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.
unb3k44n7
Because maybe there's not "hundreds of thousands" of 'actual' sightings.
As for the 'actual' sightings It's likely many people are unprepared and do not think; They freeze up/and or before they realize to take a picture It's over.
Also, no, not everybody has a camera at hand during their sighting.
There's nothing that can prepare you for a sighting.
I enjoy you calling the reasons for lack of photos excuses.
Let me know when you have a sighting, and if you have a high tech camera (other than a cell phone) on you and actually remember to use it.
Your thread has no basis.
edit on 2/17/2014 by unb3k44n7 because: (no reason given)
uncommitted
HomerinNC
I think alot of the issue is this:
The reason people have alot of pics/video of police shootings, etc because they are at EYE LEVEL, everyone is looking AHEAD of them, not many people are walking around looking UP
Homerinc, do you really believe what you have just posted, even for a moment? If you look ahead of yourself you see your horizon (up, down, ahead), if you are in a city I appreciate that may be blocked, but what proportion of people on earth that accounts for? Do you think if everyone even in a very blocked city suddenly looked up they would see things they could not explain or identify?
Sorry, but that really is quite limp. I've seen it on here before but never thought anyone took it seriously.
Unity_99
[
On earth there are millions of sightings.
And the seconds to minute it last sure isn't wasted by most running into the house to find the camera. Better to see it than do that. Since many wait a lifetime to see one.
If you do get a photo, its just going to look like an orb in the sky, even a plane photo at that height at night would. They don't give you the nice low down ones in the day time and then come out for interviews.
Alot of the photos of ufo's, ARE PHOTO'S OF UFO's.
Saying it could be something else, from hundreds or thousands of miles away in an easy chair doesn't make it so. Its not debunked.
Ok, you don't believe in UFO's. You are visiting the wrong website, bye.
maxzen2004
reply to post by thesearchfortruth
We must respect everyones beliefs, regardless how much it bothers others.
ZetaRediculian
reply to post by Brighter
That's tempting to do, but would simply be begging the question. Dr. Strassman's subjects also experienced visions of humans while under the influence that hallucinogen. Are you going to take that as evidence for the non-existence of humans? Or were you suggesting that all 62 children were tripping on a potent hallucinogen at the same time? Not exactly sure where you're trying to go here...
let me be very clear. The only argument you have is more of the same garbage. your argument is 100% straw man and not really worth responding to in any intelligent way.
yeah, all the kids were tripping. Idiot.
how many straw man argument can you produce? So far I think all the astronauts are crazy and now kids that see and recall something are tripping. Please go on with your fantastic ability to argue like a retard.edit on 21-2-2014 by ZetaRediculian because: (no reason given)
ZetaRediculian
Awesome. Then we should discuss the similarities between the "entities" that are seen while under the influence of hallucinogens and Mack's "entities". Dr Rick Strausman is also notable.
ZetaRediculian
great. Produce the actual witness reports.
ZetaRediculian
so apparently you give a lot of value to this case for some reason without really understanding much about anything related to human psychology.
ZetaRediculian
So if I produce 50 Harvard psychiatrists that disagree with the way this was investigated, do you throw that out?
ZetaRediculian
honestly, this is a pretty poor case.
draknoir2
reply to post by Brighter
Ironic that you've authored [and linked in your sig] three threads, all dedicated to a skill you apparently lack.edit on 21-2-2014 by draknoir2 because: (no reason given)
ZetaRediculian
draknoir2
reply to post by Brighter
Ironic that you've authored [and linked in your sig] three threads, all dedicated to a skill you apparently lack.edit on 21-2-2014 by draknoir2 because: (no reason given)
yeah the best one was about how the moronic skeptics resort to name calling. There is a serious lack of ability to reason and I have lost my ability to take it seriously.
ZetaRediculian
Wouldn't you expect 62 different accounts or are the handpicked 3 or 4 drawings that look like aliens good enough? What about the other drawings that look like some dude in sunglasses and long hair?
ZetaRediculian
The video which was heavily edited
ZetaRediculian
Dr Mack also concluded that abductions were not physical events but only that they could not be explained by current models.
Brighter
ZetaRediculian
Wouldn't you expect 62 different accounts or are the handpicked 3 or 4 drawings that look like aliens good enough? What about the other drawings that look like some dude in sunglasses and long hair?
What about it? What about the pictures and verbal accounts of disc-shaped craft and small beings with large black eyes?
The fact that not all of the drawings are identical is of course natural. If you go to a soccer match with 50,000 people in the stadium, and ask each one of them to fill out a questionairre at the end of the match to describe what they just saw, and you get 50,000 different responses back, is that evidence that a soccer match never occurred?
All drawings are interpretations. If n witness are asked to draw a picture of what they perceive in an event, you're going to get n different pictures. Is the fact that all of their drawings are slightly different a good argument for the fact that the event didn't take place along the general contours that the aggregate verbal and pictoral accounts imply? Of course not.
This is especially the case regarding perceived events that fall outside the course of normal day-to-day activity, where the concepts are lacking to properly understand the event. An individual will attempt to use any preexisting concepts in their repertoire to help them understand it.
In fact, the "dude in sunglasses" picture retains similarities to the other drawings that the children made. It's one child's interpretation of the large black eyes that the other children reported.
If you were trying to make a specific point about that one drawing, and how it fits into the overall case, could you lay that out in detail?
ZetaRediculian
The video which was heavily edited
An edited documentary. How unusual.
But I see what you're trying to do here.
Do you have any evidence that the creators of the documentary are conspiring to hide significant, pertinent information, or any information whatsoever, regarding this case? Any evidence that the creators of the documentary are leaving out relevant case information that would significantly alter the overall picture that they decided to present in the final version? Could you present this evidence if you do in fact have it?
ZetaRediculian
Dr Mack also concluded that abductions were not physical events but only that they could not be explained by current models.
You're telling half the story, conveniently leaving out the most relevant information. Dr. Mack didn't make the overly simplistic mistake of assuming that "not physical" implies "not real". He was deeply skeptical of the materialist model and held that it's quite possible that the content of certain transcendent experiences were quite real indeed. The problem is that it's difficult for the average person to wrap their head around this model, as it forces one to unseat their world view that's solely informed by two concepts - physical and imaginary - and to include an additional category, which is neither physical nor imaginary, yet retaining a degree of reality apart from both, and may well represent an objective reality, just not in the sense of physical consensus reality, although its manifestations can exhibit a similar flavor of objectivity found in purely physical events. Was that what you were trying to say?
Explain exactly what you meant by this. Present an actual argument.
As I said, many of them are freely available online. You seem to have very strong opinions, yet lack even the most basic research skills. I wonder how reliable those opinions are?
Do you think John Mack, who had an M.D. from Harvard in psychiatry and was a highly distinguished Professor of Psychiatry at Harvard, lacked a knowledge of psychology?
And for the record, you've not once demonstrated an even basic understanding of psychology, which appears to be the result of an "Internet" education. The little that you do demonstrate is consistently misapplied and demonstrates significant lack of insight.
Produce your 50 Harvard psychiatrists who have studied this case in a responsible manner, then we'll talk. Or are we just making things up again?
Hahahaha! Unbelievable. You mean the poor case that you've clearly never even studied? I believe we've reached a new low
Actually, it's exceedingly obvious that neither of you are willing (or capable?) of presenting a rational argument. I do however perceive frequent uses of ad hominem attacks, lack of basic research skills, false inferences, and red herrings. Anyone can look at our respective post histories and acknowledge this, and I'd strongly encourage them to do so.
How many of your responses actually address the case, and how many of them hover in this realm of superficiality and side-stepping of the issues at hand?
ZetaRediculian
reply to post by Brighter
Actually, it's exceedingly obvious that neither of you are willing (or capable?) of presenting a rational argument. I do however perceive frequent uses of ad hominem attacks, lack of basic research skills, false inferences, and red herrings. Anyone can look at our respective post histories and acknowledge this, and I'd strongly encourage them to do so.
This is what we in psychology call "Projection". those are your traits which is obvious and what makes your sig a joke. Yes, the moronic serial debunkers resort to name calling! You need some insight.
I don't need to disguise my ad hominems. you are not the sharpest tool in the shed, you may be a tool, however.
What about it? What about the pictures and verbal accounts of disc-shaped craft and small beings with large black eyes?
All drawings are interpretations. If n witness are asked to draw a picture of what they perceive in an event, you're going to get n different pictures. Is the fact that all of their drawings are slightly different a good argument for the fact that the event didn't take place along the general contours that the aggregate verbal and pictoral accounts imply? Of course not.
one kid who we don't know actually witnessed anything, drew something that didn't look like an alien, therefore all 62 kids saw the same thing. There are many examples on the internet. That's the basic logic here.
If you were trying to make a specific point about that one drawing, and how it fits into the overall case, could you lay that out in detail?
Do you have any evidence that the creators of the documentary are conspiring to hide significant, pertinent information, or any information whatsoever, regarding this case? Any evidence that the creators of the documentary are leaving out relevant case information that would significantly alter the overall picture that they decided to present in the final version? Could you present this evidence if you do in fact have it?
You're telling half the story, conveniently leaving out the most relevant information. Dr. Mack didn't make the overly simplistic mistake of assuming that "not physical" implies "not real".
JM: Tell me what do you imagine is their reason for visiting Earth?
Boy: I think it's about... something is gonna happen.
--> Good guess, but he could have done better. With more leading questions and creative editing anything is possible!
Then (at 2:37, same kid):
JM: How did that get communicated to you?
The boy is coaxed to imagine a rationale, then transpose it into the real world in the next question. A manipulation that is hidden by the editing of short sequences in the video. John Mack is caught red-handed encouraging the child to confabulate, integrate imagination into reality. JM knew that there was no verbal communication, so why did he suggested so heavily a different type of communication? What else than telepathy could it have been? The children did not make up the telepathic message, JM did. It became a "compelling" element of the story, fully validated by the famous Harvard psychiatrist.
This type of leading questions did not bother JM, as he did not believe in the separation between subjective and objective reality. Words like "reality", "happen" should be redefined according to him.
How many actual witnesses? How much variation between accounts? Which ones were presented? Can we examine ALL of the testimony or are we stuck with the ones that "appear" more like aliens? What about the rest if the children that didn't see anything or saw something else more earthly? Does that testimony exist or was it ignored.
If you can't answer these questions then I can't take it seriously.
Camperguy
Do radar returns, pilot witnesses, and personal experience in military circles prove that they do exist?
Bill