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.
Well some people think the first part of the sighting may have been a balloon. I don't know about that, but are balloons "anti-grav"?
originally posted by: 111DPKING111
It sounds like you agree, the kids saw they object they claim as they were just a few meters away during the daytime?
Im not sure why the hesitation to claim it wasnt us unless you believe we had anti-grav, but thats another discussion.
So far, so good.
originally posted by: Willtell
Even though it may be your best friend, who you know is a truthful person, that tells you he was visited by an alien, the fact of the matter is that if you don’t have the experience yourself you still don’t KNOW the truth of it.
If you mean accepting that people see things in the sky they don't understand, we've already accepted that. If you mean people describing encounters with aliens, this is not the conclusion which logically follows the above. We would also have to accept claims of angels, demons, elves, fairies, hobgoblins, chupacabra, bigfoot, and so on. For example, many icelanders believe in something like elves or hidden people:
What needs to be done is something called universal acceptance of it just as we universally KNOW the world is not flat. Or universally accept Russia is where they say it is on a map or any place.
You're free to believe in these elves or hidden people or whatever you want to call them and whatever else you like, but, put me down for "unlikely" along with most of the scientific community who need more evidence than personal experiences to be convinced of the existence of something. Your comment is getting into psychology.
According to a 1975 survey by psychologist Erlendur Haraldsson, Icelanders’ level of belief in hidden people and fairies can be broken down into the following percentages:
Impossible, 10%
Unlikely, 18%
Possible, 33%
Probable, 15%
Certain, 7%
No opinion, 17%
No, it's about separating claims which can be scientifically verified, from claims which cannot. Scientific assessment of claims of elves and alien abductions must consider psychological aspects of the claims.
Its about the superior perspective versus the inferior perspective. The superior perspective will always call the shots and in this case that isn’t us.
But we have to realize that science is evolving out of ignorance so it isn’t a panacea.
Science has become arrogant and in-fact, as I said, a veil to the truth of alien UFO visitation.
It seems he was hopeful that science in ufology would improve in 30 years, but 36 years later we still have ufologists making extraordinary claims with little or no evidence to back them up. You know the type, right? Maybe if they took the lead in looking at the topic scientifically then Jim Oberg could be writing about how the advances in the science of ufology he hoped for materialized.
Where is the "ufology" movement likely to be after another 30 years? Perhaps new evidence will finally appear which can stand up to scientific scrutiny. Perhaps self-styled ufologists will establish truly scientific standards of evidence, will accept the burden of proof, will produce "falsifiable" theories, and will seek to formulate their science on positive rather than negative logic. Perhaps something significant will come out of this after all.
Many skeptical observers join ufologists in hoping so, because if any of the claims of ufology prove valid it would indeed rate as a major scientific breakthrough, perhaps one of the most important such events in human history...
originally posted by: Arbitrageur
Did you read the article Jim Oberg wrote that he linked to on page 3 called The failure of the 'science' of UFOlogy ?
He wrote it 36 years ago, wondering what the state of science in ufology would be like in 30 years, hopeful there would be some improvement....
I read it a long time ago, and it's a very disingenuous article. Insulting in some ways....
Yeah sure, there Oberg is, 'hoping' that amateur UFOlogists will 'improve' and finally find some good evidence... all, of course, while he's snickering behind their backs about the impossible burden he knows they've been given, and smug in his knowledge that mainstream science managed to pull off the improbable: embarrassingly bungle and sidestep the real issue, while still getting the message out that UFOs are nonsense.
Oberg doesn't want UFOlogy to improve. He wants to keep nesting safely in his warm, comfortable cocoon. Just ask him if he finds any UFO case truly compelling and you'll see. Sadly, his opinions on the topic are full of holes and contradictions. Although, to be fair, they have been consistent over the years, so at least he's got that going for him....
40 years later the reliability is really not that good.
So going by what was published at the time of the incident, nothing about it strikes me as particularly alien, or even "anti-grav" as you put it. If you put a lot of faith into distortions four decades later, which I don't, you might develop a different opinion, but I'd suggest viewing 40 year old recollections as less than fresh
originally posted by: Arbitrageur
If you mean accepting that people see things in the sky they don't understand, we've already accepted that. If you mean people describing encounters with aliens, this is not the conclusion which logically follows the above. We would also have to accept claims of angels, demons, elves, fairies, hobgoblins, chupacabra, bigfoot, and so on. For example, many icelanders believe in something like elves or hidden people....
"An outstanding report. This case is a classic which meets all the criteria necessary for a valid study of the ELF phenomenon:
a) The elf was seen by multiple witnesses from different locations (i.e., Shamiran, Mehrabad, and the dry lake bed) and viewpoints (both airborne and from the ground).
b) The credibility of many of the witnesses was high (an Air Force general, qualified aircrews, and experienced tower operators).
c) Visual sightings were confirmed by radar.
d) Similar electromagnetic effects (EME) were reported by three separate aircraft.
e) There were physiological effects on some crew members (i.e., loss of night vision due to the brightness of the object).
f) An inordinate amount of maneuverability was displayed by the ELF."
And do you HONESTLY have doubts about what it is I mean when I use the phrase "mainstream science"?
I'd be thrilled if people just referred to true UFOs, for now, as "non-terrestrial technology",
originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
So "true UFOs" are actually identified as "non-terrestrial technology"? That makes sense now
That is out of context.
originally posted by: TeaAndStrumpets
Now replace Elf in the above memo with UFO, and you've got exactly what we have
So that post insisted we must accept alien contact. If it's actually occurring, I have no problem with that, in fact as Oberg said the discovery of alien contact will be a significant milestone for humans.
originally posted by: Willtell
It seems to me that this UFO contact phenomenon is getting more like the religious experience, and contact with an alien presence by an individual can be correlated to a spiritual experience in that it is essentially a personal experience
Even though it may be your best friend, who you know is a truthful person, that tells you he was visited by an alien, the fact of the matter is that if you don’t have the experience yourself you still don’t KNOW the truth of it.
What needs to be done is something called universal acceptance of it just as we universally KNOW the world is not flat.
originally posted by: Arbitrageur
It's the personal experience of alien contact I compared to belief in elves, not the existence of UFOs, which I don't doubt at all.
Another excellent and thought-provoking contribution, Zeta!
You know darn well what it means:
But I'm almost positive the suggestion will go nowhere....
...all, of course, while he's snickering behind their backs about the impossible burden he knows they've been given
The analysis neither proves nor rules out a UFO source of the release. The above natural products have many useful properties. Specifically, humates are known for their chelation/bonding to metal or organics. They are used in fertilizer and for removal of toxic metals and organic pollutants.
Sadly, his opinions on the topic are full of holes and contradictions.
originally posted by: TeaAndStrumpets
a reply to: ZetaRediculian
You know what, you're right Zeta. I mean, why would any of us ever expect the real scientists to get involved, when part-time amateurs can so easily conduct the same kinds of analyses and cultivate the same level of mainstream publication and acceptance, thus lifting that gosh darn taboo once and for all. So we'll get right on that, pronto. (Starting after 5pm each day, of course.) Excellent question though.
Actually, you asked a second excellent question. You wondered what I consider to be "mainstream science". Very intriguing. "Mainstream science", after all, is such a vague phrase, having a meaning that changes direction as often as the wind. One day it'll mean something like credentialed, professionally funded scientists publishing their results in journals which are fairly and objectively critiqued by their peers, and then the next day... well golly, who knows what it'll mean by then.
Sarcasm aside, it's almost as if you TRY to derail threads. That's what you usually accomplish, by asking trivial, meaningless, or obvious questions. I picture a kid speeding down the yard on his Big Wheel, legs flailing, crashing into the adults' picnic area and shutting down all the grown up conversation.
Now, Zeta, do you HONESTLY expect amateur 'UFOlogists' to accomplish the same things that professional scientists would?
Do you imagine that they could?
And do you HONESTLY have doubts about what it is I mean when I use the phrase "mainstream science"?
I've fallen into your "game" by replying even this much, but... I couldn't resist! Sorry.