have an opinion that's different than yours. I disagree with you. It's not dishonest. Get over it.


What they should say is yes, eyewitness accounts are useful and it's interesting that so many high profile individuals are seeing these things but that doesn't mean they're extraterrestrials. There is probably another explanation for these things.

No they shouldn't. They should state their own honest opinion without being accused of being dishonest.



Instead the pseudoskeptics acts like eyewitness accounts are meaningless and these people lose all objectivity when they see these things which is just nonsense. You do this because the case for the ET Hypothesis is so strong. In the last thread you didn't even know what a hypothesis was but we're supposed to listen to your opinion over a Pilot's eyewitness account?

I have know idea where you get that from. You were off on your own rant about the meaning of hypothesis and whatever. Back up what you are saying, otherwise you are just being dishonest



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 02:34 PM
link   
Just thought of a great drinking game. Every time someone uses the word "skeptic" with a negative connotation, drink.



Labels make it easy to avoid honest discourse.



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 02:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by neoholographic
The ET Hypothesis is a hypothesis that says some of these U.F.O.'s are controlled by extraterrestrials based on these facts:

Pictures, video, abduction cases, trace evidence, eyewitness accounts from Pilots, Police and more, exoplanets, microbial life in diverse places, billions of planets and stars, building blocks of life found in meteorites and comets, liquid water found outside of earth and people like Kaku, Hawking and Edgar Mitchell saying they exist.

If these things have proven some UFOs to be extraterrestrial, then specifically what other planet have any of the UFOs come from? Specifically. I'll settle for just one. Because, "they must have come from someplace other than Earth" is not really another planet. It's just a statement of possibility and ignorance. What everybody is really saying is, "We don't know where this thing came from." And that's not at all the same as "This thing came from Mars." Or wherever. Show me one proven example. It should be something like, "The flying saucer in this photo and seen on radar was proven to originate from the third planet in orbit around Epsilon Eridani because (insert proof here)."


The accumulation of eyewitness accounts have lead to the acceptance of U.F.O.'s. as a real phenomena.

Oh, the phenomenon of people having weird experiences is real. I don't disagree with that. It appears that human beings have a natural proclivity for seeing weird things, and have been doing it for thousands of years. But after all these years nobody has been able to successfully connect the dots between the phenomenon and alien critters from outer space. There is always a gap in the proof.

So all the eyewitness reporting has amounted to... what, exactly?


edit on 10-4-2013 by Blue Shift because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by neoholographic

Originally posted by Blue Shift

Originally posted by neoholographic
We wouldn't find killers in some cases without eyewitness account.

I don't know how many times I have to repeat this, but I'll do it again.

It's not the same thing. An eyewitness to a murder is looking at something we all agree exists. We know murder exists. Somebody shoots or stabs or chokes or hits somebody until they are dead. We are familiar with the mechanisms, and the activity involves human beings, which we also all agree exist. So in a court of law, where we're trying to determine who did what, and not whether or not such a thing as murder exists or whether or not a particular person exists, eyewitness testimony has potential value. Potential. People can still be truthful and wrong.

Now compare this to a person seeing a glowing flying saucer land and then little gray guys in jumpsuits come out of it, look around, get back in, and fly away, leaving no traces. Believe it or not WE DO NOT ALL AGREE that such a thing is possible. And without anything to back it up, what do I have than helps me accept the reality of it? I can still believe the person to be truthful, but not necessarily right about what they saw.

If in a court of law, an upstanding citizen and "trained observer" swore on the Bible that a winged, red-eyed Mothman swooped down and killed somebody, what would happen? Would the court issue a warrant for the Mothman's arrest? See the difference?


This makes no sense.

The point is, there's no need to try and say eyewitness accounts are meaningless when it comes to U.F.O.'s. There's no difference because in BOTH CASES eyewitness accounts are valuable evidence.

You then stoop to the usual skeptic tactics. You think bringing up Mothman or little green men helps your argument because you have no argument to begin with. I saw this with the skeptic Michael Shurmer one time. He was getting his head handed to him in a debate and he started talking about little green men because he had no argument.

Again, nothing you have said diminishes eyewitness testimony. You're making a subjective statement that because we know what murder is eyewitness accounts mean more. Again, this makes zero sense.

So eyewitness accounts lose there value when it's not a murder case lol? This would just kill exploration. We can never investigate anything that we observe in space or in our atmosphere until we first know what it is. See the catch 22 that's created by this type of thinking?

For instance, if an observation is made of something unknown, that observation is meaningless until we know what it is. First, weight has to be given to the eyewitness account in order to build hypothesis as to what the observation means.

The accumulation of eyewitness accounts from Pilots, Police Officers and more plus pictures and videos have given weight to the existence of U.F.O.'s and now Unidentified Flying Objects are an accepted truth. Again, U.F.O.'s doesn't mean extraterrestrial. U.F.O.'s mean unidentified flying objects. We know they're flying objects in our skies thanks to these eyewitness accounts. What's unidentified is the origin of these flying objects and what are these flying objects. Are they spacecraft, military craft, probes, ball lightning or some other atmospheric phenomena.

The ET Hypothesis is a hypothesis that says some of these U.F.O.'s are controlled by extraterrestrials based on these facts:

Pictures, video, abduction cases, trace evidence, eyewitness accounts from Pilots, Police and more, exoplanets, microbial life in diverse places, billions of planets and stars, building blocks of life found in meteorites and comets, liquid water found outside of earth and people like Kaku, Hawking and Edgar Mitchell saying they exist.


The accumulation of eyewitness accounts have lead to the acceptance of U.F.O.'s. as a real phenomena.


To be fair I think people are making reasonable points and perhaps missing the subtlety of each other's slightly.

In a murder case we know there has been a murder and eye witness testimony is used to find the murderer. The more the better. But we have a victim and we know they have been killed.

If a UFO is seen then what has been witnessed is unidentified. The witness testimony is not necessarily invalid but in both scenarios people can be mistaken or lie. However at a later date that UFO may well be found to be a any number of known objects even though at the time the witness did not know what they were observing.

In a murder case they know they are identifying a murder suspect (a human being). We understand what's occurred. With a UFO it remains unidentified. So we don't actually understand what the witness is observing nor whether their testimony is mistaken or fabricated.

In other words there are a lot of intangibles in a UFO sighting, even though UFOs do exist until they become IFOs.



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 02:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Blue Shift
 

I think you can be even harsher than that. Look at what is offered as proof that some UFO's are extra-terrestrial:

Pictures, video, abduction cases, trace evidence, eyewitness accounts from Pilots, Police and more, exoplanets, microbial life in diverse places, billions of planets and stars, building blocks of life found in meteorites and comets, liquid water found outside of earth and people like Kaku, Hawking and Edgar Mitchell saying they exist
Which of those is evidence of ET? Does an eyewitness know where the object originated? Does the fact that there are lots of planents show that a strange object came from one and is controlled by the intelligent life there? If Hawking says they exist, is that evidence that they do? Does a picture or video of strange object prove that it was not made on Earth? Does water on an asteroid show that an intelligent alien has launched a craft?

No, No, No, and as many more "Nos" as you want to write.

There may be ET UFO's, I don't know. But goodness, we don't have much evidence yet, do we? Maybe the government's hiding it, maybe not, but we certainly don't have it.



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 02:58 PM
link   
reply to post by ZetaRediculian
 


You said:


OK, if that's the case, back it up with something. I don't believe that's the case entirely but I'm open.


Of course it's the case. Pilots, Police officers and more are in high pressure situations that most people will never experience and if they panic and don't revert to their training people die.

I remember flying back from Vegas and we hit a horrible storm and turbulence. People were scared to death. The Pilot helped calm people down and he lifted the plane higher and said things should calm down soon and it did. The Pilot was like a Rock Star as people were leaving the plane.

My point is, their accounts are given weight because we always weigh the credibility of the witness. If there were no accounts from these high profile witnesses, the argument from skeptics would be why don't Pilots or Police Officers see these things.

You said:


the dishonesty is generalizing a group called "skeptics". I haven't seen anyone belittle anyone except for you with comments like this. Why not show some real examples. Everyone has different opinions. I don't agree with every skeptics point of view. Suggesting that all "skeptics" think and act alike is just dishonest and is really not the case. Just have a discussion. It's not that hard.


Where did I suggest ALL skeptics think the same way? Throughout my posts I have been saying things like most, some and pseudoskeptics. Where did I say ALL SKEPTICS?

You said:


that's true but the case is that anyone can have this experience. Is it unreasonable to look at each case individually? I don't think all unknown cases are related other than being unknown.


Where did I ever say you don't look at cases individually? Again, if accounts are similar we connect them because this is common sense, reason and logic. This is common sense 101. How do you think they catch serial killers? It's because the crimes have a recognizable pattern.

So again, common sense and reason connects the cases. Again, the pseudoskeptic would have us throw reason and logic out of the window and just blindly ignore similarities. That's just silly.

Finally, it's very DISHONEST. This is because these we do these things in all walks of life. When it comes to a U.F.O. discussion the pseudoskeptic throws out all logic and reason. So we don't weigh the available evidence, we don't take eyewitness accounts seriously, we don't weigh the credibility of the witness and we ignore similarities between different accounts.

WE DO ALL OF THESE THINGS IN THE REAL WORLD BUT IN THE BIZARRO WORLD OF MANY SKEPTICS THESE SIMPLE THINGS DON'T APPLY.



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 03:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Blue Shift
 


Do you know what a hypothesis is? Your whole post makes no sense in the context of science. You said:


If these things have proven some UFOs to be extraterrestrial, then specifically what other planet have any of the UFOs come from? Specifically. I'll settle for just one. Because, "they must have come from someplace other than Earth" is not really another planet. It's just a statement of possibility and ignorance. What everybody is really saying is, "We don't know where this thing came from." And that's not at all the same as "This thing came from Mars." Or wherever. Show me one proven example. It should be something like, "The flying saucer in this photo and seen on radar was proven to originate from the third planet in orbit around Epsilon Eridani because (insert proof here)."


Who said these things have proven that some U.F.O.'s are extraterrestrial. I said these facts help build the ET Hypothesis. I didn't say the hypothesis was a fact. Do you understand how science works?


hy·poth·e·sis
[hahy-poth-uh-sis, hi-] Show IPA
noun, plural hy·poth·e·ses [-seez] Show IPA .
1.
a proposition, or set of propositions, set forth as an explanation for the occurrence of some specified group of phenomena, either asserted merely as a provisional conjecture to guide investigation (working hypothesis) or accepted as highly probable in the light of established facts.
2.
a proposition assumed as a premise in an argument.
3.
the antecedent of a conditional proposition.
4.
a mere assumption or guess.


The ET Hypothesis is built on these facts:

Pictures, video, abduction cases, trace evidence, eyewitness accounts from Pilots, Police and more, exoplanets, microbial life in diverse places, billions of planets and stars, building blocks of life found in meteorites and comets, liquid water found outside of earth and people like Kaku, Hawking and Edgar Mitchell saying they exist.

It doesn't mean the hypothesis is a fact.

For instance in science we study parallel universes, the holographic principle, Hawking Radiation, String Theory, the Higgs before the LHC and these things are not proven.

So again, you can only ask these questions if you have no clue as to how science works or how you build a hypothesis.



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by neoholographic
So again, you can only ask these questions if you have no clue as to how science works or how you build a hypothesis.

I'm just glad to see you admit that all of those things you mentioned in no way prove a single thing about UFOs, but only suggest to some people possible albeit extremely vague and non-specific "theories," including that they could possibly maybe originate from planets other than Earth. So thanks to eyewitness reports, we're essentially at the same point we were in 1947 when some farmer saw a flying saucer and offered his theory that they were probably Moon Men.

Eyewitness reports sure are valuable!



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 04:14 PM
link   
That is right, they are valuable. Everything in this entire world of human doing is done under eyewitness. Unless you are blind of course.



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 04:22 PM
link   
The problem is that the real secrets of the universe cannot be explained by "science" as it is a laggard indicator. UFOs do exist, but not necessarily in this world, I've met them in the 4th dimension. Try some '___' and you shall see, it answers many questions science cannot.



new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join