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.
Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by K-PAX-PROT
And it's why we need to verify verify verify. If you don't verify every single quote, and source, and just go with "law of averages", then what's the point?
Of course it is but its not me trying my hardest to implant that all quotes ever made on observations of "high strangeness" made by credible sources are all just out of context or never existed... If we cannot check the validity of these quotes then we are left with three options , they did say it , did not or it was taken out of context
K-PAX-PROT
Were do we draw the line in verification"s at what point is it acceptable .....
Of course we need to verity but not to the point we strangles it to death or try and make out that the primary verification's are actual out of context quotes....
Were do we draw the line in verification"s at what point is it acceptable .....
Originally posted by ZetaRediculian
reply to post by K-PAX-PROT
Of course it is but its not me trying my hardest to implant that all quotes ever made on observations of "high strangeness" made by credible sources are all just out of context or never existed... If we cannot check the validity of these quotes then we are left with three options , they did say it , did not or it was taken out of context
I think the correct way to approach this would be 2 choices, Validated and not validated. Validation simply means it was verified to have actually come from the source. It also means that anyone can can examine that information as it is. Not validated doesn't mean that it never happened, it means that hasn't been validated.
This approach does not assume that any given quote is false which I think is the point you are stuck on.
The other way would be the opposite which would be all is valid until proven false which I believe is the argument and which would be incorrect by any standard.
Mass quantities of quotes only muddies the water and doesn't really mean anything statistically. Same with the level of strangeness. "High strangeness" just seems like a distracting term since it really has no meaning here.
Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by AlienView
OH my god yes, you're right. We're all paid to discredit the UFO movement by wanting to prove that people said what is claimed. Maybe you missed the post where it was shown that one of the Cosmonauts went into space for the first time AFTER he allegedly said he saw a UFO in space. But you're right, asking for proof that people said something is stupid and only done to derail and detract because you're getting too close!
well first off that is whole other question. First question is if they said that in the first place. After that its another debate. Qualified military sources, qualified neurologists, qualified statisticians and qualified whoever are all important. Of course you should make up your own mind but then why discuss it on the Internet at all? Just to say people on the Internet have worthless opinions?
Well lets say a credible sources quoted that a UFO report contained high strangeness data in it and that high strangeness data was about flight characteristics ,rates of climb,sudden accelerations,stop ect do we reject that high strangeness data , when does high strangeness data become serious enough to warrant serious attention and consideration, who is credible enough to determine when it is has meaning or not, someone on a internet forum or a qualified military source , i know which one i would be paying attention to...lol
Originally posted by ZetaRediculian
reply to post by K-PAX-PROT
Of course we need to verity but not to the point we strangles it to death or try and make out that the primary verification's are actual out of context quotes....
Were do we draw the line in verification"s at what point is it acceptable .....
Someone said something or they didn't. If what they said seems ambiguous or out of context, ask them.
Originally posted by K-PAX-PROT
Of course we need to verity but not to the point we strangles it to death or try and make out that the primary verification's are actual out of context quotes....
Were do we draw the line in verification"s at what point is it acceptable .....
Originally posted by AlienView
Increrdible; ....
And so far only one of quotes given has been fairly well disputed.
We have, indeed, been contacted-perhaps even visited-by extraterrestrial beings, and the US government, in collusion with the other national powers of the Earth, is determined to keep this information from the general public.
Victor Marchetti, former Special Assistant to the Executive Director of the CIA, in an article written by him for Second Look entitled "How the CIA Views the UFO Phenomenon Vol 1, No 7," Washington, DC, May, 1979. In any case, the Air Force has arrived to the conclusion that a certain number of anomalous phenomena has been produced within Belgian airspace. The numerous testimonies of ground observations compiled in this [SOBEPS] book, reinforced by the reports of the night of March 30-31 [1990], have led us to face the hypothesis that a certain number of unauthorized aerial activities have taken place. Until now, not a single trace of aggressiveness has been signaled; military or civilian air traffic has not been perturbed nor threatened. We can therefore advance that the presumed activities do not constitute a direct menace.;The day will come undoubtedly when the phenomenon will be observed with technological means of detection and collection that won't leave a single doubt about its origin. This should lift a part of the veil that has covered the mystery for a long time. A mystery that continues to the present. But it exists, it is real, and that in itself is an important conclusion.
-Major-General Wilfred de Brouwer, Deputy Chief, Royal Belgian Air Force, in SOBEPS' Vague d'OVNI sur la Belgique - Un Dossier Exceptionnel, Brussels: SOBEPS, 1991.
why I should question its accuracy???