Are U.F.O.'s really unexplained or unidentified?

intrptr
reply to post by neoholographic

 

You also said:

I have seen 3 U.F.O.'s and 2 were up close.

You are a witness. Big difference between that and a "believer". Skeptics will call you "believer" regardless because they have no frame of reference (like an experience). They wouldn't need any "proof" after having witnessed such a thing.

They would know like you and I do. Don't fret the skeptic. Their need to prove there is no proof is baseless because they can't prove they don't exist either.

This argument falls on my deaf ears because the Universe is forever and its hard (for me) to accept there are no other more advanced civilizations than our own out there somewhere.

Especially if you have personally seen them or their craft.

Good points.

Like I said, we always reach conclusions based on the available evidence. We couldn't have a lot of debates if people didn't reach conclusions based on the available evidence.

reply to post by Phage


There's also the possibility that they come from another dimension or even from the future. But trying to prove this would be almost impossible.

reply to post by intrptr


Did you see who or what was inside the craft? Did you speak with the occupants first hand?
I am not saying anything about the existence of beings here but psi ops coupled with lack of understanding about previous civilisations technology can easy make a witness more confused than a believer.
Not saying you are either confused or a believer, but it must be stated lack of conclusive evidence is not justification for evidence to be created to fill the void of understanding.

Humans have sent crafts to Mars, Mars had advanced life once. if they came to earth, which they did lol, then sure from origin they are ET but the fact is this is a human planet and they Ulars bitch now

LittleGreenAlien
reply to post by Phage

 

There's also the possibility that they come from another dimension or even from the future. But trying to prove this would be almost impossible.

I think these are possibilities as well but like you said, these things are harder to conclude as opposed to extraterrestrials.

Like I said, you have people like Hawking, Kaku, Mitchell and others reaching the conclusion Aliens exist and this is based on current scientific understanding when it comes to things like exoplanets, extremophiles and more.

reply to post by neoholographic

Like I said, we always reach conclusions based on the available evidence.

Some understand that there is frequently not enough evidence to come to a conclusion.
On the other hand the door to speculation is quite wide.

reply to post by neoholographic

When it comes to UFO's the skeptics want you to stop using simple reason and logic. If it was up to you, we would never have any debates because nobody could ever reach a conclusion based on the available evidence.

So if we come to the conclusion that UFOs are alien in origin does that mean all of them are alien in origin? Which ones are we debating specifically?

Phage
reply to post by neoholographic

 

Like I said, we always reach conclusions based on the available evidence.

Some understand that there is frequently not enough evidence to come to a conclusion.
On the other hand the door to speculation is quite wide.

edit on 3/14/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)

Bingo!

That's my point. Maybe there's not enough evidence for you to reach a conclusion but there's more than enough evidence for me to reach this conclusion.

This is where the debate should begin.

Sadly, many U.F.O. skeptics can't accept that I can look at the evidence and reach a different conclusion. I have to be a blind believer or it's just wishful thinking.

If a skeptic can accept that there's evidence to reach this conclusion but there isn't enough evidence for them to personally reach this conclusion. That's fine.

reply to post by boncho

Not true. I've seen two UFOs that I can remember. Most likely airplanes…

So you're not sure what you saw.

Naw… nothing can take away what me and my friends saw that night so long ago. I grew up around Moffett Field, Sunnyvale. I went to every air-show they ever had with my dad (Lockheed Aerospace Engineer) since A4 sky hawks were Blue Angels. I have studied and been shown and seen almost every form of combustion, rocket, jet, weapons system whatever my whole long life. I am a trained observer…

and…

simply…

as nice as I can…

know what I saw was not of this earth
.

reply to post by intrptr


But but but....you saw it on earth. Not from here you say

reply to post by intrptr


If that's true then I envy you. My observations were, 1. Near an airport and given the brightness and angle, most likely a plane coming towards me at a direction that made it look like it was sitting still. 2. A night with really crappy atmospheric conditions where it looked like a burning ball, entirely explainable.

If I saw something I had no explanation for, I would be intrigued. And so long as it did something we shouldn't be able to do (in relation to known physics) I would personally believe either aliens, time travellers or inter dimensional beings are probably out there. I still wouldn't know exactly what it was...but I'd sure as hell relish it.

At the same time I highly doubt, nor expect anyone would believe me.

reply to post by boncho


I didn't say all of them, I said some of them. This is based on several things.

1. My own experience.

2. Alien Abductions

www.ufocasebook.com...

3. Close Encounters (these are of the 3rd kind)

www.ufoevidence.org...

4. Trace Evidence

www.ufoevidence.org...

5. The fact that Hawking, Kaku, Mitchell and many others have reached the conclusion that Aliens exist based on things like exoplanets and extremophiles. I can't limit the technology of an Alien Civilization based on our current understanding of Physics.

This is just a small portion of some of the evidence.

reply to post by neoholographic

This is where the debate should begin.

Yeah. Debating opinions is fun.
"I think aliens are visiting Earth."
"I don't."

"k"

reply to post by Phage


Again, this is a trivial way to look at a debate. It's not just debating opinions. It's debating conclusions that were reached based on evidence.

reply to post by neoholographic

The fact that Hawking, Kaku, Mitchell and many others have reached the conclusion that Aliens exist based on things like exoplanets and extremophiles. I can't limit the technology of an Alien Civilization based on our current understanding of Physics.

I've also reached the conclusion that there are in all likelihood extraterrestrial intelligences.

The thing is, besides the problems (according to our understanding) of getting from star to star, there are other factors that complicate things. That, and the lack of consistent evidence that we have been or are being visited.

Space is big, really, really big.
We are small, really, really small.
There is a very good chance that we will get wiped out before we "understand" how to leave our star even if it is possible. There is a very good chance that the same thing would happen to any other planetary civilization.
The list sort of goes on.

reply to post by neoholographic

Again, this is a trivial way to look at a debate. It's not just debating opinions. It's debating conclusions that were reached based on evidence.

You said this:

That's my point. Maybe there's not enough evidence for you to reach a conclusion but there's more than enough evidence for me to reach this conclusion.

In your opinion there's more than enough evidence.
In my opinion there isn't enough.

K?

neoholographic
reply to post by Phage

 

Again, this is a trivial way to look at a debate. It's not just debating opinions. It's debating conclusions that were reached based on evidence.

Man the CIA did a number on you bro.
Tell me are you in the 50k or the 30k salary range. They tried to offer me 50k but they said I had no choice when I got scooped up. I told them to smoke my pole anyway.
There is no evidence and Phage is correct it is just your delusional opinion based on years of Psi op work as the last chance for Deletes erm, I mean elites to hold their falling power structure.

Oh man should I risk a ban disassembling number 5 here

reply to post by Phage


I don't agree with this.

I think we will not be that hard to find for an advanced civilization.

We're working on bio signatures to look for planets with life. A civilization wouldn't have to visit every planet to find one with life and like I said, there's a lot of evidence that says they have visited us. I think that's just an egocentric way of looking at things.

I remember when I first came to ATS, the debate was whether Aliens exist. Now it's just common sense to come to the conclusion Aliens exist based on the available evidence, people then want to turn around and limit the technology of these Aliens to our current understanding of physics. That doesn't make much sense to me.

neoholographic
reply to post by Phage

 

Again, this is a trivial way to look at a debate. It's not just debating opinions. It's debating conclusions that were reached based on evidence.

Here I'll take a stab.

God wrote part of the bible using an angel to appear as a hallucination to someone thousands of years ago.

Yes/No?

All the evidence points to this in the eyes of certain people. This is similar to the same kind of testimony that is used as evidence for the alien debate.

reply to post by neoholographic

I remember when I first came to ATS, the debate was whether Aliens exist.

I don't really remember that. I haven't seen much of that debate on ATS. Can you provide some examples?

people then want to turn around and limit the technology of these Aliens to our current understanding of physics. That doesn't make much sense to me.

People want to assign amazing abilities to aliens because of our understanding of physics. That doesn't make much sense to me.

You are welcome to your opinion.
Please allow us skeptics ours. After all, we are pretty helpful in pointing out hoaxes, right?

reply to post by Phage


Nope, it's my opinion that the evidence is strong enough to reach the conclusion that extraterrestrial visitation has occurred. It's your opinion that the evidence isn't strong enough to reach that conclusion.

So my opinion is on the strength of the evidence not my conclusion that extraterrestrial have visited earth. It's not my opinion that extraterrestrial visitation has occurred, it's my conclusion. There's a difference.

For instance, You said:

I've also reached the conclusion that there are in all likelihood extraterrestrial intelligences.

How did you reach this conclusion? It was based on the available evidence. This is why you said you reached this conclusion and you didn't say THIS IS MY OPINION.