It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
reply to post by ThinkingCap
Didn't you hear? They are chinese lanterns that got caught up in a weather balloon and there was swamp gas, too!
In my OPINION, you have to be open minded to witness the extraordinary. Those with closed minds and a debunk-or-bust agenda will likely never experience anything extraordinary. I don't need an ET to poke with a stick to know that there is something out of the ordinary going on, on a daily basis, all over the globe.
Being closed minded sounds dull as hell to me. Thankfully, I have an open mind.
What's really sad is that they think if you don't agree with them then you must have a lower standard of evidence than they do. It's just silly. They're not comfortable in their own belief and they then make the leap about the conclusions you're allowed to reach.
It's like Plato said, a prison.
At the end of the day, there's mountains of evidence to support the conclusion that extraterrestrial visitation has occurred. I will post these 3 links yet again:
Nice thread. Every thread with UFO in the title attracts the same skeptics with the same excuses. The feeling of superiority must be like a drug.
I believe that aliens exist and have/are visiting this planet. I also think that most of the time they don't want to be seen...why? We can only speculate, but to discount so many viewings and testimonies is a bit closed-minded in my opinion.
Circumstantial evidence is evidence that relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact—like a fingerprint at the scene of a crime. By contrast, direct evidence supports the truth of an assertion directly—i.e., without need for any additional evidence or inference.
On its own, it is the nature of circumstantial evidence for more than one explanation to still be possible. Inference from one piece of circumstantial evidence may not guarantee accuracy. Circumstantial evidence usually accumulates into a collection, so that the pieces then become corroborating evidence. Together, they may more strongly support one particular inference over another. An explanation involving circumstantial evidence becomes more valid as proof of a fact when the alternative explanations have been ruled out.
What I look for in comments from skeptics is, if possible, is an open mind to the possibility that we MAY have been, and possibly ,are still being visited, and that there is the possibility of life out in the cosmos as I believe there is, in varieties. But if a skeptic doesn't want to go along with this, I have no problem with it.
reply to post by neoholographic
Have you ever considered that possibility that just because you haven't had any personal experiences it in no way discredits the millions of others that have had experiences?
Lets say for argument sake that "The Law of One" is true and you choose in between each life what experiences and lessons you need to learn in order to grow spiritually and move upward toward the the one true creator of love/light (ie god, or heaven in religious terms).
Maybe ones that see them or have experiences are actually farther along in that spiritual path, or maybe they are not as far as one's that don't see them. Its a yin/yang type of thing. Like in life a positive and negative. You can't learn and grow if nobody opposes or offers other ideas right to challenge your thoughts/feelings?
Again I would say that just because you haven't had these experiences in this life doesn't mean you haven't already had them or will in the next go around. To just dismiss the millions of people in some pseudo science type thing is absurd in terms of dealing with things that you can't comprehend.
There is as much evidence of UFO/aliens as there is that Christ walked the earth...
There is actually more historical evidence that Christ DID walk the earth than there is solid evidence that aliens are coming here, but I don't think that is what your biased comment was hoping for..
UFOS= unidentified flying objects.. with intelligent characteristics
I can´t believe people still arguing over whether these objects are intelligently controlled. Damn, they are!
reply to post by Jaellma
Yep, I agree with you.
It's funny to see the posts from the skeptic. They keep talking about proof. I haven't said anything about proof or that the skeptic must believe as I do. The problem here, is the skeptic can't accept that others can look at the EVIDENCE and reach a conclusion that extraterrestrial visitation has occurred.
It's really that simple and the hysteria coming from the skeptics proves my point.
They're so scared of a little open minded discussion that they have to believe there's no evidence.