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.
I don't dispute the observation that a fraction of reports have not been explained.
I'm asking you for the significance of that.
In a hypothetical universe where there WAS no genuinely anomalous phenomenon occurring, do you subconsciously assume that ALL reports WOULD be explained? That was the question you passed over, so I'm asking it again.
This isn't a trick question. It highlights what could be an unavoidable fog-factor of undeterminability of all human-related activities, ranging from missing persons and murder down to missing keys and socks. Everyday life demonstrates to us that the existence of a residue -- I use the term deliberately and non-prejudicially -- of 'unexplainED' events cannot alone be reasonably used to demand the existence of a fundamentally non-explainABLE stimulus.
No, you posited a universe in which NO anomalous events occur, in such a universe you are suggesting that all reports would be explained. What you ignore is the fact that there would be no such reports, as nothing is happening.
Or perhaps you are suggesting our universe is such a universe and all reports are simply false. At least that is what I understand from what you wrote.
"In such a universe you are suggesting that all reports would be explained" -- Just the opposite.
I am asking questions. I recoil from such judgmental terms as 'false', here.
The direction i'm going is that in any genre of activity there might be a 'natural' level of garble that prevents every single story from being explained naturally, without recourse to ANY extraordinary stimuli at all related to the perceptions being reported.
Your argument seems to be that without a REAL phenomenon in at least a few cases, nobody would EVER think they were describing any phenomenon of any type that they could imagine.
By extension, doesn't such an argument [please clarify] produce a proof of the existence of God, because so many people believe they have encountered Him, at least a few of the stories MUST be authentic?
Maybe we ought to move this discussion to a thread of its own?
originally posted by: Jonjonj
My question might be something like this.
Is the lack of any real, scientifically (western) recognised research an indicator of a lack of evidence? Or is it evidence of a lack of investigation?
originally posted by: FireMoon
It leaves us with the same old talking heads making a few bucks, more often than not, endlessly repeating the same old tales on TV for an audience that has , for the most part, already made up their minds about whose "propaganda" they side with?
originally posted by: game over man....
I think this just points out your biased approach to investigating UFO's and Alien visitation.
originally posted by: JimOberg
originally posted by: game over man....
I think this just points out your biased approach to investigating UFO's and Alien visitation.
Duh!! Of COURSE it's biased. As ALL approaches to revolutionary interpretations should be.
What did you expect, a level playing field?
originally posted by: Scdfa.....
People like Jim Oberg here, who has spent years trying to deny the reality of alien contact.