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.

 

There's no evidence that extraterrestrial visitation has occurred

page: 5
30
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 24 2014 @ 02:05 PM
link   

uncommitted

neoholographic
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.


Ahhh, oh dear. Never mind, keep stamping that foot because you insist you are right as though others are saying you are wrong. The burden of proof for me personally is higher than it is for you - so I keep an open mind, whereas yours is already made up.


LOL, this is just too funny.

So anyone that doesn't agree with you has to have a lower burden of proof than you????

You guys are just proving my point.

Someone can't look over the evidence and reach a different conclusion than you unless they have a lower burden of proof than you???

That's really sad. You have to convince yourself that you're so right in what you believe that nobody can come to a different conclusion than you unless their not as serious as you when it comes to gathering evidence. The sad thing is, I doubt you have even looked at most of the evidence. You have just convinced yourself that your conclusion is right and the only way the gullible people can reach a different conclusion is if they just accept anything with lower standards than you.

Typical.




posted on Feb, 24 2014 @ 02:13 PM
link   
reply to post by neoholographic
 


Its a lot less complicated than what you think it is. The fact you use "skeptics" as a derogatory noun, shows your bias and inability to accept reality. YOU expect someone to ignore the scientific process and come to a conclusion based solely on assumptions & inconclusive evidence. That isn't science. That isn't how we reach conclusive evidence. That, I hope...is not how you normally determine truth. Otherwise, you are one gullible person.

Let me break this down for you in a way you might understand. Pilots, soldiers, police officers, doctors & tower operators are all human. Their careers or positions in society do not make them immune to lies, fraud, narcissism, flawed perception, imperfect eyesight, mental illness, imagination, delusions, ego & selfishness. They are ALL susceptible as human beings. As such, their testimony cannot be used as the sole source of any evidence. It is simply too unreliable and potentially flawed. If you had witness testimony & confirmed alien DNA, then that changes things. Or how about witness testimony & credible & verifiable surveillance video of an alien visitation. If you had an alien body on a slab that can be examined, for example. That's good evidence. You don't, though. That simply does not exist. And until actual evidence supporting alien visitations to earth is presented, all YOU have is belief. Faith. Inconclusive evidence and stories. Not real proof.



posted on Feb, 24 2014 @ 02:20 PM
link   
reply to post by neoholographic
 



They're so scared of a little open minded discussion that they have to believe there's no evidence. Of course their is. They look at some of the same evidence to reach their conclusion that extreaterrestrial visitation hasn't occurred then they turn around and say there's no evidence to reach a conclusion that's opposite to theirs.

I'm not really following your line of reasoning. Are you saying that because two people look at some "evidence" like a photo and one person is convinced that its an ET craft and the other thinks its an airplane that it still constitutes "evidence" of ET. I read your sentence a few times and I pretty sure that's what you are saying. So if it turns out to be an airplane its still evidence. If it turns out to be UNIDENTIFIED then its still evidence? Can you clarify?

I think this is an important point and once clarified will alleviate your confusion.


That makes no sense.

yes, I agree.



posted on Feb, 24 2014 @ 02:39 PM
link   

LogicalRazor
reply to post by neoholographic
 


Its a lot less complicated than what you think it is. The fact you use "skeptics" as a derogatory noun, shows your bias and inability to accept reality. YOU expect someone to ignore the scientific process and come to a conclusion based solely on assumptions & inconclusive evidence. That isn't science. That isn't how we reach conclusive evidence. That, I hope...is not how you normally determine truth. Otherwise, you are one gullible person.

Let me break this down for you in a way you might understand. Pilots, soldiers, police officers, doctors & tower operators are all human. Their careers or positions in society do not make them immune to lies, fraud, narcissism, flawed perception, imperfect eyesight, mental illness, imagination, delusions, ego & selfishness. They are ALL susceptible as human beings. As such, their testimony cannot be used as the sole source of any evidence. It is simply too unreliable and potentially flawed. If you had witness testimony & confirmed alien DNA, then that changes things. Or how about witness testimony & credible & verifiable surveillance video of an alien visitation. If you had an alien body on a slab that can be examined, for example. That's good evidence. You don't, though. That simply does not exist. And until actual evidence supporting alien visitations to earth is presented, all YOU have is belief. Faith. Inconclusive evidence and stories. Not real proof.


This whole post speaks volumes and shows the blanket statement that comes from some skeptics. The Skeptics I'm talking about are the ones that can't accept that others have reached a different conclusion then they have. The people have to be gullible and they're just willing to accept anything. This is what these pseudoskeptics have to tell themselves.

Nobody can gather evidence and go through the evidence seriously and reach a conclusion that extraterrestrial visitation has occurred. They all have to be gullible. There's many skeptics who accept that others can look at the evidence and reach a different conclusion than them and that doesn't mean their gullible.

In these cases, the pseudoskeptic doesn't even take time to actually look at any evidence. Their minds are already made up.

Look at what you said.

First, nobody is looking at eyewitness testimony as the sole source of evidence. This again shows this is what you have to tell yourself in order to feel you have some kind of superior position because your serious about evidence when you probably don't even read the evidence.

Yes, human beings can be flawed but that doesn't mean every report is wrong. That doesn't mean every report is false. We do this thing called weighing the credibility of the witness. They do it all the time. So yes, people can use eyewitness accounts and they do it all the time. Will they always be reliable? Of course not but that's not a reason to make a blanket statement that all eyewitness accounts are flawed. That's just asinine.

Also, you throw science out there and again, you need to watch a scientific debate or participate in one as I have.

I have debated Parallel Universes and Scientist have come to a conclusion that parallel universes or some sort of multiverse exists and they haven't seen one.

Scientist have reached a conclusion that Hawking Radiation exists yet it hasn't been discovered.

Scientist has come to a conclusion about extra dimension yet a discovery of extra dimensions haven't occurred.

I was just debating about the String Theory Landscape that many String Theorist have reached the conclusion that it exists yet they haven't seen it.

The fact is, there's more evidence for extraterrestrial visitation than there's evidence to support some accepted theories in science.

Back to my 3 links:

Give me the evidence that all of these cases involve gullible, lying eyewitnesses since you know with certainty that they're unreliable.

Some Abduction cases:

www.ufocasebook.com...

Close encounters of the 3rd kind:

www.ufoevidence.org...

Trace Evidence

www.ufoevidence.org...

Like I said, it makes zero sense to say everyone that comes to a different conclusion than me is gullible.



posted on Feb, 24 2014 @ 02:52 PM
link   
Here's another example.

I'm skeptical when it comes to Bigfoot.

This doesn't mean that people can't look at the evidence and reach a different conclusion than I have.

Just because they reached a conclusion that Bigfoot exists based on the evidence doesn't mean they're gullible or they have some sort of weak standards when gathering evidence. It just means they weighed the evidence and came to a different conclusion.

The UFO Pseudoskeptic is just the opposite as we see from this thread. Everyone that disagrees with their conclusion is gullible and they have a low standard when gathering evidence.

This says more about the insecurity of the skeptics belief.

If you can't accept that others have intelligently looked over the evidence and reached a different conclusion than you have then that's not skepticism, that's just blind belief in your position.



posted on Feb, 24 2014 @ 02:54 PM
link   

neoholographic

uncommitted

neoholographic
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.


Ahhh, oh dear. Never mind, keep stamping that foot because you insist you are right as though others are saying you are wrong. The burden of proof for me personally is higher than it is for you - so I keep an open mind, whereas yours is already made up.


LOL, this is just too funny.

So anyone that doesn't agree with you has to have a lower burden of proof than you????

You guys are just proving my point.

Someone can't look over the evidence and reach a different conclusion than you unless they have a lower burden of proof than you???

That's really sad. You have to convince yourself that you're so right in what you believe that nobody can come to a different conclusion than you unless their not as serious as you when it comes to gathering evidence. The sad thing is, I doubt you have even looked at most of the evidence. You have just convinced yourself that your conclusion is right and the only way the gullible people can reach a different conclusion is if they just accept anything with lower standards than you.

Typical.



Why do you say "you guys"? I represent no one apart from myself. And yes, your burden of proof appears to be that because sites dedicated to linking claimed events or things seen but not understood = verifiable evidence of extra terrestrial life without any measurement or benchmark applied is indeed a lower burden of proof - you want to believe.



posted on Feb, 24 2014 @ 02:59 PM
link   
S&F OP. This is a very entertaining thread. It's really enjoyable to read.

I want to believe. I've experienced things that lead me to lean toward the "believers" camp.

BUT - I'm thankful for skeptics in that they keep me from falling into gullibility and root out charltans, hoaxes, and the like. Because in the end on the question of whether there really are UFOs/Aliens from outerspace... I quite comfortable in stating honestly - I don't know. I have no external proof (even if I did I keep it under my hat) but I don't. Only my experiences, viewed through a perception that may very well be molded to accept the magical and anomolous. (I was raised spiritual and from a young age taught the existence of intelligences other than us are around us all the time.)

So I'm pre-disposed toward belief. When I look at the evidence - I see that yes - the preponderance of evidence by individuals of all walks of life, trace evidence, the similarities between the early abductions across large distances (when internet was not) is all compeling. It leaves me with the sense, that yes, something is going on. But I can't state it's ET when other possiblities exists. MILABS, exradimensional, hollow earth, magnetic intelligent energies existing within our own dimension invisible to our eyes...

There are so many possiblities. I just can't throw all my beans into one can.

CdT



posted on Feb, 24 2014 @ 03:02 PM
link   

neoholographic
Here's another example.

I'm skeptical when it comes to Bigfoot.

This doesn't mean that people can't look at the evidence and reach a different conclusion than I have.

Just because they reached a conclusion that Bigfoot exists based on the evidence doesn't mean they're gullible or they have some sort of weak standards when gathering evidence. It just means they weighed the evidence and came to a different conclusion.



You see, that is the point. Does that mean there is a Bigfoot, or that even though you don't think there is one, and other people do....... then what exactly do you believe?

Likewise, while I've no reason to doubt life exists beyond this world (don't need proof or evidence for that, there's no reason to say it's unlikely or otherwise, or that we will ever know one way or another), I have not seen anything that shows said life has ever visited Earth - big deal. Does that make me right? Dunno, didn't suggest it did, but I haven't seen anything to convince me otherwise.

If you think differently then go for it, but this is getting a little like atheists baiting those with a belief in a deity (which is ironic isn't it when all you have at the moment is a belief) that their view is wrong.



posted on Feb, 24 2014 @ 03:07 PM
link   
reply to post by CirqueDeTruth
 


Thanks for the post.

First, I'm not throwing all of my beans into one can. Just because I say I have reached the conclusion that extraterrestrial visitation has occurred doesn't mean I exclude any of the other things you mentioned as possible explanations for some of these events.

I also agree skepticism is needed. Like I said, I'm skeptical about Bigfoot.

Skepticism doesn't mean you have to label a person that has looked at the evidence and has reached a different conclusion than you have as gullible or they have a lower standard than you have.

That's not skepticism, that's blind belief.

I have debated about Bigfoot and some people have looked at the evidence and reached a conclusion that Bigfoot exists. As a skeptic, I would never say that there's no evidence for Bigfoot or that anyone that has reached a different conclusion than I have has to be gullible.

That's not skepticism, that's a blind James Randi disciple who most likely never read the evidence.



posted on Feb, 24 2014 @ 04:09 PM
link   
reply to post by neoholographic
 


I think your anger is due to the use of the phrase "higher standards". I think what people mean is that when you have ambiguous evidence some will be biased towards believing it supports ET others may not. Solid evidence should not be ambiguous.

This type of evidence is elusive by nature and could represent something very extraordinary. Why would you be against scrutinizing this "evidence".

I also think there is a lot of confusion about belief and knowledge. For instance someone might think it sure seems like some of this "evidence" is due to ET which "proves" it and others that don't agree are in denial.

the way I see it is that people can "believe" in ET visitation based this "evidence" but this "evidence" is open to interpretation and could very well represent "evidence" that misperceptions are more common than we realize. In which case, this is evidence is not exclusive to ET.

Now I am not opposed to ET visitation as a possibility but I don't think that what has been presented as evidence holds up. I also think that it is a possibility that some if the stranger encounters represent some endogenous psychedelic episodes but I have to say there is no evidence to support that belief even though its the same evidence used to support ET visiting. I can believe that but I would like better evidence before I start lambasting anyone that would disagree.

before your typical WHAT????? THAT MAKES NO SENSE
take a breath and ask for clarification if you don't understand a point.



posted on Feb, 24 2014 @ 04:51 PM
link   
reply to post by neoholographic
 


To clarify, you can believe in ET based on the evidence but its not evidence of ET, its evidence of something UNKNOWN. Unknown things can encompass many earthly things as well. Same with your bigfoot example. Evidence of ET or bigfoot should hold up under scrutiny and not be able to be explained in any other way or suggest it very strongly. So its not really a higher standard its that skeptics are less confused about what constitutes evidence of something.



posted on Feb, 24 2014 @ 06:46 PM
link   
reply to post by neoholographic
 


Well, I live in the country and I've seen several UFO's. The ones I've seen are orb-shaped but can shape-shift and they move intuitively like entities in the sky. I've spoken to local farmers who get up just before sunrise, regular down-to-earth guys whom you'd least suspecting of believing in this stuff, who talked to me about the UFO's they see.

If someone lives in a city or highly populated area with a lot of pollution and city light, take a wild guess why you don't see many UFO's. If you're curious, drive out to the country, especially in flat land areas where they have a phenomenal view of the sky at night. You might not see anything, but here's betting that the first person you ask will say that believe in UFO's (either because they've seen them or know credible people who have.) I've made that bet with a city friend before and I won



posted on Feb, 24 2014 @ 07:36 PM
link   
We have an abundance of evidence since the beginning of written history.

Proof is something the common man/woman will never have, because if there is a crash, the government will immediately take over the site.

Until governments release their physical proof, the cynics will keep coming to these threads saying the same thing over and over. It is the safest position, yes...but personally, I applaud those people that can step outside of their comfort zone.



posted on Feb, 25 2014 @ 12:09 AM
link   
The vast communication gap in this thread is beyond comprehension.

Am I the only one being drowned by the sheer size of bs input these threads receive? FROM BOTH SIDES?!?! Am I the only one to have a crystal clear view of this silly fight between believers and skeptics?


"believers"... look up the meaning of the word believe in a dictionary. Now try to wrap this simple idea around your, otherwise, open-minded heads - you don't like to be told what to believe, well, who the F are you to tell anyone else how wrong and stoopid and retarded they are for not sharing your belief? Why not, just for a change, stop your hypocritical blabbering about how those dark evil disinfo agents lurking on ATS are muddying the waters and at least for a day be open-minded by putting yourself in another person's shoes and accept the differences between you two. Fo reals this time.

"skeptics"... people of the so-called common sense... I ask you - what good do you do for UFOlogy by responding to these threads? Do you really believe you're helping clear the fog? Cause in my eyes it's much closer to filling the info-ocean with more mud and shiet, rather than doing anything good. Also, you accuse the believers of being parrots with a well-formed and expected behaviour patterns, when, ironically, you fall into the same category by continuously demanding solid proof for extra-terrestrial visitation while sitting on your high-horse and sipping whiskey every 5 minutes. And both sides DO NOTHING but to fight each other and disprove the opposition. Very productive.

In short, 90% of YOU posters don't realize how confused you are in the very basis of your two side heated discussion. As TheGUT and few other truly level-headed, open-minded and unbiased individuals nailed it - UFOLOGY is no longer just a question of whether ALIENS as in extra-terrestrials are visiting us. And it's sad to see that only a handful of people understand this concept and attempt to find answers to the correct questions, even sadder when seeing bright individuals participating in a meaningless fight (Alice to name one).

Am I the only one here who sees through all this shallow crap of epic proportions?

p.s. I guess it's humanity's weakest trait which is in the core of this fiasco - people's tendency to play with words and labels, rather than doing something productive with their time. If people spent a little less time defending their egos and a little more time thinking with their heads and seeking solutions TOGETHER, maybe we would've already been living in a much nicer place.
edit on 25-2-2014 by ch1n1t0 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2014 @ 11:46 AM
link   

uncommitted

radkrish
UFOS= unidentified flying objects.. with intelligent characteristics

I can´t believe people still arguing over whether these objects are intelligently controlled. Damn, they are!



No, it does not mean they are intelligently controlled. There are God knows how many youtube videos that have fairly much been shown to be a plastic bag caught in the wind that 'appears' to be moving in a controlled way. In a similar way, Venus and other heavenly objects have also been found to be the actual root cause.

I'm sorry, but you don't get to make the definition - it's something in the sky and you don't know what it is.


You are only talking about those weather balloon cases. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that many objects that invade the air space are indeed under intelligent control.

Courtesy:
´The UFO experience´ by J.Allen Hynek
´Revelations´ by Jacques F. Vallee.

Credible people have put tons of time, research and effort to come to this conclusion. Its not merely my opinion.



posted on Feb, 25 2014 @ 12:43 PM
link   
reply to post by radkrish
 



Credible people have put tons of time, research and effort to come to this conclusion. Its not merely my opinion


it is still an opinion. "Intelligence" would be in the realm of neuroscience and related fields. The people you mention are astronomers i believe. While their work is impressive, it is not the final say. Proving that some fleeting object or even a perceived object has the quality of "intelligence" is rather difficult. Intelligence is rather difficult to define on its own. A valid assumption might be that "intelligence" is projected onto an ambiguous perception. Not unlike pareiodelia. Right now I am experiencing paranoia because I'm projecting that the people walking by my office are seeing me type on my phone instead of working.



posted on Feb, 25 2014 @ 02:05 PM
link   
reply to post by neoholographic
 


Its a valid point. But you could say its a bit naïve to say that we have not been visited also in this vast universe



posted on Feb, 25 2014 @ 03:01 PM
link   
reply to post by neoholographic
 


What I would like to know is what abductees are experiencing. The situations they experience are real to them. They happened. If it is not extra terrestrial in origin, what is it?

That is the biggest question for me.



posted on Feb, 25 2014 @ 11:46 PM
link   
what IF these thing we call UFOS are living unidentified animals that live high up in our atmosphere and not extraterrestrial at all but from this earth?



posted on Feb, 26 2014 @ 07:09 AM
link   
Great thread, I agree there is tons of evidence. The interpretation is what is in question. There also happens to be a well known fact that there are objects in the sky we cannot identify.

Governments around the world do not refute this. It became so concerning studies were done to explain or determine what they are. Of course it is true many things can seem unexplainable to the average person so many sightings can be explained away. Even with a group of some top m minds seemingly wanting to explain every incident (most good explanations some crazy reaching) there are several that stand as unidentified.

The evidence with those are they have capabilities far beyond any known craft on earth. Instant course corrections, and able to reach seemingly instant velocity far greater than anything known from acdead stop. There is absolutely no known natural phenomenon that can manuever in sky or space without intelligent control. Out of possible explanations aliens seem to be the most common sense.

Possibilities would be
Extremely high level tech far beyond anyone on earth from a secret hroup or government. Yet when some studies were seriously started we had a world war going on and this group or government remained nuetral. That doesn't make sense, also historically on earth when someone has such a tech advantage they take power.

Maybe an ancient advanced earth civilization that somehow remained hidden. To be true since we have satellites circling the earth and basically can map anywhere I think they would have to live underground. To survive past cataclysms maybe they haf to. With all the drilling and mining and cave exploring I think we would have found evidence though.

Extra dimensional beings, its possible yet a reach with current knowledge. We by far don't know everything but so far other dimensions are just theorized.

Then alien civilization, recent reports suggest billions of earth like planets in our galaxy alone. We keep finding planets everywhere, that is a fact. What we know of lifenin our limited experience on earth is it finds a way to survive even in the harshest of environments. An alien civilization could be so far ahead of us as we are of cavemen. About the issue of traveling to stars, even with our current undertanding of physics we have strong theories suggesting how it can be done. These craftpulling off amazing manuevers seem in line with those theories. If they can warp space so it is more like the craft is still bur space effectively moving around it they could probably avoid extra stress on bodies and material.

Out of possible explanations alien design and intelligence seems to follow the evidence best. It is unproven though so both sides need to relax. Debunkers seem to latch onto explained phenomenon withvthe idea that they were explaoned so its all crap. Believers can latch onto the few truly unexplained and believe all claims too easily.

Ignoring the few facts and evidence we have does not help though.




top topics



 
30
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join