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 draknoir2
Originally posted by neoholographic
reply to post by ZetaRediculian
This makes zero sense.
Thanks for the warning.
After reading your post I am in complete agreement.
This a complete misunderstanding of the importance of eyewitness accounts. Again, these accounts mean nothing in the eyes of the skeptics but in the eyes of the world we use eyewitness accounts in all other areas of life.
We know accept U.F.O.'s as true because of eyewitness accounts. So many of these accounts have occurred over the years the existence of U.F.O.'s is now an accepted truth.
Originally posted by blackreign2012
Skeptics are in denial and probably deny their own existence.
Originally posted by blackreign2012
I am glad when I see posts like this. Skeptics are in denial and probably deny their own existence. How many times does one have to hear the same stories in the same detailed manor with the type of participants in the story realize that something is going on? High ranking officials, pilots with hours of flight experience, police officers, credible witnesses with nothing to gain and everything to lose. I don't believe in a lot of things but alien visitation is one thing I believe in, only because of the vast amount of info surrounding the subject.
Originally posted by blackreign2012
If I was to try to convince someone (a logical person) that alien visitation exist, then I wouldn't know where to begin...
Originally posted by blackreign2012
Skeptics aren't logical, they've made up their mind on what exists and what doesn't already and are sticking to it.
The ego is a hell of a drug.
Originally posted by blackreign2012
Skeptics are in denial and probably deny their own existence.
Originally posted by CarbonBase
I think 'eye' witness accounts are very good places, to start. I think the profession of the person who makes an eye witness account is critical in evaluating the 'object'. I have seen a U.F.O., and make no bones about it. I am not alone. I have seen things that I, a retired military person, can ONLY classify as 'U.F.O.'. It would probably benefit the human race extensively if we would just make a concerted effort to resolve the question once and for all. But yep, they are out there, and if you look long enough and close enough, your bound to see one, WHATEVER they may be ! . This is the kind of thing the AIR FORCE, in particular, SHOULD be looking into, since they are supposed to be 'defending' our air space right? Why not just get it done. it's not like we don't already have 99.9% of the Earth under continual surveillance anyway right? What are all those super secret government recon and surveillance platforms for anyway? Write your Congress-Chimp and demand to know!
One of the reasons U.F.O.'s have been accepted as a real phenomena is because of these high profile witnesses.
If there wasn't any eyewitness accounts from Pilot's, Police Officers, the Military and more this would be the central argument coming from skeptics. They would say: "Why haven't any Pilots or Police Officers seen U.F.O.'s? Why hasn't no one in the Military seen a U.F.O.? These are people we trust with our lives, why haven't the aliens shown themselves to them."? This is the argument you would here from skeptics if there wasn't any high profile eyewitnesses.
Originally posted by neoholographic
reply to post by ZetaRediculian
Your post really shows the dishonesty of some skeptics.
Again, we weigh the credibility of the witness all the time. One of the reasons U.F.O.'s have been accepted as a real phenomena is because of these high profile witnesses.
Ask a lawyer who he would rather have as a witness in a murder case. A drug dealer or a Police Officer? The reason is because we weigh the credibility of the witness. Humans use this thing we have called reason and logic.
OK, if that's the case, back it up with something. I don't believe that's the case entirely but I'm open.
Is this saying that they will be correct 100% of the time? No, but it's saying there account is given weight because of their attention to detail in high pressure situations.
the dishonesty is generalizing a group called "skeptics". I haven't seen anyone belittle anyone except for you with comments like this. Why not show some real examples. Everyone has different opinions. I don't agree with every skeptics point of view. Suggesting that all "skeptics" think and act alike is just dishonest and is really not the case. Just have a discussion. It's not that hard.
Most skeptics know this and this is why they do everything to try and belittle eyewitness testimony as meaningless. They know that in a common sense world the credibility of the witness is always taken into account. In the bizzaro world of the skeptics eyewitness accounts mean nothing and the credibility of the witness means nothing. It's just a dishonest argument.
that's true but the case is that anyone can have this experience. Is it unreasonable to look at each case individually? I don't think all unknown cases are related other than being unknown.
If there wasn't any eyewitness accounts from Pilot's, Police Officers, the Military and more this would be the central argument coming from skeptics. They would say:
"Why haven't any Pilots or Police Officers seen U.F.O.'s? Why hasn't no one in the Military seen a U.F.O.? These are people we trust with our lives, why haven't the aliens shown themselves to them."?
This is the argument you would here from skeptics if there wasn't any high profile eyewitnesses
Again, you can't have an honest debate with pseudoskeptics about these things because their whole position starts from a point of dishonesty.
What they should say is yes, eyewitness accounts are useful and it's interesting that so many high profile individuals are seeing these things but that doesn't mean they're extraterrestrials. There is probably another explanation for these things.
Instead the pseudoskeptics acts like eyewitness accounts are meaningless and these people lose all objectivity when they see these things which is just nonsense. You do this because the case for the ET Hypothesis is so strong. In the last thread you didn't even know what a hypothesis was but we're supposed to listen to your opinion over a Pilot's eyewitness account?
Originally posted by neoholographic
The ET Hypothesis is a hypothesis that says some of these U.F.O.'s are controlled by extraterrestrials based on these facts:
Pictures, video, abduction cases, trace evidence, eyewitness accounts from Pilots, Police and more, exoplanets, microbial life in diverse places, billions of planets and stars, building blocks of life found in meteorites and comets, liquid water found outside of earth and people like Kaku, Hawking and Edgar Mitchell saying they exist.
The accumulation of eyewitness accounts have lead to the acceptance of U.F.O.'s. as a real phenomena.
Originally posted by neoholographic
Originally posted by Blue Shift
Originally posted by neoholographic
We wouldn't find killers in some cases without eyewitness account.
I don't know how many times I have to repeat this, but I'll do it again.
It's not the same thing. An eyewitness to a murder is looking at something we all agree exists. We know murder exists. Somebody shoots or stabs or chokes or hits somebody until they are dead. We are familiar with the mechanisms, and the activity involves human beings, which we also all agree exist. So in a court of law, where we're trying to determine who did what, and not whether or not such a thing as murder exists or whether or not a particular person exists, eyewitness testimony has potential value. Potential. People can still be truthful and wrong.
Now compare this to a person seeing a glowing flying saucer land and then little gray guys in jumpsuits come out of it, look around, get back in, and fly away, leaving no traces. Believe it or not WE DO NOT ALL AGREE that such a thing is possible. And without anything to back it up, what do I have than helps me accept the reality of it? I can still believe the person to be truthful, but not necessarily right about what they saw.
If in a court of law, an upstanding citizen and "trained observer" swore on the Bible that a winged, red-eyed Mothman swooped down and killed somebody, what would happen? Would the court issue a warrant for the Mothman's arrest? See the difference?
This makes no sense.
The point is, there's no need to try and say eyewitness accounts are meaningless when it comes to U.F.O.'s. There's no difference because in BOTH CASES eyewitness accounts are valuable evidence.
You then stoop to the usual skeptic tactics. You think bringing up Mothman or little green men helps your argument because you have no argument to begin with. I saw this with the skeptic Michael Shurmer one time. He was getting his head handed to him in a debate and he started talking about little green men because he had no argument.
Again, nothing you have said diminishes eyewitness testimony. You're making a subjective statement that because we know what murder is eyewitness accounts mean more. Again, this makes zero sense.
So eyewitness accounts lose there value when it's not a murder case lol? This would just kill exploration. We can never investigate anything that we observe in space or in our atmosphere until we first know what it is. See the catch 22 that's created by this type of thinking?
For instance, if an observation is made of something unknown, that observation is meaningless until we know what it is. First, weight has to be given to the eyewitness account in order to build hypothesis as to what the observation means.
The accumulation of eyewitness accounts from Pilots, Police Officers and more plus pictures and videos have given weight to the existence of U.F.O.'s and now Unidentified Flying Objects are an accepted truth. Again, U.F.O.'s doesn't mean extraterrestrial. U.F.O.'s mean unidentified flying objects. We know they're flying objects in our skies thanks to these eyewitness accounts. What's unidentified is the origin of these flying objects and what are these flying objects. Are they spacecraft, military craft, probes, ball lightning or some other atmospheric phenomena.
The ET Hypothesis is a hypothesis that says some of these U.F.O.'s are controlled by extraterrestrials based on these facts:
Pictures, video, abduction cases, trace evidence, eyewitness accounts from Pilots, Police and more, exoplanets, microbial life in diverse places, billions of planets and stars, building blocks of life found in meteorites and comets, liquid water found outside of earth and people like Kaku, Hawking and Edgar Mitchell saying they exist.
The accumulation of eyewitness accounts have lead to the acceptance of U.F.O.'s. as a real phenomena.
Which of those is evidence of ET? Does an eyewitness know where the object originated? Does the fact that there are lots of planents show that a strange object came from one and is controlled by the intelligent life there? If Hawking says they exist, is that evidence that they do? Does a picture or video of strange object prove that it was not made on Earth? Does water on an asteroid show that an intelligent alien has launched a craft?
Pictures, video, abduction cases, trace evidence, eyewitness accounts from Pilots, Police and more, exoplanets, microbial life in diverse places, billions of planets and stars, building blocks of life found in meteorites and comets, liquid water found outside of earth and people like Kaku, Hawking and Edgar Mitchell saying they exist
OK, if that's the case, back it up with something. I don't believe that's the case entirely but I'm open.
the dishonesty is generalizing a group called "skeptics". I haven't seen anyone belittle anyone except for you with comments like this. Why not show some real examples. Everyone has different opinions. I don't agree with every skeptics point of view. Suggesting that all "skeptics" think and act alike is just dishonest and is really not the case. Just have a discussion. It's not that hard.
that's true but the case is that anyone can have this experience. Is it unreasonable to look at each case individually? I don't think all unknown cases are related other than being unknown.
If these things have proven some UFOs to be extraterrestrial, then specifically what other planet have any of the UFOs come from? Specifically. I'll settle for just one. Because, "they must have come from someplace other than Earth" is not really another planet. It's just a statement of possibility and ignorance. What everybody is really saying is, "We don't know where this thing came from." And that's not at all the same as "This thing came from Mars." Or wherever. Show me one proven example. It should be something like, "The flying saucer in this photo and seen on radar was proven to originate from the third planet in orbit around Epsilon Eridani because (insert proof here)."
hy·poth·e·sis
[hahy-poth-uh-sis, hi-] Show IPA
noun, plural hy·poth·e·ses [-seez] Show IPA .
1.
a proposition, or set of propositions, set forth as an explanation for the occurrence of some specified group of phenomena, either asserted merely as a provisional conjecture to guide investigation (working hypothesis) or accepted as highly probable in the light of established facts.
2.
a proposition assumed as a premise in an argument.
3.
the antecedent of a conditional proposition.
4.
a mere assumption or guess.
Originally posted by neoholographic
So again, you can only ask these questions if you have no clue as to how science works or how you build a hypothesis.