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.

 

Justa thought...

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 13 2004 @ 09:22 PM
link   
When you were a kid, did you really believe in Santa Clause? Well, yes of course you did, you believed it because you heard it from someone in athority, someone who you depended on for your information. Now think about that for a minute, you believed them because you were told that that was the truth. Now apply the self same principle to Ufology or any other 'conspiracy theory' you have a hard time buying into. Like the lunar bases for example, you believe that there is no base on the moon, but why? Because some one you place in a position of athority has told you they don't exsist. You take their word for it becuase you have no evidence to the contrary, and that is what we call a closed mind. As ridiculous as some theories might seem to you, I assure they are no more ridiculous than a fat elf flying around the world and giving toys away. The word conspiracy is what intelligence training teaches as a "stop word", in other words, when the average person hears the word conspiracy, UFO, or alien for example, they immediately stop truly listening to the data presented. Don't let anybody do your thinking for you, man kind has come to far to stop now... Just a thought.




posted on Nov, 13 2004 @ 09:30 PM
link   
Excellent post

Hopefully this will open some peoples minds to what could truely be happening out there.




posted on Nov, 13 2004 @ 09:33 PM
link   
No Santa???


I keep eyes on the skies wondering when i will witness what so many others have seen. We are not alone. I have to keep these thoughts to myself, God forbid if i tell my husband or relatives i believe! They'd put me in the looney ward for sure. I feel sorry for them
How can anyone not be able to think there's anything beyond our immediate neighborhood?
I love them all but cant help wondering why i am so different, and why while i care about the universe and its possible inhabitants, so many could care less.



posted on Nov, 13 2004 @ 09:33 PM
link   
I agree with you.

Parallels my own words in the "Star Trek Type Craft" thread somewhere on this page.


X



posted on Nov, 13 2004 @ 09:42 PM
link   
It somehow reminds me of the Milgram experiment, for those of you who took any Psychology courses you will know what I'm talking about.
designweb.otago.ac.nz...



posted on Nov, 13 2004 @ 09:53 PM
link   
It scares me to see so many people around me that don't question things presented to them. I know people who believe 110% of what they hear on the radio, see on TV, and read in the newspapers, just because they are sources of authority. In my opinion, that is very dangerous.
History shows that those who abuse posistions of power and authority always depended on people doing what they always do (get dumb) when they are lumped into a crowd (herd???).
Just like a herd of sheep, if the rancher steers the herd toward a cliff, and just one of them jumps, the whole dumb herd will follow. Because someone of authority brought them there (so it must be safe) and because on of the herd made the leap (he/she must know something the rest don't).
Maybe its a control thing, I mean questioning everything. If I question everything, does it mean I have a control problem?



posted on Nov, 13 2004 @ 09:54 PM
link   
Isn't Santa's summer home a lunar base?

Seriously though...

You have multiple types of people.

Some trully believe everything without a hint of original thought. They are basically human robots. They are programmed by outside influences and live their life according to those programs. If there was something inside it is probably dead. Trying to change those programs of the unwilling is a free-will breach. Not only that it usually causes the entity to cling to those programs even more. So in effect you have assisted in building the wall thicker.

Then you have those that feel they have a vested interest in keeping the status quo. The best tool for these types is fear. And the underlining fear of fears is death. There's also fear of retribution for sins and a host of others. But these people have some sense of life whereas the first group does not. This sense of life is what this group clings to. They willfully accept programs that keep them feeling safe. Depending on how many years they live in fear they could begin to trully believe their fear is keeping them safe and they slowly die and fall into the category above. They are also short sighted and cannot or are unwilling to see beyond their own life and what directly interacts with it. (War in Iraq doesn't directly harm them as far as they can tell so they keep silent)

Then you have those that are more awake but lack much greater knowledge. They usually run on emotions which are quite pronounced whereas the logic is usually a bit distorted or unevolved. They think they can change the system from within the system. This group benefits from simple logic. It helps to balance the emotional. Fear still plays a part with this group.

Then there are the predominately logical of the semi-awake. They can see things clearer than the emotionally driven but still fail to see the entire picture. However, being without much emotion they are much better at picking their battles thus conserving precious energy.

Of course, there are levels and other more specialized groups.

ATS is interesting and a challenge since it seems to have some from all levels and types. I guess what I'm saying is that some groups are best handled differently than others. There seems to be all levels of human mental evolution and accepting these levels is difficult but ultimately rewarding. And we must remember that we too were at a different level and still possess that piece of us that thought this way or that. Some of us are just more willing to let things go when they fly in the face of logic (especially if they do it with a sliegh).



posted on Nov, 13 2004 @ 10:40 PM
link   
and well said. You are right people are sheep but many are waking up.
People are so busy in there lives what they need to do is slow down a bit and observe.



posted on Nov, 14 2004 @ 08:39 PM
link   
I think some of the old sayings are golden,
Like listen to your elders. As a kid, I was sick of hearing it.
Pushing 40 now and I wish some of my elders were here now, even though I know what they would say ( I told you so ! ) but thats ok.

Or stop and smell the roses. If you are always in a hurry, you will miss too much (maybe something very important!)

Never judge a book by it's cover... (self explanitory)
and so many others.
No body ever got ahead in life (or anywhere else) by letting someone do the thinking for you.
Other people can't breath for you, why let them think for you.



posted on Nov, 14 2004 @ 09:17 PM
link   
like you woke up and smelled the coffee.



posted on Nov, 15 2004 @ 06:49 AM
link   
more like had it poured in my lap!



posted on Nov, 16 2004 @ 01:35 PM
link   
Twitchy says:

"... Like the lunar bases for example, you believe that there is no base on the moon, but why? Because some one you place in a position of athority has told you they don't exsist."

No. I believe they don't exist because I have no evidence that they do.

"...you have no evidence to the contrary, and that is what we call a closed mind."

Wrong. A closed mind is a mind that insists on believing in XYZ regardless of the evidence for or against it.

"As ridiculous as some theories might seem to you, I assure they are no more ridiculous than a fat elf flying around the world and giving toys away."

Exactly. I do not believe in a fat elf -- or alien spaceships for that matter -- flying around the world, or secret underground bases full of "greys", or persistent aircraft contrails being some sort of Secret Spray Plot for the same reason: there is no evidence for them.

I am willing to believe they do exist if you can provide me with real evidence, because I have an open mind.

Are you willing to believe that they don't until someone can prove to you that they do -- or do you believe in these things regardless of any evidence?

If so, than you -- not I -- are the one with the closed mind.



posted on Nov, 16 2004 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Wrong. A closed mind is a mind that insists on believing in XYZ regardless of the evidence for or against it.


Wrong, a closed mind is a mind that is intolerant to new ways of thinking, and lacks breadth of view. As Twitchy said, most people have a slide response to such concepts such as conspiracy, aliens and ghosts, and terminate all thinking on the matter, regardless of the evidence you produce. That is being closed minded.

By your definition, anyone who believes in God, is a closed-mind, and that is blatantly incorrect.


Exactly. I do not believe in a fat elf -- or alien spaceships for that matter -- flying around the world, or secret underground bases full of "greys", or persistent aircraft contrails being some sort of Secret Spray Plot for the same reason: there is no evidence for them.


There is evidence for them. There is just no proof, as far as you are concerned.


I am willing to believe they do exist if you can provide me with real evidence, because I have an open mind.


Really? Let's test how open-minded you are:

www.ufocasebook.com...



A further question I would like to ask you, are you open-minded enough to believe that the government would cover-up the existence of aliens?



posted on Nov, 16 2004 @ 08:15 PM
link   
Indigo Child, I am not going to engage in a urinary Olympiad with you. If you want to believe that a person who demands evidence before believing in something is "close minded", so be it.

But real science is full of exactly those kind of "close-minded" people who will not buy into ideas, especially silly ones, withoug some sort of backing. Perhaps you also buy into George Bush's tales about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq; I don't know.

But you asked me, despite my "lack of breadth of view", to "test how open minded I am"

Well, Indigo Child, I don't mind if I do.

I went to your "Battle of Los Angeles" and read it carefully (I need to do that, of course, because of my "lack of breadth of view", you know). Here is what I found.

(1) Despite all the talk of "Eyewitness reports", the article never once gave any citations or even links to support what they said.

How convenient.

(2) After downloading the newspaper into Photoshop, applying an Unsharp Mask filter and tweaking the brightness and contrast curves until I was blue in the face, I couldn't read a single one of the words under the headline. For all I (or you, Indigo Child) know, the actual article may have been about a raid in Oregon or the Philippines. Too bad we couldn't actually read the article, right?

How convenient.

(3) Take a look at the picture below, Indigo Child:





Does it look familiar?

You can find that same picture at www.awm.gov.au... , where the tag line is "A night bombing raid on the German city of Bremen. A British bomber has been caught in the searchlight cone and heavy anti-aircraft fire is converging on the aircraft"

Go ahead and check it out, Indigo Child. I'll wait.

Notice how, when the people who did the "Battle of Los Angeles" Photoshopped their baseline picture (which could've been exactly the one above -- if you apply a 75% lateral widening and re-size it -- or one of a hundred other pictures like it), they showed that not only are they dishonest, but they're also pretty poor at doing basic digital manipulation.

Do you see that fake "tree" in the lower right of the phony "UFO" photo photo?

Do you notice how its "trunk" is in front of the fake "hill" that they Photoshopped in?

And do you notice how the light is at the top of -- or even behind -- the "hill"?

And yet, the fakery shows the beam from the searchlight as being in front of the "tree".

This is your "evidence", Indigo Child.

This is the stuff that you base your belief upon.

Fraudulent articles, fraudulent photos, and fraudulent people.

Indigo child, why didn't you look at this hoax? Really look at it?

Are you going to still -- after seing the fakery -- persist in your assertions that it's all true?

Lack of "breadth of view".

"Close-minded".

Right.


[edit on 16-11-2004 by Off_The_Street]



posted on Nov, 16 2004 @ 08:22 PM
link   
You are aware that the only reason most people believe in UFO's are because somebody else told them they are real, right? The knife cuts both ways and cancels out.



posted on Nov, 16 2004 @ 10:06 PM
link   
This is why I love this place. It's a gathering spot for people with very open minds. And while most of us have no choice but to keep our beliefs to ourself out of fear of what kind of place our families may decide to have us admitted to.
Always keep an open mind, never let anyone tell you theres no such thing....come here, read, and decide with your own mind.
Very very glad to have come across such a wonderfull home on the web.
While everywhere else in my life I am made feel different if I should bring up such subjects..here I am @ home.
Thank you all



posted on Nov, 17 2004 @ 05:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Off_The_Street
Indigo Child, I am not going to engage in a urinary Olympiad with you. If you want to believe that a person who demands evidence before believing in something is "close minded", so be it.


I should think you shouldn't, as the definition I gave you is an offical one
Nope, you still don't get it, "close mindedness" is about being intolerant to new ways of thinking and lacking breadth of view. I said nothing about "evidence" what you mean when you say "evidence" is an authority telling you they are "real" which is what Twitchy surmised in his origial post on your breed of "investigators"


But real science is full of exactly those kind of "close-minded" people who will not buy into ideas, especially silly ones, withoug some sort of backing. Perhaps you also buy into George Bush's tales about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq; I don't know.


There are various forms of investigative analysis for various phenomena. There is no form of scientifc analysis that can prove or disprove a witness testimony, or that a radar-visual sighting is indeed an ETV.
So the very demand of scientific evidence as the only acceptable evidence for the exist of ET is irrational.

It is already allowed by the scientific ET hypothesis, that the existence of ET in sheer probabalistic terms is inevitable. Therefore in any logical analysis of data of UFO's the ET hypothesis can be called upon, as we are dealing with the unobservable universe.


I went to your "Battle of Los Angeles" and read it carefully (I need to do that, of course, because of my "lack of breadth of view", you know). Here is what I found.


Well, here is how open minded, or rather close minded you are. You are not open minded enough to recognise the fact that it would be extremely difficult to obtain "links" of an 60+ year old article.


(1) Despite all the talk of "Eyewitness reports", the article never once gave any citations or even links to support what they said.


There is a citation by an air traffic warden

How convenient.


(2) After downloading the newspaper into Photoshop, applying an Unsharp Mask filter and tweaking the brightness and contrast curves until I was blue in the face, I couldn't read a single one of the words under the headline. For all I (or you, Indigo Child) know, the actual article may have been about a raid in Oregon or the Philippines. Too bad we couldn't actually read the article, right?[

How convenient.


So let me get this right, you downloaded the original photograph and newspapers, then manipulated it until it was distorted, to prove that it must have been a fake in your opinion.

Here is something for open mindedness, if we(ufo proponents) did that to an original photograph, and then concluded it was genuine, you would accuse us of digital manipulation and discard it. So are you open minded enough to accept my rejection of your "debunking" attempt?

I am hardly surprised that you are trying to pass this off as a hoax. If the event is extraordinary, then it must mean one thing, it did not happen. Very open minded, right?


Does it look familiar?


Actually, no it doesn't.


Notice how, when the people who did the "Battle of Los Angeles" Photoshopped their baseline picture (which could've been exactly the one above -- if you apply a 75% lateral widening and re-size it -- or one of a hundred other pictures like it), they showed that not only are they dishonest, but they're also pretty poor at doing basic digital manipulation.

Do you see that fake "tree" in the lower right of the phony "UFO" photo photo?

Do you notice how its "trunk" is in front of the fake "hill" that they Photoshopped in?

And do you notice how the light is at the top of -- or even behind -- the "hill"?

And yet, the fakery shows the beam from the searchlight as being in front of the "tree".

This is your "evidence", Indigo Child.


Remarkable display of your "open mindedness" So tell me how scientific and objective was your amatuer photographic analysis? You know I know of some amatuer photographic analysers, who have "proven" the moon landing was a hoax.

Are you open minded enough to accept your subjective analysis is wrong?


This is the stuff that you base your belief upon.

Fraudulent articles, fraudulent photos, and fraudulent people.

Indigo child, why didn't you look at this hoax? Really look at it?

Are you going to still -- after seing the fakery -- persist in your assertions that it's all true?

Lack of "breadth of view".

"Close-minded".

Right.


You are already convinced it was a hoax. Yet you claim to be open minded
So how much scientific evidence did you need to arrive at this conclusion?

To consult the original definition of close mindedness "lack of breadth of view" and "intolerance to new ways of thinking" and now let's see if this definition applies to you:

1. You begin with the hypothesis that the photograph is a hoax
2. You open the photograph in photoshop, manipulate it, apply a range of filters, and then analyse the distorted product.
3. Then you come up with a theory that certain elements in the distorted products are unnatural, but instead of testing this, you conclude without a shadow of doubt, that your original hypothesis was right

Yep, I think the definition of "close minded" applies to you. All this time, you could not even think of researching backdated papers, because you were convinced it was a hoax. So how about applying the "lateral widening" filter to your own thinking
You and open minded? That's a good one.

[edit on 17-11-2004 by Indigo_Child]



posted on Nov, 17 2004 @ 07:20 AM
link   
Indigo Child, if you really want to -- and somehow need to -- believe is such nonsense without any rational evidence to back your feelings up, you certainly have the right to do so.

After all, you're safe in here.



posted on Nov, 17 2004 @ 07:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Off_The_Street
Indigo Child, if you really want to -- and somehow need to -- believe is such nonsense without any rational evidence to back your feelings up, you certainly have the right to do so.

After all, you're safe in here.


Actually, I believe in it due to the evidence, and existence of aliens is far from nonsense, unless you think science is nonsense now. Are you open minded enough, now, to admit you were wrong about being open minded

Put your tail between your legs and run mate - ah, you already did.




top topics



 
0

log in

join