Debunk This.

reply to post by lifeform11


Until innocent people stop going to jail and the chair, that whole "eyewitnesses are better than nothing and admissable in court" argument needs to die a swift death. Is the American legal system really where we want to go for our standards instead of science?

When I was a kid and saw three Orange glowing orbs over a nearby SAC base....at night.....and watched...with a friend who to this day will not talk about it....I ran inside the house and asked my Dad who was doing some paperwork and smoking a pipe with Cherry Blend Tobbaco....after I told him what I saw....I asked.....are ALIENS real? Are there other people out in space on other planets? Are the REAL?

My Dad....took the pipe out of his mouth...looked me right in the eyes with a seriousness I had never seen in such intensity or ever have since. He said..."Well YOUR real aren't you? Then he went back to his work and put the pipe back in his mouth.

I walked out of his home office and went outside and thought about what he said. It is now the single most important driving force in my life to this day! I am real! Thus....anything is possible!
Split Infinity

Originally posted by AwakeinNM

Thousands of photographs exist of something that resemble craft that people have witnessed and testified to (not necessarily in court). So basically skeptics maintain that every single one of those photographs must be hoaxed, witness testimony be damned?

Not very open-minded.

No. Where do you get this from?
Skeptics demand proof of just what exactly is in the photograph.
How can anyone claim to know exactly what they are or where they come from? So what is wrong with asking that what they are be proven?

Originally posted by Algernonsmouse

Originally posted by watchdog8110

Originally posted by Algernonsmouse
reply to post by AwakeinNM

 

Admissible in court and proof are two very different things.
Just saying.

The proof part being able to see it right in front of you ( on display ) , looking for clarification ?

edit on 4-12-2011 by watchdog8110 because: (no reason given)

Um...

What?

What , as in what constitutes ultimate proof , does one have to have the craft or alien in front of them to be seen as ultimate proof . Smoking gun , or as in some court cases a video corroborates the testimony of the witnesses to come to the conclusion of the same ultimate proof ? Better to see it with all the bells and whistles , than a video of it going back and forth and round and round , to be drawn out with assumptions of being manipulated .

The degree of proof for the believers and non believers .

Originally posted by jimnuggits
There are far too many witnesses, artifacts, proofs, stories, historical texts, anecdotes, photographs, videos, testimonies, radar signatures, pilot and military witnesses, physical evidences, ancient architectural anomalies, etcetera, for these ALL to be hoaxes.

I beg to differ.... We live in a forever reacord skip of only human created evidence and sub-cultures with nothing after 6000 years but the same old crap.

Well we have progressed from interpretations of forgotten wall images that can only be aliens...well ya... to lights in the sky that we have pictures/video of, and now with every human on the planet with a phone camera it hasn't gotten any better.

Let me ask you what physical evidence (out of this world) is there? What alien artifacts are there? What alien anomalies are out there?

Can you start to see the pattern? It is one of humans creating it all...all of it.

Originally posted by TeaAndStrumpets

Originally posted by Tearman

I would disagree about that. There are a LOT of ways to be wrong about believing you have seen an ET craft, there is only one way to be right about it.

The number of ways to be wrong diminishes quite rapidly when the concept of "independent corroboration" is introduced though, right? Obviously.

Maybe the chance reduces by some amount with additional corroboration. But importantly, we don't know by what amount. It could be close to zero. Like I said before, we don't know what the chances are that a UFO sighting is a true positive. That means we don't know what it means to have multiple corroboration.

Originally posted by TeaAndStrumpets

(And... "ET"? Maybe, maybe not. I prefer "probably," but... none of that is even the point. The point is: unknown flying machines, that appear to be intelligently controlled, demonstrating capabilities that are far exceed anything WE could build.)

Can you offer up a quick list of the mountains of cases of independantly corroborated sitings of exactly what you stated above? I am focusing on the last part myself.

Originally posted by watchdog8110

When the experts do not acknowledge something , does it make it debunked ?

What is there to acknowledge in the first place?

Originally posted by Algernonsmouse

Why should the skeptics be looking for proof of other people's claims? Why would it frustrate you that skeptics want proof? Why do you even suggest they would have an opportunity to look for proof. When presented with whatever the fantasy is, either proof comes along or does not. Why do you think it is up to the listener to go find it? Why is the proof not presented with the claim if it has any validity to it to begin with?

The skeptics shouldn't be looking; they should merely be reasonable about what they'll accept as *some evidence* of a real phenomenon. Rejecting everything based on false assumptions ("it's too far"), or based upon an improper understanding of the scientific process is just plain *frustrating*. (For example, WRT science, I mean the skeptic who assumes that its processes are black and white, that inference is not legitimate, that a hypothesis is "false" until it reaches some pre-determined threshold but then becomes instantly "true", etc....)

And by your use of the word "fantasy," above, I'm assuming you are one of those kinds of "skeptics." (?) The kind that hide under the label, trying to derive all of its benefits while accepting none of its actual burdens?

I have no problem at all with healthy skepticism. I wish there was more of it! Ninety percent of what is claimed in these forums is plain ol' ludicrous... or, at least, there is not legitimate evidence offered for it. On the other hand, when a self-appointed "skeptic" concludes that multiple people from multiple angles and distances must all have been seeing things, when they all describe essentially the same other-worldly object... OR, when a skeptic will go out of his way, as I've seen, to try to simply explain away something as significant as the Belgian wave as "helicopters"... well, it's simply unreasonable. It becomes a form of dishonesty at some point, actually, and is highly reckless well before that point.

Yes, I'm aware that both 'sides' are guilty of quite a few crimes of intellect. But the word "skeptic" seems to have become synonymous with "can't even acknowledge the possibility" in many places. Which is not *skepticism*. Let's be 100% clear about that. Anyone who thinks UFO's are "ridiculous" or "fantasy" has already outed himself as less than a skeptic. And it get's even better when such people then try to define their assumptions as simply the proper level of intellectual "rigor", something most of us stupid people who acknowledge the possibility just can't possibly comprehend. (It's such a laughable loop of false logic, almost impressive in its impenetrability... but not quite!)

reply to post by SuperKawaiiNibiru


well in some cases expert 'opinion' did not match what the many witnesses saw. yet the so called expert who did not see what happened is sided with by many.

all i am pointing out is siding with people who could not possibly know what occured and are just forming their opinion is worse than believing people who said they all saw the same thing and it was certainly a u.f.o. with no evidence to provide other than their word for it.

if you had two choices, eyewitness testimony and an opinion formed by somebody who was not there, then the eyewitness testimony would be more valid than listening to people who did not see what the other people saw. even if they are an expert. being an expert in something does not make anybody an expert in the unknown, which is certainly the catergory this subject fits under.

reply to post by TeaAndStrumpets


Thank you...T and S for that very intelligent and very true line of logic and reasoning. I appreciate people like you that are open to the possibilities of something given either proof....evidence....probability....and a desire to get to the reality of an issue....not the guess or the propossed....or declared proof for sure by this guy....cuz he says so! Split Infinity

Originally posted by jimnuggits

I am not interested in rehashing each individual case, but discussing the mathematical improbability of every UFO and Alien encounter being a hoax or 'lantern.'

Trillions to One, by the way.

What is the odds that a tribe of bigfoot lives near my house in Washington state? A lot of the same type evidence says they do.... How many real Dracula type vampires live in the world...lots of like evidence there too.

Even the chance of having some in our galaxy they still need to find us, and have the ability to travel impossible distances, and want too....now that is some odds....

We humans are not proof yet that space travel is anything more than heading to our closest planets in our own solar system. Earth has created tremendous amounts of life for over 4 billion years and after, dare I say, trillions of life forms one, us, has been able to at least go to the moon. We almost became extinct a number of time too, so we beat some serious odds so far.

Now with 300 billion stars in our galaxy with most of them binary and a good percent more of them not the right type to produce life we have a greatly reduce number of "good" stars. Now how many have a planet with all the right properties within a Kuiper belt region? When I say "right properties" it is a rather large list of needed things too.

Ok, so we have some planets that are like that, but our planet after 4 billion years and trillions of life forms managed to produce only one with potential. There is a time limit to all this too, and it is suggested at about 9 billion years ago for the galaxy to stabilize into solar/star systems, and it took about half that time to get us....I'm starting to see a crap load of more odds here.Now with all that said and done, an alien race needs to figure out how to travel faster than what is possible AND more importantly find us in a hay stack the size of the universe.

In the end I think my odds are higher than your.....

Originally posted by TeaAndStrumpets
The skeptics shouldn't be looking; they should merely be reasonable about what they'll accept as *some evidence* of a real phenomenon.

But people don't agree about what constitutes reasonable evidence of ET visitation. Somehow it must be established that a sighting involves a) something undoubtedly artificial, and b) from outer space.... and just to be sure someone doesn't call me on it, c) not originally form earth in the first place.

We obviously don't all share the same threshold for what counts as evidence of these three qualities.

Originally posted by Xtrozero

Originally posted by watchdog8110

When the experts do not acknowledge something , does it make it debunked ?

What is there to acknowledge in the first place?

Exactly , why should they prove someone else's theories . Their not getting paid to do that now are they .

This is just a suggestion but....how about this idea. Instead of agruing one way or the other what it is....why don't we all just concentrate on using whatever resourses are available and use tyhe Scientific Method to get a reasonable or if possible diffinitive conclusion on what it is or might be? Just say'en Split Infinity

reply to post by Algernonsmouse


i never said instead of science. where did i say ditch science?

Originally posted by Phage

How much consistency is there in the various reports? I mean the few reports which are not hoaxes, misidentified planets or meteorological phenomena, rocket launches, sky lanterns, and various others. There are huge objects, small objects, incredibly fast objects, slow objects, objects which make radical maneuvers, objects which simply zip across the sky, objects with lights, objects with no lights, fleets, singles, landings, no landings, submersibles...

One thing I find interesting is the advancement of spaceships over the years. They seem to advance linear to human imagination capabilities of the times. Today we have complex space craft, but 100 years ago they were rather simple. Just look at a site that shows the progression of UFOs and you all will get my point.

It really pushes us to see it is just a sub-cultural of us humans creating it all.


BTW why would a alien "SPACE" craft have lights at all...do they need to follow FAA rules?

Originally posted by Xtrozero

Originally posted by Phage

How much consistency is there in the various reports? I mean the few reports which are not hoaxes, misidentified planets or meteorological phenomena, rocket launches, sky lanterns, and various others. There are huge objects, small objects, incredibly fast objects, slow objects, objects which make radical maneuvers, objects which simply zip across the sky, objects with lights, objects with no lights, fleets, singles, landings, no landings, submersibles...

One thing I find interesting is the advancement of spaceships over the years. They seem to advance linear to human imagination capabilities of the times. Today we have complex space craft, but 100 years ago they were rather simple. Just look at a site that shows the progression of UFOs and you all will get my point.

It really pushes us to see it is just a sub-cultural of us humans creating it all.


BTW why would a alien "SPACE" craft have lights at all...do they need to follow FAA rules?

How many different colors are in the spectrum and how many would one need to bend to make themselves invisible ?

Originally posted by watchdog8110

How many different colors are in the spectrum and how many would one need to bend to make themselves invisible ?

Visible light is rather narrow on the spectrum and if one "bended it" we would most likely see a bend across all the colors and not blinking lights, or steady lights, or lights at all, but maybe just a faint wave.

We still are theorizing all of it with zero tangible proof. I have as much proof in saying it is all just glowing flying elephants. I think that is just about every skeptic's point in there is no proof to say anything at this point in time. UFOs are just a cultural PHENOMENA and unless there is actually real evidence it will stay just that.

Being a cultural phenomena it doesn't take much effort to see why so much of your so called evidence pours forth.

Originally posted by Algernonsmouse

Can you offer up a quick list of the mountains of cases of independantly corroborated sitings of exactly what you stated above? I am focusing on the last part myself.

Ahhh... I see! One of "those" skeptics, are you? You're not actually aware of the strongest cases, right? A disciple of that special brand of ATS YoutubeFOlogy skepticism? Hoping I'll cite Billy Meier or something?

Or... you are aware of the truly puzzling cases, but are just betting that I am not?

Or... a third option... you're one of the naive ones who embraces those Phil Klass-style ridicu-bunkings?

I hate to be cynical and condescending, but there's a strong hint here that you're either ignorant of the topic's history -- of the number and quality of multiple-witness and radar-visual cases -- or that you're exactly the kind of "skeptic" who would accept as evidence nothing short of the White House lawn scenario. And I no longer engage with such people. They're unreasonable. That's not skepticism. It's inexcusable head-in-the-sand denial.

If you tell me, however, that you've read Bluebook, Condon, McDonald, Sturrock, etc., and that there are actually UFO cases that genuinely puzzle you, then I'm thrilled to invest some time examining their strengths and weaknesses. But as it stands now, I'd bet money you've not even read most of the primary source material related to the UFO topic. ??

I could be wrong, in which case I'd be sorry. But you must understand how your words have presented the odds.

And finally, just so that I can't be accused of avoidance, I'll list only one case that I personally find highly strange, with quite a bit of corroborated evidence that I'm unable to simply dismiss, and that is the Minot B-52 case.