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: NoCorruptionAllowed
Occams, and so many others all across the nation appear to feel that a logical discussion is an event where no one uses any intuition , power of deduction, or even imagination, and especially speculation to draw a conclusion of something that is seen or heard, and often reported on, but not understood or explained by our politically controlled system of main stream science and college institutions that are members and cooperate with the agenda and mandates of the status quo.
In other words, if academia in America has not signed off on something , often reported, and often seen, then it has no value, is false and doesn't exist...............
How can anyone not believe that aliens are visiting us given the above data?
originally posted by: NoRulesAllowed
I am afraid that my personal interest in this topic, the studying and reading MANY books and viewing forums like this has NOT exactly strengthened the evidence, in fact I became a lot more skeptical.
The phenomenon is as elusive as it always was and the evidence is lackluster, at best.
A lot here, in my opinion, has to do with human psychology and the subjective way how EVERYONE is perceiving reality. (Ask several people who witness an accident and you will get different things reported as what happened).
YES there are intriguing cases where pilots etc. saw something...but as a whole...there is just not a lot to go by. When a phenomenon KEEPS elusive for decades, millennia even...it's justified to ask whether the phenomenon itself does even exist, imho.
originally posted by: Sharted
originally posted by: ben555
a reply to: Sharted
ok. what is the force when an object could zig zag at high speed? (say object zooms in one direction than does 45 degree turn and zoom off again. if that makes sense?)
Imagine being on a roller coaster traveling at 500 meters per second.
Elusive, indeed. But what lasting physical evidence could you expect from a flying saucer swoshing by?
The sheer amount of written accounts from people in all walks of life is the evidence.
lol "anything"
what are you the forum owner? is this your topic? do i need your permission to be here.
i have a problem when someone calls themselves a genius,, them make up someones beliefs and themselves need to be proved right on a theory that cant be proved 100%.
i do need to go to a forum and go on a thread to explain why santa claus is not real,then argue with people,be-little them and make sarcastic comments.
there is a word for that. can you guess what it is????
originally posted by: ben555
a reply to: ZetaRediculian
i made my points in my posts above.
you are obsessed with me! ive never seen some many replies from someone about one post.
you have an obsession with needing people to think you a clever or correct. this is blinding you to what you are.
there is nothing wrong with making mistakes in life,it is having the balls to admit it,learn and move on.
"anything else"
yes please stop trolling me.
originally posted by: ben555
a reply to: chuckmorris
CHUCK
there is also hyneks understudy called TED PHILLIPS. he only does landing sites.
Ted Phillips was born in 1942 and has lived all his life in Missouri. He is still alive today and his career in UFO research stretched from the late 1960s to the mid 1980s. Phillips had a varied career and at various times was an inspector for the Missouri State Highway Department, a professional photographer and also an amateur jazz musician. According to Ronald Story's UFO Encyclopedia Phillips investigated more than five hundred UFO cases in his first twelve years of UFO research. His position statement (written in the mid 1970s) concluded "I believe, after thirteen years of investigation, [that] the data indicates a non-terrestrial origin."
This summary is based on only a partial listing of the catalogue as many of Phillips' cases appear extremely dubious in nature. Cases from the early 1950s are particularly unreliable because many of the early UFO books were written by people who automatically assumed that they were describing encounters with alien spaceships. Jenny Randles tells me that cases reported in the "hysterical" Spanish and South American media should be treated even more skeptically because these cases were often complete fabrications! Furthermore many of the early cases have no proper source, e.g. Phillips quotes Vallee describing cases which appear to have been anecdotally reported to Vallee. This means that we often have no idea whether or not a specific case was investigated by anyone, let alone whether it was a contemporary investigation or whether the investigator was in any sense someone capable of undertaking an objective scientific evaluation.
In addition to these problems we have a major definitional problem concerning cases which feature circular ground traces because of the current confusion which exists over the authenticity of the archetypal crop circle. Doug and Dave claimed to have actually created the phenomenon of a sharply-defined swirled circle, but they apparently based their hoax on the Tully reeds circles, which themselves were sharply-defined swirled circles. Given this regrettable fact, what do we include in our definition of a crop circle? Do we include roughly circular shapes of depressed but not swirled circles or do we stick to sharp-edged circles? How about burned circles or circles where the crop has been denuded or completely removed? Given these problems its probably wise to merely highlight all cases involving circular traces but not assume that they are necessarily caused by the same causal mechanism. It is quite possible that there may be several natural circle-forming mechanisms which all create different types of circular ground trace. One of these mechanisms could still be Meaden's postulated plasma-vortex but it is wise not to assume that any particular category of circular ground trace must be caused by the postulated plasma vortex. In any event we will be trying to track down case material referred to by Phillips and will report back in a future issue.
originally posted by: chuckmorris
originally posted by: Sharted
originally posted by: ben555
a reply to: Sharted
ok. what is the force when an object could zig zag at high speed? (say object zooms in one direction than does 45 degree turn and zoom off again. if that makes sense?)
Imagine being on a roller coaster traveling at 500 meters per second.
Everybody knows that the UFO's create their own gravitational field. This nullifies the inertial forces arising from zig-zaging in our frame of reference. If they have windows it will feel like watching a movie of earths landscape rolling by.
Don't beleive me??
Please refer to this book: "Solving The UFO Enigma: How Modern Physics is Revealing the Technology of UFOs"
by Robert Louis Schroeder (Author)
www.amazon.com...
originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
originally posted by: ben555
a reply to: ZetaRediculian
i made my points in my posts above.
you are obsessed with me! ive never seen some many replies from someone about one post.
you have an obsession with needing people to think you a clever or correct. this is blinding you to what you are.
there is nothing wrong with making mistakes in life,it is having the balls to admit it,learn and move on.
"anything else"
yes please stop trolling me.
I believe you are very confused. I would say you are projecting. The very qualities that you find so objectionable in me are the very qualities you are displaying! I was merely suggesting that you take one of my many "on topic" posts and we could discuss something about the topic and not about me or my profile. Perhaps you would do well taking your own advice? Why not complain to the mods that I am asking you politely to not discuss me and to stay on topic?
originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
originally posted by: ben555
a reply to: chuckmorris
CHUCK
there is also hyneks understudy called TED PHILLIPS. he only does landing sites.
I came across this article a while back regarding Phillips' work. There really doesn't seem to be a way to distinguish a "trace landing" case from a "crop circle" among other problems.
www.project1947.com...
Ted Phillips was born in 1942 and has lived all his life in Missouri. He is still alive today and his career in UFO research stretched from the late 1960s to the mid 1980s. Phillips had a varied career and at various times was an inspector for the Missouri State Highway Department, a professional photographer and also an amateur jazz musician. According to Ronald Story's UFO Encyclopedia Phillips investigated more than five hundred UFO cases in his first twelve years of UFO research. His position statement (written in the mid 1970s) concluded "I believe, after thirteen years of investigation, [that] the data indicates a non-terrestrial origin."
This summary is based on only a partial listing of the catalogue as many of Phillips' cases appear extremely dubious in nature. Cases from the early 1950s are particularly unreliable because many of the early UFO books were written by people who automatically assumed that they were describing encounters with alien spaceships. Jenny Randles tells me that cases reported in the "hysterical" Spanish and South American media should be treated even more skeptically because these cases were often complete fabrications! Furthermore many of the early cases have no proper source, e.g. Phillips quotes Vallee describing cases which appear to have been anecdotally reported to Vallee. This means that we often have no idea whether or not a specific case was investigated by anyone, let alone whether it was a contemporary investigation or whether the investigator was in any sense someone capable of undertaking an objective scientific evaluation.
whats your point? even your source says "which appear to have been anecdotal"
everything appears or assumes. NOBODY KNOWS,dear me.
i was not bring this as proof of alien life. suggesting a member look him up as he/she may be interested.
your article brings nothing to the table,it proves nothing either way.