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.

 

A definitive end to alien/ufo conspiracy theories is near...here's why.

page: 3
11
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 22 2014 @ 03:41 PM
link   

enthuziazm
reply to post by riffraff
 


Ok, let me ask you this. If an extraterrestrial race has the capability of travelling through interstellar space, hide themselves from detection on a mass level, and do not want their presence known except to the United States government...why would you or anyone else be so privileged? It's ridiculous to claim "you just know" because you have "seen things." These types of arguments are exactly the same as metaphysical claims of being touched by god, or seeing angels visit you in your sleep. So you can believe whatever you want, but until you have something circumstantial, it's essentially faith.


Why would I be so "privileged"? I've been asking myself the same thing since my first experience. All I can tell you is a saucer visited my parents before I was born. A cigar shaped craft visited my father in law and his father and a triangle came to pay me and my wife a visit. They seem to be following and studying bloodlines. As far as interstellar travel, that is a leap of faith you made. How do you know they are from somewhere else?

All I can tell you is they are here. I can't tell you why. I can't tell you how. You are still young and have only been in the "real world" for a short time. You have adopted a belief in this construct that makes sense to you. Keep living. Things are not what they seem.
I know I probably sound crazy to you. I can assure you I am not. I am a registered nurse. People trust me with their lives everyday. I have had two pilots in WW2, as patients. They both told me flying saucers were monitoring them in battle. They seemed to think they have something to do with the Bible. I dont think theyre biblical, i consider myself agnostic. My point is, keep an open mind. Just keep looking for the truth, and don't get too attached to this construct we've been sold into.
edit on 22-2-2014 by riffraff because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 22 2014 @ 04:17 PM
link   
reply to post by enthuziazm
 



However, this is something that was brought up by AlienView a few posts ago...and it needs to be discussed...
Just because someone is a celebrity, has billions of dollars, or is generally well known, does not make their claims any more valuable.


I Never once stated or implied that to be the case. Not even remotely.

a) Alienview brought up 'celebrities' for "discussion." I Did Not. I did, however, entertain the idea when I realized any conversation or debate was going to be FUBAR henceforth.

b) I brought up wealthy individuals who are in active, good standing to prove my point that "UFO" sightings are still a somewhat taboo subject in not all, but some social circles. The kind of circles these individuals would likely be a part of.

Why do I feel like I'm repeating my points for everyone after every one of my posts?
Do you not get them the first time around or what?


and it needs to be discussed...


You can discuss it until your hearts content
This garbage has gone on 3 pages too long.


edit on 2/22/2014 by unb3k44n7 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 22 2014 @ 05:34 PM
link   
reply to post by unb3k44n7
 



You can discuss it until your hearts content
This garbage has gone on 3 pages too long.

You're clearly offended by something.


edit on 22-2-2014 by enthuziazm because: (no reason given)

edit on 22-2-2014 by enthuziazm because: (no reason given)

edit on 22-2-2014 by enthuziazm because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 22 2014 @ 05:40 PM
link   
You're forgetting how compartmentalized some of this stuff can be. It could be out of the thousands of credible cases, that there is only cover up of half a dozen cases. You could have only a couple of dozen people that know what is really going on. That would be very easy to keep secret. It would be easy to tell a subordinate that only had limited information that you were covering up a foreign/Russian aircraft and or spying operation and there you have it. I don't think this thread proves anything, in my opinion. Think of this...regarding Roswell...even if nothing happened there...there are still hundreds of classified documents and they definitely covered something up there. Perhaps not aliens but something.



posted on Feb, 22 2014 @ 05:57 PM
link   

amazing
You're forgetting how compartmentalized some of this stuff can be. It could be out of the thousands of credible cases, that there is only cover up of half a dozen cases. You could have only a couple of dozen people that know what is really going on. That would be very easy to keep secret. It would be easy to tell a subordinate that only had limited information that you were covering up a foreign/Russian aircraft and or spying operation and there you have it. I don't think this thread proves anything, in my opinion. Think of this...regarding Roswell...even if nothing happened there...there are still hundreds of classified documents and they definitely covered something up there. Perhaps not aliens but something.


This is an extremely ethnocentric view. The governments and protocols of every country are different. Most countries do not have an air force, let alone top secret air craft programs like the US does. The human experience on Earth is not limited to the citizens and government of the United States of America.



posted on Feb, 22 2014 @ 06:00 PM
link   
reply to post by enthuziazm
 


Don't patronize me.

I'm exhausted from pointless arguments (This one) where ignorance takes over. Where people put on their blindfolds and insert their earplugs whilst singling la la la, and then come back for round two to ask a member to repeat everything they said in previous posts.


PS It took you 3 edits to figure out how to post a picture of a gorilla?

Moving on.
edit on 2/22/2014 by unb3k44n7 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 22 2014 @ 06:00 PM
link   

enthuziazm

amazing
You're forgetting how compartmentalized some of this stuff can be. It could be out of the thousands of credible cases, that there is only cover up of half a dozen cases. You could have only a couple of dozen people that know what is really going on. That would be very easy to keep secret. It would be easy to tell a subordinate that only had limited information that you were covering up a foreign/Russian aircraft and or spying operation and there you have it. I don't think this thread proves anything, in my opinion. Think of this...regarding Roswell...even if nothing happened there...there are still hundreds of classified documents and they definitely covered something up there. Perhaps not aliens but something.


This is an extremely ethnocentric view. The governments and protocols of every country are different. Most countries do not have an air force, let alone top secret air craft programs like the US does. The human experience on Earth is not limited to the citizens and government of the United States of America.


That is true, but this theory of compartmentalization could be extrapolated to any other country you could name with only minor differences or to different agencies. It would only take one case of actual alien visitation on earth. Maybe that's all there was. One actual case in the US or in France or in Russia or England or South Africa. Easy to cover up. Small number of people involved.



posted on Feb, 22 2014 @ 07:32 PM
link   
reply to post by amazing
 

The point being that you can't "end" claims of a conspiracy. But you can prove a conspiracy.
The point being that no matter what, no matter how many eyes there are looking, the ETH cannot be disproven. Nor can the existence of unicorns. But somewhere, someone might be hiding a unicorn horn.



posted on Feb, 22 2014 @ 09:30 PM
link   

Phage
reply to post by amazing
 

The point being that you can't "end" claims of a conspiracy. But you can prove a conspiracy.
The point being that no matter what, no matter how many eyes there are looking, the ETH cannot be disproven. Nor can the existence of unicorns. But somewhere, someone might be hiding a unicorn horn.


Please clarify the meaning of the letters "ETH"

And did you mean to say "But yon can't prove a conspiracy." ?



posted on Feb, 22 2014 @ 09:34 PM
link   
reply to post by AlienView
 


Eth is extraterrestrial hypothesis.



posted on Feb, 22 2014 @ 09:34 PM
link   
reply to post by AlienView
 


Please clarify the meaning of the letters "ETH"

Extraterrestrial Hypothesis as used in reference to the origin of UFOs.
en.wikipedia.org...


And did you mean to say "But yon can't prove a conspiracy." ?
No. I meant what I wrote. You cannot prove a conspiracy false (not one as broad as the UFO "conspiracy" anyway) but you can prove it to be true.

You can't prove there is no UFO "conspiracy". You can prove that there is one by providing evidence that "they" have been hiding evidence of ET visitation.

Prove there are no unicorns.
I can't.
Aha!
edit on 2/22/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 22 2014 @ 09:39 PM
link   

stirling
Till you have a sighting that is irrefutable....you cannot begin to understand whats happening....
Let me assure you that there REALLY ARE physical UFOs in and out of our atmosphere.....
That much is fact!


Yes and some of us are starting to share what they know with others!
www.youtube.com...



posted on Feb, 22 2014 @ 09:50 PM
link   

edit on 2/22/2014 by unb3k44n7 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 22 2014 @ 10:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


en.wikipedia.org...

From your Wiki link

The extraterrestrial hypothesis (ETH) is the hypothesis that some unidentified flying objects (UFOs) are best explained as being physical spacecraft occupied by extraterrestrial life or non-human aliens from other planets visiting Earth.


I partially disagree with the ETH

It's a multifaceted phenomenon.

There are other possibilities to take into consideration.
One of the big questions being are "UFOs" physical or spiritual in nature? Spiritual of course not meaning "religious" in this context.

Actual "UFOs" do not automatically mean 'physical' craft in which "aliens" from "a different planet" are occupying or maneuvering said craft. Actual "UFOs" are quite literally unidentified flying objects. As in after careful consideration and ruling out what they may or may not be, you cannot come to any logical conclusion. Not an airplane, not a satellite, not a weather balloon, not an induced figment of an imagination, not a plane, not atmospheric phenomenon etc.

They could very well be physical and have physical "aliens" in them, but they could very well may not as well.



posted on Feb, 22 2014 @ 10:32 PM
link   
reply to post by unb3k44n7
 

It says "some."
There is so much variation in UFO reports that it would be pretty hard to nail it down to one origin.



edit on 2/22/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 22 2014 @ 10:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


It does say some.
I also said partially.
I also disagree with their usage of the word best before the word explained.

In time I'm hoping we can figure out the origin(s) one day. Might be hard but might not be impossible.
edit on 2/22/2014 by unb3k44n7 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 22 2014 @ 11:44 PM
link   
reply to post by unb3k44n7
 


Might be hard but might not be impossible.
I disagree. With enough data we can figure out the origins. But there is a severe lack of data for sightings in the "unidentified" category and that does make it impossible. That's why they remain unidentified.

But, funny thing, the more data that turns up the smaller that "unidentified" category seems to get, rather than the reverse.
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Feb, 23 2014 @ 12:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 



With enough data we can figure out the origins.

Agreed

With enough data we can figure out the origins. But there is a severe lack of data for sightings in the "unidentified" category and that does make it impossible. That's why they remain unidentified

The "unidentified" category is in fact "the origin" of which you are talking about no? We are talking about "UFOs" so what other origin would present in which to "figure out with enough data?" They are one in the same just worded in a contradictory fashion.

If there is a person in this world who knows what the truth or origin is, their disclosure would be all that would be needed to mend the argument between unidentified and identified. If such a person exists, that I don't know.



But, funny thing, the more data that turns up the smaller that "unidentified" category seems to get, rather than the reverse.
www.abovetopsecret.com...


And regarding JimOberg's thread:

The second part about skeptics allegedly debunking high-profile sightings is crap.
It's crap because any story, when tortured enough, can be twisted into anything [they] want it to be.
There are no sources or links to explain or point you to for proof that It's indeed crap. But it is.

Again, it comes down to skeptic vs witness.
You can't understand until you're a witness. It's not a cop-out or a shield to protect against debunkers. It's just fact.








edit on 2/23/2014 by unb3k44n7 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2014 @ 01:07 AM
link   
reply to post by unb3k44n7
 


The second part about skeptics allegedly debunking high-profile sightings is crap.
I'm not sure what "second part" you mean. The thread is about what a "believer" says.


You can't understand until you're a witness. It's not a cop-out or a shield to protect against debunkers. It's just fact.
A fact of what? That someone saw something and they didn't know what it was? A fact that our brains are built to fill in blanks when our eyes don't give us enough information?



posted on Feb, 23 2014 @ 01:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


This whole "second part" for lack of a better term


The stimulus for my concern has been the recent
success of skeptics in shooting down some highprofile
UFO cases that once seemed unassailably
strong. Within the past two years or so they have provided
a conventional explanation for the 1997 Phoenix
Lights, a case with thousands of witnesses, including
the governor of Arizona, and highlighted in Leslie
Kean’s best-selling book, UFOs: Generals, Pilots, and
Government Officials Go on the Record. They succeeded
again with the 1996 Yukon “giant mothership” case,
advertised in a popular TV show as one of the “ten
best” UFO reports of all time. Most troubling of all
was an article in the Skeptical Inquirer by James
McGaha and Joe Nickell that offered a solution for
the “Incident at Exeter,” a 1965 classic that J. Allen
Hynek considered an exemplary close encounter of
the first kind, and a case that most ufologists counted
on to stand forever. I certainly thought so, since I included
it in my 2010 book as high on my short list of
favorite—and genuine—UFOs.



A fact of what? That someone saw something and they didn't know what it was? A fact that our brains are built to fill in blanks when our eyes don't give us enough information?


The fact that a real "UFO" sighting cannot be explained away or debunked (currently)
If that were the case it wouldn't be a "UFO."
There is no brains filling in blanks. But I understand why you would think that about people who have legitimate "UFO" sightings. This is why I am telling you that those who are not witnesses (you) would not (can not) understand the dynamics and essence of a sighting because you are... well... not a witness.


This argument is going to go nowhere. It's an argument between a nonwitness and a witness. I can't make you magically be a witness, therefore I can't explain to you that UFOs are real and fact.

edit on 2/23/2014 by unb3k44n7 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join