Quotes From Prominent Officials Implying An Extraterrestrial Presence On Earth

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: Scdfa
What do you think of the Strassman study? That's another credentialed psychiatrist that believed his research subjects saw real non physical beings that seem to be identical to what abductees describe. So its something to think about either way

It's great to be discussing things with you rather than arguing, zeta.

If you really want my opinion, I will tell you what I think about people who claim abductions are real, but not actually physical. I think it is just another ploy to keep the lid on the fact that alien abductions are real. Either that, or there are some amazingly dumb people with impeccable credentials.

It takes only the simplest form of logic to refute this theory, IMHO. And here it is:

A. People claim that aliens in flying discs and triangles abduct them, take them aboard their flying discs and triangle ships for various procedures. Then they bring them back in their flying saucers and triangles.

B. John Mack says, yes, abductees are telling the truth about alien abductions, but it is a mental contact, not physical reality.

BUT:

C. Flying saucers and triangles ARE physical reality. They are seen, photographed, and they are captured on radar. They hover over the White House, and O'Hare airport, and our military air defenses have encountered and pursued them for decades.

SO:

If Mack accepts that these people are telling the truth about being abducted, but insists their abductions are NOT PHYSICAL, then WHY ARE THEIR SHIPS PHYSICAL?

Mack's theory is ridiculous.

a reply to: Scdfa

Still focusing on abductions, the issue in a nutshell is that there are a lot of overlapping things going on and no way to distinguish between them. It just so happens that sleep paralysis, endogenous brain chemistry and reported alien abductions all seem to have things in common. So far we have isolated mental illness as something distinguishable from the rest. As far as UFOs, that's a whole other discussion some are real mysteries and others are explainable but I think they should be treated separate from abduction reports.

a reply to: ZetaRediculian

As far as UFOs, that's a whole other discussion some are real mysteries and others are explainable but I think they should be treated separate from abduction reports.

No, it is not a whole other discussion, it is ONE discussion.

The aliens inside UFOs are taking people inside those UFOs.

In what way is it logical or beneficial to separate discussion of these vehicles from discussion of what takes place inside these vehicles?

originally posted by: Scdfa
a reply to: ZetaRediculian

As far as UFOs, that's a whole other discussion some are real mysteries and others are explainable but I think they should be treated separate from abduction reports.

No, it is not a whole other discussion, it is ONE discussion.

The aliens inside UFOs are taking people inside those UFOs.

In what way is it logical or beneficial to separate discussion of these vehicles from discussion of what takes place inside these vehicles?

If you say so.

Guess we can close the forum down now. You cleared the whole thing up in one post.

originally posted by: MarioOnTheFly
a reply to: Logarock

Not just hover, but shoot up straight, make 90 degrees turns, stop on a dime....

All these are conviniently disregarded...

you're right...the things that make witness testimony the most compelling, is the speed, maneuverability, and lack of sound.....those 3 elements can't all exist with present human technology...and as a side note, could we get everybody to stop referring to the Avrocar!!....it's a round propeller driven hover craft....we have small RC toy drones for 29.95 that have better flight controls and capabilities than that did

originally posted by: draknoir2

originally posted by: Scdfa
a reply to: ZetaRediculian

As far as UFOs, that's a whole other discussion some are real mysteries and others are explainable but I think they should be treated separate from abduction reports.

No, it is not a whole other discussion, it is ONE discussion.

The aliens inside UFOs are taking people inside those UFOs.

In what way is it logical or beneficial to separate discussion of these vehicles from discussion of what takes place inside these vehicles?

If you say so.

Guess we can close the forum down now. You cleared the whole thing up in one post.

Aw, don't get petulant.

If you disagree with me, maybe you could tell me how it is beneficial or important to separate discussions of UFOs from discussions of what occurs inside UFOs?

a reply to: Scdfa

In what way is it logical or beneficial to separate discussion of these vehicles from discussion of what takes place inside these vehicles?

UFOs are unidentified things and not "vehicles" until they are identified as such. Once you identify them as vehicles, then you have to establish that they are alien. Then are they the aliens responsible for abductions? I mean this is how things work. So I think what you are saying is that every unidentified flying object is an alien spaceship that contains aliens that abduct people. I like my approach better.

originally posted by: Scdfa

originally posted by: draknoir2

originally posted by: Scdfa
a reply to: ZetaRediculian

As far as UFOs, that's a whole other discussion some are real mysteries and others are explainable but I think they should be treated separate from abduction reports.

No, it is not a whole other discussion, it is ONE discussion.

The aliens inside UFOs are taking people inside those UFOs.

In what way is it logical or beneficial to separate discussion of these vehicles from discussion of what takes place inside these vehicles?

If you say so.

Guess we can close the forum down now. You cleared the whole thing up in one post.

Aw, don't get petulant.

If you disagree with me, maybe you could tell me how it is beneficial or important to separate discussions of UFOs from discussions of what occurs inside UFOs?

Since UFOs are by definition UNIDENTIFIED you have no way of determining whether they have an interior, much less what goes on inside. Since UFO's are diverse it is unreasonable to assume that they are all the exact same thing. Since sightings range from fantasy to actual eyewitness testimony it is unreasonable to to assume they are all evidence of the exact same thing.

You've just made the broadest of generalizations. Every time a UFO is identified, every time a hoax is uncovered, every time a witness gets caught lying, your "theory" is destroyed.

Unprovable, sweeping assertions might suit your belief system just fine, but it does little for those actually interested in the truth.

a reply to: draknoir2
Right. I guess we could just declare that they are all hoaxes and hallucinations and dismiss it all. What I find odd is that when science does actually entertain that there is more to it, its not good enough.

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: draknoir2
Right. I guess we could just declare that they are all hoaxes and hallucinations and dismiss it all. What I find odd is that when science does actually entertain that there is more to it, its not good enough.

NO! They are either all hoaxes or all hallucinations.

a reply to: ZetaRediculian

So I think what you are saying is that every unidentified flying object is an alien spaceship that contains aliens that abduct people.

Now come on, are we adults having a conversation or not? You know that I'm not talking about sightings of lights in the sky, I did specifically say flying saucers and triangles.

a reply to: Scdfa

You know that I'm not talking about sightings of lights in the sky, I did specifically say flying saucers and triangles.

The triangles are owned by an advanced breakaway civilization from earth. That's common knowledge around here.

originally posted by: draknoir2

originally posted by: Scdfa

originally posted by: draknoir2

originally posted by: Scdfa
a reply to: ZetaRediculian

As far as UFOs, that's a whole other discussion some are real mysteries and others are explainable but I think they should be treated separate from abduction reports.

No, it is not a whole other discussion, it is ONE discussion.

The aliens inside UFOs are taking people inside those UFOs.

In what way is it logical or beneficial to separate discussion of these vehicles from discussion of what takes place inside these vehicles?

If you say so.

Guess we can close the forum down now. You cleared the whole thing up in one post.

Aw, don't get petulant.

If you disagree with me, maybe you could tell me how it is beneficial or important to separate discussions of UFOs from discussions of what occurs inside UFOs?

Since UFOs are by definition UNIDENTIFIED you have no way of determining whether they have an interior, much less what goes on inside. Since UFO's are diverse it is unreasonable to assume that they are all the exact same thing. Since sightings range from fantasy to actual eyewitness testimony it is unreasonable to to assume they are all evidence of the exact same thing.

You've just made the broadest of generalizations. Every time a UFO is identified, every time a hoax is uncovered, every time a witness gets caught lying, your "theory" is destroyed.

Unprovable, sweeping assertions might suit your belief system just fine, but it does little for those actually interested in the truth.

Folks, if I had ever said at any point ALL UFOs have aliens that abduct people, Draknoir2 here would have a point, but I didn't. So he doesn't. I'm absolutely correct when I say aliens in UFOs abduct people.

Sounds like a poster desperate to negate just about anything I have to say. Hamming it up with phony indignation that my post "does little for those interested in the truth"? What blustering. Please, I had enough ham on Easter. Ironically, if he was actually interested in the truth, he'd listening to me.

Now, folks, the term UFO is one I use while holding my nose, it was put into use by the govt in the 1950s to keep the discussion as vague as they possibly could. Those who wish to deny the reality of alien contact MUCH prefer the term"UFO" to the public talking about "large,metallic flying saucers with advanced flight capabilities utilizing unknown technologies"!

Decades later "UFO" ,as a word, has been pretty much cemented in the public's mind as the primary name for an entire field of study and phenomena.

So when I used the term UFO in my previous posts in relation to aliens and abductions, it is clear I never indicated that ALL UFOs contain aliens that abduct people. Yet Draknoir here is trying to make hay about just that. See it for what it is.

And folks, you know what you make hay for? A straw man.

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: Scdfa

You know that I'm not talking about sightings of lights in the sky, I did specifically say flying saucers and triangles.

The triangles are owned by an advanced breakaway civilization from earth. That's common knowledge around here.

So are you saying that the delta shaped craft that flew over Phoenix in 1997 was an advanced breakaway civilization from Earth?

a reply to: Scdfa
Yes. There was someone here with insider knowledge that revealed this and then he disappeared never to be heard again. We can't even mention his name.

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: Scdfa
Yes. There was someone here with insider knowledge that revealed this and then he disappeared never to be heard again. We can't even mention his name.

And you believe him why?

So, the general concensus on ATS is that 'Politicians lie!',
with the exception that when it comes to UFOs and ETs,
they suddenly turn out to be the most credible people
on the planet?

originally posted by: LionOfGOD
So, the general concensus on ATS is that 'Politicians lie!',
with the exception that when it comes to UFOs and ETs,
they suddenly turn out to be the most credible people
on the planet?

What do politicians have to do with this thread?

a reply to: TrueMessiah
Try reading the OP.
If still unclear, check the names. From, let's say, WIKIPEDIA.

originally posted by: LionOfGOD
a reply to: TrueMessiah
Try reading the OP.
If still unclear, check the names. From, let's say, WIKIPEDIA.

I made the OP. The only politicians would be Hoover and Truman. So are we to generalize them under the "lying politician" label because of a "general consensus"? I have something better, how about you provide something more definite like, known instances of lying from either one.