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.
of credible ordinary people. I saw my neighbor do this, I saw the criminal do that, I saw this in the car accident, I saw that in the fight, I saw my co-worker do this, the customer did that.
originally posted by: moebius
a reply to: PlanetXisHERE
of credible ordinary people. I saw my neighbor do this, I saw the criminal do that, I saw this in the car accident, I saw that in the fight, I saw my co-worker do this, the customer did that.
Nobody is going to question ordinary people doing ordinary things. Or are you trying to portrait abduction experiences as something ordinary?
I could claim that I've just returned from a short trip to Mars. Would you consider my witness testimony as credible?
originally posted by: metamagic
Humour aside, you seem to be saying that probability is the way the universe must operate -- that by its nature, the universe is uncertain, and this is what we see as probabilistic. A counter argument could be made that the universe is actually totally certain or deterministic so that the pattern of unfolding of events is fixed and immutable;
Here is the question that experiment leads to: "Does "uncertainty" reflect an underlying property of the universe or does it describe the nature of my incomplete perception of a universe which is in reality totally deterministic?"
Don't forget, the central question of epistemology for millennia has been "How certain can I be about what I know?" It is still a open question.
The meanings of words are not fixed, nor are they arbitrary.
I really have no idea what "type antagonistic" means so I cannot comment on that. Similarly, the rest of that paragraph makes no sense to me so you will have to excuse my not commenting on them.
originally posted by: Kandinsky
a reply to: PlanetXisHERE
I tend to agree that we seem to have several standards for witness testimony and choose whichever one suits our outlook. On the other hand, it's not realistic to expect someone's personal experience to become a reality or fact for the rest of the population. When someone has an abduction experience, there's no acceptable way to convince others.
Last Sunday night, I had the full 'old hag' experience and it was momentarily quite scary. I awoke to see a shadowy female sucking two black tendrils of air (or energy) from me. The apparition's face was less than a foot from mine and was wearing something like a witch's hat slanting backwards from its expressionless face. I batted it away and suddenly gasped in a lungful of air like I'd just surfaced from a deep pool - soaked in sweat. To say that it was 'real' would be an understatement; it was completely realistic.
You can guess where I'm going with this? Yeah, it didn't happen in any 'real' way outside of my own perception. I'm not disputing the abduction experience here. I'm trying to point out that, despite millions experiencing 'black hag,' we don't then agree that such things have a physical reality. Unfortunately for abduction experiencers, the same terms apply to their experiences too.
originally posted by: Kandinsky
I tend to agree that we seem to have several standards for witness testimony and choose whichever one suits our outlook. On the other hand, it's not realistic to expect someone's personal experience to become a reality or fact for the rest of the population. When someone has an abduction experience, there's no acceptable way to convince others.... [Your black Hag anecdote]....I'm trying to point out that, despite millions experiencing 'black hag,' we don't then agree that such things have a physical reality. Unfortunately for abduction experiencers, the same terms apply to their experiences too.
We come now to the most bizarre and and seemingly incredible aspect of the entire UFO phenomenon. To be frank, I would gladly omit this part if I could without offense to scientific integrity: Close Encounters of the Third Kind, those in which the presence of animated creatures is reported....
Unfortunately one may not omit data simply because they may not be to one's liking or in line with one's preconceived notions. We balk at reports about occupants even though we might be willing to listen attentively to accounts of other UFO encounters. Why? In this 'festival of absurdity', as Aime Michel has termed this part of the UFO phenomenon, why should a report of a car stopped on the highway by a blinding light from an unknown craft be any different in essential strangeness or absurdity from one of a craft from which two or three little animate creatures descend?
There is no logical reason, yet I confess to sharing a prejudice that is hard to explain. Is it the confrontation on the animate level that disturbs and repulses us? Perhaps as long as it is our own intelligence that contemplates the report of a machine, albeit strange, we still somehow feel superior in such contemplation. Encounters with animate beings, possibly with an intelligence of different order from ours, gives a new dimension to our atavistic fear of the unknown.
Our common sense recoils at the very idea of humanoids and leads to much banter and ridicule and jokes about little green men. They tend to throw the whole UFO concept into disrepute. Maybe UFOs could really exist, we say, but humanoids? And if these are truly figments of our imagination, then so must be the ordinary UFOs. But these are backed by so many reputable witnesses that we cannot accept them as simple misperceptions. Are then, all of these reporters of UFOs truly sick? If so, what is the sickness? Are these people all affected by some strange 'virus' that does not attack 'sensible' people? What a strange sickness this must be, attacking people in all walks of life, regardless of training or vocation, and making them, for a very limited period of time - only minutes sometimes - behave in a strange way and see things that are belied by the reliable and stable manner and actions they exhibit in the rest of their lives....
The fact is, however, that the occupant encounters cannot be disregarded; they are too numerous.... The reader will discover for himself that there is a very great similarity in accounts of occupant cases in reports from over the world. He will learn that they are similar not only in the description of the appearance of most humanoids but in their reported actions.... Clearly, it is not only kooks who report humanoids.
It appears, in short, that we cannot subdivide the UFO phenomenon, accepting some parts and rejecting others. We must study the entire phenomenon or none of it. Encounters of the Third Kind must in all fairness be included in this book.
originally posted by: TrueMessiah
originally posted by: 321Go
a reply to: TrueMessiah
Not in the least does it make sense. Edward Snowden had access to everything but came up with nothing. Of course, according to your theory, he could be in on the conspiracy too. Yes, he reveals that the US and UK are covertly spying on everyone, but he must not tell us about the aliens!
Sorry but I'm not following you here.
The discussion was about the importance of eyewitness testimony. How do we know if Snowden knew anything about aliens at all?
originally posted by: Scdfa
The big questions come next.
We should begin to address them. Let's have a discussion where it is understood that aliens are here, and tackle just what that means. Anyone would be welcome to post, but we must resist the urge to be drawn back to the 'yes or no' and stay focused on more important questions. Questions like:
Why are they here?
What can we learn from their behavior?
Are they benevolent?
Why the abductions?
And the really important questions?
What are there plans for the human race?
And most important of all.
Can we stop them?
What defense do we really have against them?
Can we stop the abductions? The abductees sure can't.
Things get heavy once you get past the first question. Let's go there.
originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
a reply to: 321Go
The alien stuff, as far as security classifications, are way above everything else, including designs and blueprints for atomic bombs and other weapons.
They are NOT on any database, nor any computer network.
Those records are "eyes only" meaning only one copy of a document in some super secure records storage, and they aren't connected to any computer network.
If Snowden had access to "Everything" then we would be seeing documents pertaining to Special access programs and black ops of all types and scopes. But those records share the same security problems, and they simply are not in any database.
originally posted by: dragonridr
originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
a reply to: 321Go
The alien stuff, as far as security classifications, are way above everything else, including designs and blueprints for atomic bombs and other weapons.
They are NOT on any database, nor any computer network.
Those records are "eyes only" meaning only one copy of a document in some super secure records storage, and they aren't connected to any computer network.
If Snowden had access to "Everything" then we would be seeing documents pertaining to Special access programs and black ops of all types and scopes. But those records share the same security problems, and they simply are not in any database.
Is military has somethING called The Secret Internet Protocol Router Network (SIPRNet). It's there version of the Internet and can only be accesed from secured stations. If the government knew anything about aliens it would be there. And no people like snowden can't get access to the network only cleared operators who work in government. This is not access they would give contractors they have front door they can use to pass emails.