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.

 

Photos: The Greatest Evidence UFOs Don't Exist

page: 6
9
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 19 2014 @ 06:31 AM
link   
reply to post by thesearchfortruth
 


Well i say this;

With around 1 million UFO sighting reported around the world annually, (with probably millions more never reported) about 5% of these sighting are classified as 'unexplainable', with upwards of 95% reported being cases of mistaken identity of some natural event, or object (like Venus, aircraft, toys, balloons, lanterns...swamp gas..etc) and deliberate hoaxes of course.

Now, not all the 5% unexplained will be alien craft, a high % of that % will be weird or rare natural events, secret test craft and the like, but even if we say that of the original 1 million reported sightings ONLY 0.1% of them are alien craft, that works out to be 1000 ET craft seen and reported every single year.

And of those, even if a single, solitary sighting reported is actually a genuine ET craft, or 0.0001% of all sightings reported...that single sighting proves they are coming here.

And this amount are reported every year remember.

On the numbers alone, i say it is a forgone conclusion and Occam's razor applies...with the sheer amount fo sightings, the amount of reports from the days before Human 'heavier than air flight, the legends from pre-history, and the entire 'Gods and teachers from the stars religious beliefs around the world, the simple and easy explanation is that highly technological ETs are and have come to Earth, for reasons only known to them, for generations upon generations.

That's what i say.




posted on Feb, 19 2014 @ 06:35 AM
link   
reply to post by MysterX
 


I don't disagree, but we need better proof than a blurry distant camera pic of something or other.



posted on Feb, 19 2014 @ 06:45 AM
link   

MysterX
reply to post by thesearchfortruth
 


Well i say this;

With around 1 million UFO sighting reported around the world annually, (with probably millions more never reported) about 5% of these sighting are classified as 'unexplainable', with upwards of 95% reported being cases of mistaken identity of some natural event, or object (like Venus, aircraft, toys, balloons, lanterns...swamp gas..etc) and deliberate hoaxes of course.

Now, not all the 5% unexplained will be alien craft, a high % of that % will be weird or rare natural events, secret test craft and the like, but even if we say that of the original 1 million reported sightings ONLY 0.1% of them are alien craft, that works out to be 1000 ET craft seen and reported every single year.

And of those, even if a single, solitary sighting reported is actually a genuine ET craft, or 0.0001% of all sightings reported...that single sighting proves they are coming here.



That's an interesting way to arrive at "proof".

It presupposes that Aliens exist, they are intelligent, they construct advanced craft, they travel to earth, and account for a percentage of UNIDENTIFIED flying object eyewitness sightings.

It has to assume all of the above since there is as of yet no proof for any of it. None.



posted on Feb, 19 2014 @ 08:30 AM
link   
reply to post by thesearchfortruth
 


Are we talking about the absence of "good" pictures in this era of proliferation of devices capable of taking pictures or are we talking about the complete historical lack of any "good" photos of UFO's that proves they simply don't exist ?

The first requires the definition of "good" and many posts discuss this and if the second then are you saying that, for example, all of those here are hoaxes / misidentification ?

Ball lightening is generally accepted by the scientific community to exist, there are many reports of sightings - somewhat akin to UFO sightings - yet there are very few pictures available. Does that prove it doesn't exist ?



posted on Feb, 19 2014 @ 08:40 AM
link   

chunder
reply to post by thesearchfortruth
 


Are we talking about the absence of "good" pictures in this era of proliferation of devices capable of taking pictures or are we talking about the complete historical lack of any "good" photos of UFO's that proves they simply don't exist ?

The first requires the definition of "good" and many posts discuss this and if the second then are you saying that, for example, all of those here are hoaxes / misidentification ?

Ball lightening is generally accepted by the scientific community to exist, there are many reports of sightings - somewhat akin to UFO sightings - yet there are very few pictures available. Does that prove it doesn't exist ?


No its not ball lightning is not considered accepted by the scientific community. In fact alot of scientists discount it because it cannot be reproduced in a lab.The only scientific observation is well dubious and its existence was strictly based off eyewitness testimony. So ironically its in the same boat with aliens.



posted on Feb, 19 2014 @ 08:46 AM
link   

dragonridr

No its not ball lightning is not considered accepted by the scientific community. In fact alot of scientists discount it because it cannot be reproduced in a lab.The only scientific observation is well dubious and its existence was strictly based off eyewitness testimony. So ironically its in the same boat with aliens.



Actually it can.

www.livescience.com...

www.bbc.co.uk...

phys.org...

news.nationalgeographic.com...



edit on 19-2-2014 by draknoir2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2014 @ 10:10 AM
link   
reply to post by draknoir2
 


You're misapplying the concept of 'proof'. The relevant concept is that of evidence. There is a large body of evidence - even physical trace evidence - that support the existence of these craft.

Built into your concept of 'proof' is the false assumption that because you've never had direct evidence of something, that nobody else has either. Using that same reasoning, if you've never seen an airplane, then airplanes don't exist because, well, you've never seen one. We could call this the "Solipsistic Definition of Proof".

And to address the topic, thanks to the OP for posting that article. The article doesn't really say anything new or interesting, though. It's a very poor argument based on intuition that gets rehashed quite often. The entire thing amounts to a false inference.



posted on Feb, 19 2014 @ 11:17 AM
link   

Brighter
reply to post by draknoir2
 


You're misapplying the concept of 'proof'. The relevant concept is that of evidence. There is a large body of evidence - even physical trace evidence - that support the existence of these craft.

Built into your concept of 'proof' is the false assumption that because you've never had direct evidence of something, that nobody else has either. Using that same reasoning, if you've never seen an airplane, then airplanes don't exist because, well, you've never seen one. We could call this the "Solipsistic Definition of Proof".



We've traveled this path before, Bright. It leads to nowhere. Your concept of "proof" is considerably more elastic than mine. Three depressions in the ground might be considered "proof" of an alien-piloted flying saucer's landing gear by your rules, whereas I would consider it proof of three depressions in the ground.

Your analogy is also flawed. Even if I've never seen an airplane I have but to go to the nearest airport to view, touch, hear, smell, interview the crew of, and even ride on one. The difference is that they actually exist and can be proven so regardless of individual experience.

My assumption is that because neither I nor anyone else can produce direct evidence of alien-piloted craft that stands up to even moderate scientific scrutiny, no such evidence yet exists. Feel free to render this assumption false.
edit on 19-2-2014 by draknoir2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2014 @ 11:30 AM
link   
Proof? how do you prove a negative?..no good photos is only proof of no good photos.
cheers



posted on Feb, 19 2014 @ 12:44 PM
link   

draknoir2
Your concept of "proof" is considerably more elastic than mine. Three depressions in the ground might be considered "proof" of an alien-piloted flying saucer's landing gear by your rules, whereas I would consider it proof of three depressions in the ground.


Actually, I never provided a definition of "proof". I'm trying to point out how your application of the concept of proof is in error, and that the relevant concept is that of evidence. And the concept of evidence that I'm working with is far more rigorous that anything I've seen you offer.

I'd also disagree that three depressions in the ground, alone, amount to evidence of an alien-piloted flying saucer's landing gear. If I insinuated that, please provide evidence for it.

You also can't take a single fact in isolation, and then draw conclusions from it, pretending all the while that all UFO cases involve only a single piece of evidence. This is a convenient picture to paint, but it doesn't reflect reality.


draknoir2
Your analogy is also flawed. Even if I've never seen an airplane I have but to go to the nearest airport to view, touch, hear, smell, interview the crew of, and even ride on one. The difference is that they actually exist and can be proven so regardless of individual experience.


The analogy is certainly flawed to the degree that it is misunderstood and taken out of context. The point is this: Just because you yourself do not have direct experiential evidence of something, this doesn't imply that no one else has, no matter how unusual their experience may sound. The analogy makes more sense if you take it in the context of a pre-flight society, if that helps.


draknoir2
My assumption is that because neither I nor anyone else can produce direct evidence of alien-piloted craft that stands up to even moderate scientific scrutiny, no such evidence yet exists. Feel free to render this assumption false.


I'm not sure why you're assuming that no one on earth 'can' produce such evidence. I don't even know how anyone could back up such a claim. But it might certainly be that case that 'you' can't produce such evidence. But you can't safely infer from that that no such evidence exists.

I'd also point out that not all evidence is 'direct' evidence. Imagine a group of aborigines who have no concept of an airplane. One day one of them tells the others of this giant metal 'bird' flying above the forest. Of course the others laugh and ostracize him, thinking, "Well, I've never seen one, and given how unusual it sounds, it can't be true!" Now, say over the course of 30 years, 50 out of the 1,000 aborigines actually see a giant metal 'bird' flying above them. In this case, I would say that their experiences justify a belief in flying metal 'birds'. It's not direct, tactile evidence, but it's evidence nonetheless. In fact, if you look at the history of UFOs, we have more evidence for the existence of UFOs that the aborigines had for the existence of airplanes in the example.


edit on 19-2-2014 by Brighter because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2014 @ 01:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Brighter
 



You're misapplying the concept of 'proof'. The relevant concept is that of evidence. There is a large body of evidence - even physical trace evidence - that support the existence of these craft.


There is in fact a large body of evidence. Each piece of evidence taken on its own is not conclusive of alien crafts. But when you put ALL this evidence into one big pile, you can, in fact NOT say for sure alien craft were involved. And you can say that with confidence. We can also confidently speculate and come up with all kinds of fantastic stories all based on this very inconclusive giant pile of evidence.

Now, this pile of non conclusive evidence, being non conclusive and inherently ambiguous, can lead us to speculate that aliens may in fact not be responsible but that we are possibly in the midst of modern mythology woven together by false information, ambiguity and piles and piles of non conclusive data. All this then fueled by the internet makes an exciting story.



posted on Feb, 19 2014 @ 03:27 PM
link   

draknoir2

dragonridr

No its not ball lightning is not considered accepted by the scientific community. In fact alot of scientists discount it because it cannot be reproduced in a lab.The only scientific observation is well dubious and its existence was strictly based off eyewitness testimony. So ironically its in the same boat with aliens.



Actually it can.

www.livescience.com...

www.bbc.co.uk...

phys.org...

news.nationalgeographic.com...



edit on 19-2-2014 by draknoir2 because: (no reason given)


Yes and read them carefully two specifically state there not sure if there verson could be reproduced by nature. One is using plasma and the other is just vague as to what they did. alot like UFOs Oh and just so you know none of these experiments have lightening floating across the room in a ball. They reproduce a ball of energy stuck to one spot. because to control its shape takes manipulation.



posted on Feb, 19 2014 @ 03:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Brighter
 


Your right not all evidence is direct you also have indirect or circumstantial evidence.Problem is circumstantial evidence can lead you in several directions and you have to make an inference as to which you believe most plausible. In your example with aborigines they got it wrong it wasnt a bird there were people in there. So inferring that UFOs might also be people than were back to square one. See this is why you dont use circumstantial evidence as proof because it can easily be manipulated to mean anything.



posted on Feb, 19 2014 @ 03:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Brighter
 



You also can't take a single fact in isolation, and then draw conclusions from it, pretending all the while that all UFO cases involve only a single piece of evidence. This is a convenient picture to paint, but it doesn't reflect reality.


You are correct. Now if we score each piece of evidence with a zero for non confirmed alien craft and a one for positively confirmed alien craft, we come up with hundreds and hundreds of zeros and no ones. Add it up, its zero.

Now you can take all this "maybe" and "almost" data and speculate and imagine but as far as quantifying this type of data and drawing a meaningful conclusion that reflects reality, it cant been done.

Now if you take one proof positive piece of solitary evidence, you will indeed paint a picture that reflects reality but putting all your non conclusive evidence together and saying its aliens only reflects your imagination.
edit on 19-2-2014 by ZetaRediculian because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-2-2014 by ZetaRediculian because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2014 @ 04:19 PM
link   

draknoir2

MysterX
reply to post by thesearchfortruth
 


Well i say this;

With around 1 million UFO sighting reported around the world annually, (with probably millions more never reported) about 5% of these sighting are classified as 'unexplainable', with upwards of 95% reported being cases of mistaken identity of some natural event, or object (like Venus, aircraft, toys, balloons, lanterns...swamp gas..etc) and deliberate hoaxes of course.

Now, not all the 5% unexplained will be alien craft, a high % of that % will be weird or rare natural events, secret test craft and the like, but even if we say that of the original 1 million reported sightings ONLY 0.1% of them are alien craft, that works out to be 1000 ET craft seen and reported every single year.

And of those, even if a single, solitary sighting reported is actually a genuine ET craft, or 0.0001% of all sightings reported...that single sighting proves they are coming here.



That's an interesting way to arrive at "proof".

It presupposes that Aliens exist, they are intelligent, they construct advanced craft, they travel to earth, and account for a percentage of UNIDENTIFIED flying object eyewitness sightings.

It has to assume all of the above since there is as of yet no proof for any of it. None.


OK...personal proof then. It helps if you have actually seen the phenomena.

In our world MANY people have been sent to their deaths on based on MUCH less evidence than is available in the UFOlogy arena. We have and continue to exact the ultimate punishment, the greatest taboo we have as Human beings - taking a Human life, and sometimes it is all based upon significantly less evidence than is available globally and historically in support for the existence of UFO's (whatever they actually are) visting Earth.

There must come a point, a tipping point as it were, where the overwhelming volumes of evidence, both tangible and anecdotal accumulated throughout history, where even the most reasonable doubt is suspended and it becomes more reasonable to acknowledge that the phenomena is real, whatever it ultimately is, than to deny it..surely?

Your personal levels of required proof are always going to be different to the next persons level...proof is always disputed, much like evidence..one persons proof will convince many, and many others will remain to be convinced regardless.

It's the Human animal i suppose.

As i say, first hand experience is an eye and mind opener...i hope you get to experience something not too ambiguous yourself one day, and then you'll have your personal proof.

Then you'll comprehend the 'fun' of relaying your experience to people who don't share your own proof.




posted on Feb, 19 2014 @ 04:26 PM
link   
The "problem" is that until there is verifiable proof of aliens existing, "unknown" will always be higher on the list than aliens. And the extra fun catch with that one is that even if absolute proof of aliens is someday presented, if a UFO shows up the next day then the challenge becomes proving that the UFO belonged to the aliens we know about, and not something else.

I like to imagine us entering a dialog with aliens at some point and showing them a video of a real UFO and asking them to identify it. Their response: "Wow, that's really weird. Sorry, don't have a clue."



posted on Feb, 19 2014 @ 04:28 PM
link   
reply to post by MysterX
 


well said my friend you make up you're own opinion. but to say thats why does no one ever seems to catch ufos in hd videos or pictures is just a crock of s**t many have been caught on video its always discredited by the police army government or people like us. until you have you'r own close encounter you will not believe the story someone has to offer



posted on Feb, 19 2014 @ 04:42 PM
link   

MysterX

draknoir2

MysterX
reply to post by thesearchfortruth
 


Well i say this;

With around 1 million UFO sighting reported around the world annually, (with probably millions more never reported) about 5% of these sighting are classified as 'unexplainable', with upwards of 95% reported being cases of mistaken identity of some natural event, or object (like Venus, aircraft, toys, balloons, lanterns...swamp gas..etc) and deliberate hoaxes of course.

Now, not all the 5% unexplained will be alien craft, a high % of that % will be weird or rare natural events, secret test craft and the like, but even if we say that of the original 1 million reported sightings ONLY 0.1% of them are alien craft, that works out to be 1000 ET craft seen and reported every single year.

And of those, even if a single, solitary sighting reported is actually a genuine ET craft, or 0.0001% of all sightings reported...that single sighting proves they are coming here.



That's an interesting way to arrive at "proof".

It presupposes that Aliens exist, they are intelligent, they construct advanced craft, they travel to earth, and account for a percentage of UNIDENTIFIED flying object eyewitness sightings.

It has to assume all of the above since there is as of yet no proof for any of it. None.


OK...personal proof then. It helps if you have actually seen the phenomena.

In our world MANY people have been sent to their deaths on based on MUCH less evidence than is available in the UFOlogy arena. We have and continue to exact the ultimate punishment, the greatest taboo we have as Human beings - taking a Human life, and sometimes it is all based upon significantly less evidence than is available globally and historically in support for the existence of UFO's (whatever they actually are) visting Earth.

There must come a point, a tipping point as it were, where the overwhelming volumes of evidence, both tangible and anecdotal accumulated throughout history, where even the most reasonable doubt is suspended and it becomes more reasonable to acknowledge that the phenomena is real, whatever it ultimately is, than to deny it..surely?

Your personal levels of required proof are always going to be different to the next persons level...proof is always disputed, much like evidence..one persons proof will convince many, and many others will remain to be convinced regardless.

It's the Human animal i suppose.

As i say, first hand experience is an eye and mind opener...i hope you get to experience something not too ambiguous yourself one day, and then you'll have your personal proof.

Then you'll comprehend the 'fun' of relaying your experience to people who don't share your own proof.



Problem is your logic is flawed no one contests the fact people see UFOs what is in contention is there cause. Lets make a statement of fact UFOs exist people see things they can't explain that however does not mean that we can say UFOs are flown by aliens any more than in than when they claimed to see God or the virgin Mary. There is no reason to believe the
UFO alien hypothesis over any other. Thats why its called circumstantial evidence and thats why claiming it as proof is silly at best. If aliens are real and if there visiting us then we should have something we can point at that says see aliens. Yet in the entirety of our existence there isnt one piece of evidence that proves this. In science that in and of itself is enough to have a theory discarded and look for another explanation.



posted on Feb, 19 2014 @ 04:52 PM
link   

lewviathanx
reply to post by MysterX
 


well said my friend you make up you're own opinion. but to say thats why does no one ever seems to catch ufos in hd videos or pictures is just a crock of s**t many have been caught on video its always discredited by the police army government or people like us. until you have you'r own close encounter you will not believe the story someone has to offer


Again flawed logic people dont have to see something on there own to know its true. Most people never seen the great wall of china yet i bet few people doubt its existence. What makes that different well we know there is a place called China we have several people that have seen it we have evidence that it indeed was built we have photographs of it.And there is physical evidence of its existance not to mention we have historical data showing who built it and why. In the case of UFOs we dont even get a decent picture unless its CGI. There is never any physical evidence of any kind. For all we know this is a natural phenomenon we are not yet aware of. Or someone is doing this for reasons unknown like say national security thats a far more likely scenario than aliens traveling thousands of light years so a human can take a blurry picture.



posted on Feb, 19 2014 @ 04:59 PM
link   
reply to post by dragonridr
 


What constitutes proof?

Or rather, what would you be willing to accept as credible proof?




top topics



 
9
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join