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.
originally posted by: Tangerine
I'm glad you've concluded that you're done but disappointed that you were unable to cite any testable evidence proving the existence of extraterrestrials visiting earth and abducting people. Bummer.
originally posted by: tanka418
originally posted by: Tangerine
I'm glad you've concluded that you're done but disappointed that you were unable to cite any testable evidence proving the existence of extraterrestrials visiting earth and abducting people. Bummer.
And I presume that you are aware that most evidence on such things is primarily subjective. As an experiencer I have found that most will accept the experience at the subjective level and then fool themselves into thinking that it is objective. I personally went through an extended period where I (now) don't think I could effectively tell the difference. It has been through the diligent application of more proper scientific procedure/protocol that has allow me to become something that maybe, has a few "flashes" of true objectivity.
These issues that I have somewhat overcome are shared by the rest of the sentient creatures in the Universe...no One / no thing escapes.
Anyway, I have my "tested" experiences, however, the dataset is not, nor do I believe it can be made, acceptable to you. What has happened to me an many others is something that must be experienced first hand, otherwise it is meaningless.
originally posted by: Tangerine
I would never dispute that the experiences are meaningful. My quarrel is with those who have reached a firm conclusion about the nature of the experiences (that they call fact) absent any testable evidence. Even experienced first hand, however convincing they might be of one's hypothesis, they're not testable evidence and, hence, not fact.
originally posted by: tanka418
originally posted by: Tangerine
I would never dispute that the experiences are meaningful. My quarrel is with those who have reached a firm conclusion about the nature of the experiences (that they call fact) absent any testable evidence. Even experienced first hand, however convincing they might be of one's hypothesis, they're not testable evidence and, hence, not fact.
But these experiences can be testable. If One pays attention in successive events a wealth of data can be extracted, experiencers usually don't have just one event. Many features can be isolated, attributes cataloged and measured. Logical, rational conclusion based on empirical data collected first-hand. The only issue with the scientific method is that each event is absolutely unique and can not be repeated, and thus not verified. But, that does leave the clever experiencer with a base of knowledge.
originally posted by: Tangerine
originally posted by: tanka418
originally posted by: Tangerine
I would never dispute that the experiences are meaningful. My quarrel is with those who have reached a firm conclusion about the nature of the experiences (that they call fact) absent any testable evidence. Even experienced first hand, however convincing they might be of one's hypothesis, they're not testable evidence and, hence, not fact.
But these experiences can be testable. If One pays attention in successive events a wealth of data can be extracted, experiencers usually don't have just one event. Many features can be isolated, attributes cataloged and measured. Logical, rational conclusion based on empirical data collected first-hand. The only issue with the scientific method is that each event is absolutely unique and can not be repeated, and thus not verified. But, that does leave the clever experiencer with a base of knowledge.
You can log all sorts of accounts but you can't test the veracity of those accounts. "Attributes" have been isolated and cataloged. All they prove is that a certain percentage of accounts mention those attributes. We have absolutely no testable evidence proving that extraterrestrials exist, visit earth and abduct people.
originally posted by: tanka418
originally posted by: Tangerine
originally posted by: tanka418
originally posted by: Tangerine
I would never dispute that the experiences are meaningful. My quarrel is with those who have reached a firm conclusion about the nature of the experiences (that they call fact) absent any testable evidence. Even experienced first hand, however convincing they might be of one's hypothesis, they're not testable evidence and, hence, not fact.
But these experiences can be testable. If One pays attention in successive events a wealth of data can be extracted, experiencers usually don't have just one event. Many features can be isolated, attributes cataloged and measured. Logical, rational conclusion based on empirical data collected first-hand. The only issue with the scientific method is that each event is absolutely unique and can not be repeated, and thus not verified. But, that does leave the clever experiencer with a base of knowledge.
You can log all sorts of accounts but you can't test the veracity of those accounts. "Attributes" have been isolated and cataloged. All they prove is that a certain percentage of accounts mention those attributes. We have absolutely no testable evidence proving that extraterrestrials exist, visit earth and abduct people.
You misunderstand...in simple terms; YOU have no testable evidence, I have an abundance.
Although, while were at it...you say that the cataloging, measuring of attribute only proves (demonstrates) percentages. You should take notice of the nature of those attributes, their stats (percentages)...could be important data hiding in what you think is useless.
originally posted by: Tangerine
"
Although, while were at it...you say that the cataloging, measuring of attribute only proves (demonstrates) percentages. You should take notice of the nature of those attributes, their stats (percentages)...could be important data hiding in what you think is useless."
You have testable evidence proving that extraterrestrials exist, visit earth and abduct people? No you don't. You don't have an iota of testable evidence. So-called evidence that is not available to be tested and can not be tested is, defacto, not testable evidence.
originally posted by: FormOfTheLord
Good thread OP star and flag. . . .
They have been here forever, and are always here in the ever present most likely due to time travel capabilities, I would guess they are hanging out in various safe times and other dimentions just out of our view. Meaning they could be right in front of you and you would never see them would probably walk right through them like a ghost.
You speak of "testing" volatile and intermittent data sources, you complain about how difficult it is to collect reliable data; yet I don't think you have ever had to deal with an intermittent system and the frustrations presented by their very nature.
originally posted by: tanka418
originally posted by: FormOfTheLord
Good thread OP star and flag. . . .
They have been here forever, and are always here in the ever present most likely due to time travel capabilities, I would guess they are hanging out in various safe times and other dimentions just out of our view. Meaning they could be right in front of you and you would never see them would probably walk right through them like a ghost.
Again, I must speak against the notion of "time travel"; there is no data, I'm aware of, that suggests such a thing.
These ideas that ET are super advanced, have some technology that allows for FTL are all rather unfounded. The reality is that ET doesn't need any of that...time travel, FTL, super advanced technology to visit. There is a wealth of stars and planets all within traveling distance from Earth; within say 90ly (180 Terrestrial years).
It seems that so many get all "hung up" of the whole "alien" notion, as if it were something real. The reality is that ET, IF he is capable of visiting, is probably so much like Terrestrials that y'all couldn't find the differences without help. Course then you would refuse that help.
originally posted by: tanka418
originally posted by: Tangerine
I would never dispute that the experiences are meaningful. My quarrel is with those who have reached a firm conclusion about the nature of the experiences (that they call fact) absent any testable evidence. Even experienced first hand, however convincing they might be of one's hypothesis, they're not testable evidence and, hence, not fact.
But these experiences can be testable. If One pays attention in successive events a wealth of data can be extracted, experiencers usually don't have just one event. Many features can be isolated, attributes cataloged and measured. Logical, rational conclusion based on empirical data collected first-hand. The only issue with the scientific method is that each event is absolutely unique and can not be repeated, and thus not verified. But, that does leave the clever experiencer with a base of knowledge.
originally posted by: JimTSpock
If for a moment we assume some flying saucer type UFOs are ET craft they appear to have anti-gravity technology which is far more advanced than us. If they can do that they might also have faster than light travel ability. Without this it would only be possible to travel the smallest distances to the nearest stars, and the probability they have intelligent life is low compared to the rest of the universe.
originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: tanka418
You speak of "testing" volatile and intermittent data sources, you complain about how difficult it is to collect reliable data; yet I don't think you have ever had to deal with an intermittent system and the frustrations presented by their very nature.
Hey tanka, How's your New Year so far?
I think I know what you are dealing with. Would you liken this to trying to troubleshoot a software issue where the user is complaining of some vague bug but you are unable to reproduce the error and have no error message to work with and yet you are expected to fix it?
originally posted by: tanka418
originally posted by: FormOfTheLord
Good thread OP star and flag. . . .
They have been here forever, and are always here in the ever present most likely due to time travel capabilities, I would guess they are hanging out in various safe times and other dimentions just out of our view. Meaning they could be right in front of you and you would never see them would probably walk right through them like a ghost.
Again, I must speak against the notion of "time travel"; there is no data, I'm aware of, that suggests such a thing.
These ideas that ET are super advanced, have some technology that allows for FTL are all rather unfounded. The reality is that ET doesn't need any of that...time travel, FTL, super advanced technology to visit. There is a wealth of stars and planets all within traveling distance from Earth; within say 90ly (180 Terrestrial years).
It seems that so many get all "hung up" of the whole "alien" notion, as if it were something real. The reality is that ET, IF he is capable of visiting, is probably so much like Terrestrials that y'all couldn't find the differences without help. Course then you would refuse that help.
originally posted by: JadeStar
And what has all this data collected told us that is testable?
Has it told us where the "aliens" come from?
Has it told us the nearest habitable planet?
originally posted by: tanka418
originally posted by: JimTSpock
If for a moment we assume some flying saucer type UFOs are ET craft they appear to have anti-gravity technology which is far more advanced than us. If they can do that they might also have faster than light travel ability. Without this it would only be possible to travel the smallest distances to the nearest stars, and the probability they have intelligent life is low compared to the rest of the universe.
Advanced anti-gravity technology...www.hpcc-space.de...