Photos: The Greatest Evidence UFOs Don't Exist

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)

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.

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.

I think Homer might have a valid point. Between the light pollution and heavy air traffic people have become less and less interested in the sky, and with the advent of cell phone tech, less and less interested in what's around and directly in front of them. This could account for the surge in YouTube videos of planes, contrails etc. labeled as OMG! UFO!. People are losing the ability to discern the exotic from the mundane. This works both ways - the same people might not notice something truly anomalous in the sky.

reply to post by thesearchfortruth


Ok, you don't believe in UFO's. You are visiting the wrong website, bye.

Most people come here to share experiences, not to push what you believe is wrong.

We must respect everyones beliefs, regardless how much it bothers others.

When you look at the billions of galaxies there are, it just incredibly ignorant to think we are the only life forms in the
universe.

I love this website and all the believers out there!

Unity_99
[

On earth there are millions of sightings.

Really do you have any statistics to prove millions of sightings wow you think someone would have some proof.Statistically about 3 percent of the population think they saw a UFO. But statistically 16 percent of people cant identify their own country on a map.Seen one survey they asked what happened to the moon during the day 18 percent said it hides behind the sun.So really is 3 percent of the people seeing something they cant explain really that unusual?

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.

Really i dont know where you live but here in the states everyone has cell phones and they take video as well.

Alot of the photos of ufo's, ARE PHOTO'S OF UFO's.

Did you put any thought into this statement at all?

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.

Well at least you made a good point at the end cant see how people can assume aliens are piloting a craft from hundreds of thousands of miles away. Though i really dont think you would see them at all at that distance but i get your meaning.

reply to post by maxzen2004

Ok, you don't believe in UFO's. You are visiting the wrong website, bye.

Sorry. You are mistaken. This isn't the website where people pat each other on the back and stroke each other off for believing in aliens although, there are plenty of threads like that. So I think you are on the wrong thread. So see ya. wouldn't wanna be ya.

reply to post by dragonridr


Unity is beyond proof or logic. He is a knower and an experiencer. Simply take in what he says and meditate on it. No need for facts and such.

maxzen2004
reply to post by thesearchfortruth

 

We must respect everyones beliefs, regardless how much it bothers others.

Really? Everyone's beliefs? No matter what they are? Is that in the TOS?

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)

Let me refresh your memory:

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.

Explain exactly what you meant by this. Present an actual argument.

ZetaRediculian
great. Produce the actual witness reports.

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?

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.

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.

ZetaRediculian
So if I produce 50 Harvard psychiatrists that disagree with the way this was investigated, do you throw that out?

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?

ZetaRediculian
honestly, this is a pretty poor case.

Hahahaha! Unbelievable. You mean the poor case that you've clearly never even studied? I believe we've reached a new low.

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.

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.

You don't have to go very far to support my case. Simply look at both of your responses to the Ariel School case in this very thread. 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?

So let's not get side-tracked by this latest red-herring and name-calling, and hear both of your opinions on the Ariel School incident.

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?

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?

You love straw man arguments dont you .Look if i asked people who watched a soccer match what color was the winning teams jerseys they would tell me. they could verify the winning goal and if i had them describe the play the results would be similar. However in the ariel case only 12 children actually testified the rest had some really wild tales. Even with the testimony of the ids they differed some saw a ufo others didnt. As for your professor he was censured over this and almost fired by the dean. What do you think they meant by he was under revue. This means the schools board discuss it then vote. This doesnt happen unless something was brought to their attention about his actions. I guess lucky for him they didnt think it was serious enough to fire him. Then there is the UFO investigator who kept telling different stories.

Pay attention to this this was the early interviews notice in this video its nothing like the later one you saw. In this there are 2 UFOs and 2 aliens not just one. This was before they coached and got the stories somewhat in line but even then there are mistakes in later testimony. Listen to the girl she says the alien was evil and the next little girl says the alien tells them they need to take care of the environment and is friendly very different stories not just minor. My favorite part is pay attention to the second girl shes trying desperately to figure out what he wants her to say.




Heres another oh and this one is interesting because its the teacher asking questions not the researchers. Watch about 6:40 a little girl is asked what she thought it was? She says at first i thought it was an alien then i thought it was the gardener. What this tell us looked like a man wearing glasses. but of course you can accuse her of lying. Seems to me watching the interviews the black children were actually much more precise in there descriptions. The reason being culturally they didnt have preconceived notions of aliens. See the media and movies shape what people think they see.




So now you know why later they only talk to half a dozen kids when they present this because they cut out so much of the earlier stuff wonder why even you should realize they manipulated the story.

reply to post by Brighter

Explain exactly what you meant by this. Present an actual argument.

it has nothing to do with the children in this case, genius. read the very next sentence. "As far as what children saw in Zimbabwe and then later recalled...". I thought it would be an interesting comparison, but it confuses you too much apparently. At any rate, your response about how I implied all the kids were tripping is still a straw man. But I thought we were talking about astronauts and how they are all crazy?

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?

I read "many" of them. There isn't that "many" to get an accurate picture. Not "many" reflect space aliens. My research skills seem to be on par with yours.

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?

Oh good, another straw man. No YOU lack knowledge of psychology. Its obvious. Mack accurately determined that "something" happened and confabulated some of the story. its documented. anyone with a cursory knowledge of what that means can look at the video and see that.

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.

Please feel free to point out my lack of basic understanding of psychology. My education in psychology is from Rutgers. My ex is a Psychologist. I helped her with her dissertation. I worked in nut houses for 10 or so years before switching careers. That was before the internet as it is today. Please point out what part is misapplied. Your imagining things.

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?

there are 62, "many" freely available on the internet.

Hahahaha! Unbelievable. You mean the poor case that you've clearly never even studied? I believe we've reached a new low

No, I mean this case is poor and it doesn't take much to see that. Just look at all the points you ignore.

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.

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?

Why are we talking about this case in the first place? I asked you about ALL the astronauts that you said I thought were crazy and you brought up this case. which is a joke. I specifically addressed the case and you specifically said that implied the kids were tripping. Projection. Text book example.

I don't need to disguise my ad hominems. you are not the sharpest tool in the shed, you may be a tool, however.

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.

Do radar returns, pilot witnesses, and personal experience in military circles prove that they do exist?

Bill

reply to post by Brighter

What about it? What about the pictures and verbal accounts of disc-shaped craft and small beings with large black eyes?

they are sunglasses. and what about the 59 drawings that look nothing like space ships.

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.

Your not making a very good argument here. As far as the drawings, they are out of context. You don't know what the drawings represent. Do they represent what the kids "imagine" took place? You don't even know if the kid that drew any particular picture was an actual witness.

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?

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.

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?

Evidence? why do I need evidence when there is an internet freely available? People that make documentaries, edit them so that they can get them produced. So they make them more interesting by using techniques to spark the imagination of gullible people. This documentary is not evidence of anything. Not even close. No conspiracy necessary.

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".

right, objective reality and imagination are the same for him.

reply to post by Brighter


This doesn't look like a alien to me and its not one of the 3 drawings presented most of the time to help support what 62 kids saw.
Nice polka dot shirt and matching pants that alien has.

this is spot on:

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.

www.realityuncovered.net...

The subject of Unidentified Flying Objects is a complex and at times perplexing issue. However, to make such a blanket statement that UFO's do not exist is, simply put; idiocy. There have been numerous cases where witnesses have tried to take pictures of what they have observed but the camera malfunctions or the picture is affected.

I suspect the next thread will focus on "The Greatest Evidence the Earth is flat".

reply to post by Brighter

So now that I dealt with your straw men, ad hominem attacks, lack of research, false inferences, red herrings and identified your psychological projection, can you answer my original questions?

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

Again, their existence is not in question, but the assumptions as to their nature are.

People witness things they cannot identify. This is fact. That they are flying saucers piloted by little gray men is not.