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 Orkojoker
I wouldn't say I "believe" that UFO's are piloted by ETs, but that it is a reasonable hypothesis based on the content of UFO reports. One of the common characteristics reported is that the objects seem to display intelligent control. Another is that they often seem, based on their appearance and maneuverability, to be the product of a technology in advance of our own.
So, if they are intelligently controlled and represent an advanced technology but are not ours, then they must be someone else's. But whose? We don't really know of any other intelligent beings on our own planet who might be responsible for UFOs. It seems reasonable to speculate, because there are other planets out there, and because we know intelligent life is capable of arising on planets, that the intelligence behind some UFOs might originate on some planet other than Earth.
Where they come from is really beside the point. More relevant is the likelihood that we are dealing with a non-human intelligence, regardless of its origin.
Of course, there are other hypotheses to consider. Maybe there is another intelligent species somehow living on Earth undetected (Mac Tonnies' "cryptoterrestrials"). The UFOs could even be made entirely by humans, though as Richard Dolan points out, for a group to have secretly developed technology so far in advance of that known to the rest of mankind would amount essentially to a "breakaway civilization." It would be as if a small group of ancient Greeks somehow secretly developed jet aircraft.
All of these ideas have problems and questions that would have to be addressed. For example, if there is another advanced intelligent species that has been living alongside us on Earth all along (Tonnies' idea), how have they managed to stay hidden? And why? The ET hypothesis is not free of problems itself, but neither is it unreasonable or illogical.
There is no irrefutible proof one way or the other. Once you accept that UFOs are real, as the OP reportedly has, the rest is guessing and speculating about what makes the most sense while trying to keep an open mind.
I would be interested to hear what the OP thinks is behind the phenomenon, seeing as how he "believes" in UFOs (the existence of which, by the way, has in no way been "proven" irrefutibly; in fact, it's refuted all the time.)
Originally posted by randolrs1
...
1. Man assumed that his planet was flat and the center of the universe.
2. Man later assumed that the sun was the center of the universe.
3. Man is the only intelligent life in the universe....
Originally posted by manta78
the Shrike:
Have you read the book "Alien Encounters"? It is 197 pages, and someone has placed it online here:
www.bibliotecapleyades.net...
From the introduction:
"This book may prove to be one of the most disturbing books you will
read in a long while, but it may also be one of the most critical"
[edit on 22-5-2010 by manta78]
Originally posted by The ShrikeWhich brings us back to my question: "Why do you believe that aliens exist and that they are extraterrestrials?" What evidence do you base it on? What did you see or hear or read that you considered irrefutable evidence? As I stated, I don't think such evidence exists so it has to result from a belief system. You believe without evidence.
I would be interested to hear what the OP thinks is behind the phenomenon, seeing as how he "believes" in UFOs (the existence of which, by the way, has in no way been "proven" irrefutibly; in fact, it's refuted all the time.)
Originally posted by The Shrike
reply to post by Orkojoker
I would be interested to hear what the OP thinks is behind the phenomenon, seeing as how he "believes" in UFOs (the existence of which, by the way, has in no way been "proven" irrefutibly; in fact, it's refuted all the time.)
I have no idea or concept as to what is "behind" the phenomenon. Also, I do not "believe" in UFOs, I accept UFOs. Perhaps there is no irrefutable evidence since in my opinion I don't accept tales of UFOs crashes from which a piece has been recovered. Therefore, a whole UFO is the only evidence that could be convincing to those who doubt their existence. Frankly, even though I'm a skeptic (I don't accept hearsay, I need evidence of whatever is being claimed which is a natural mental state, compared to a believer who has been mentally conditioned to NOT demand evidence), I am at a loss to explain hard-line skeptics such as Robert Sheaffer who is ignoring millions of photos/films/videos from all sources especially NASA!
Originally posted by DrHammondStoat
A one size fits all, blanket explanation for everything doesn't fit IMO.
Originally posted by redrezo
Of course it's all speculation. Fact is current science cannot even determine how to reproduce alien propulsion systems,, let alone determine the origin of an alien species.
The only way to know currently is through the information they relay, and of course you'll never know if they are lying or not.
Originally posted by Orkojoker
Originally posted by The Shrike
reply to post by Orkojoker
[quoteWhat do you consider to be the difference between "believing" that UFOs exist and "accepting" that UFO's exist? Are you just splitting semantic hairs with that distinction?
When a child is warned by a parent or other authority figure not to put their hand on a hot stove or they will get burned they obey and eventually believe it to be true. When the child tests the water, so to speak, and touches the hot stove and gets burned, then they will accept that getting burned is true. I never believed UFOs were real, it was more of a curiosity. Then when I had my multiple sightings, nay after the first one, I accepted them as being real.
You also concede that you "accept" UFOs despite there being no irrefutible evidence for their existence, but you then go on to say that you "need evidence of whatever is being claimed." Your reasoning seems to be a little muddled/inconsistent.
I got "burned"! My experiences is my evidence.
And do you really have no thoughts on what UFOs might be?
None. What good is having thoughts on something that is beyond thinking. Thinking should result in possible answers. No answer is adequate.
I'd like to hear an explanation of what you are talking about when you use the term UFO. If we're talking about the same phenomenon, you'd have to admit that some of them appear to be solid objects under intelligent control. That fact alone should permit a little bit of speculation. You can speculate and still call yourself a skeptic if that's the image you're hoping to foster. I promise not to accuse you of being a "believer."
Do you know what UFOs are? I doubt it. Therefore an explanation from me is useless. But this is as good as I can concoct: UFOs are unknown objects that are mostly reported and videotaped while in the air. We have no concept as to what they may be. Being in the air automatically makes them some kind of craft but that's not a certainty. We don't know where they're from or where they go. When they dematerialize, we have no idea where it went. We don't know if what we see contains beings or automatons or they're remote controlled. That last one means that if they're UAV, someone or something must be somewhere controlling. The best word to describe what we know about UFOs is: nothing.
Originally posted by redrezo
I'd like to add there's no inherent stigma or whatever as far as UFO believers. Whatever you call yourself, there's really nothing wrong with having an open mind, it doesn't mean believing in all the weird stuff out there but not dismissing them out of hand due to subjective/confirmation bias.
Originally posted by kmarx
OP: Seeing is believing.