The U.F.O. skeptics are in denial

originally posted by: ufoorbhunter

err.................. I am saying that until the 'sceptic' over whom there previously many on here who changed due to an experience sees a UFO then how can that human being be a believer...

By experiencing a full on UFO then the individual becomes a believer

Until then you will always be that sceptic due to the way yu were educated / brainwashed from birth

I've experienced what could be called a UFO when I was much younger. I can't explain it, but it is on my mind often, and part of the reason I'm on this site. I refuse however, to immediately jump to "Aliens", simply because I can't explain what I saw.

I will probably never know what it is that I experienced, but I will remain skeptical about it being extraterrestrial/paranormal until such time as evidence come forth in the world, that shows otherwise.

I'm a skeptic that wants to believe. I'll become a believer when evidence is presented.

originally posted by: Kreeate
I will probably never know what it is that I experienced, but I will remain skeptical about it being extraterrestrial/paranormal until such time as evidence come forth in the world, that shows otherwise.

I'm a skeptic that wants to believe. I'll become a believer when evidence is presented.

Yeah know exactly where you are coming from regarding we have no idea what they are and whether they are or are not alien to our Planet

At the same time we have so many accounts of UFO activity, as a percentage of Planet Earth residents it must run into millions of experiences........................ Surely not every one of those sightings is swamp gas / birds? Not every sighting is a mirage or a bug right? It's statistically impossible and that what makes the UFO phenomenon real

a reply to: ufoorbhunter

Agreed. In case there's a misunderstanding, let me clarify my stance...

I accept that a large amount of unidentified objects are reported around the world.
It is my opinion that a small percentage of phenomena observed on and around the Earth are utterly inexplicable.

I'm not convinced that all of the small percentage of inexplicable cases are necessarily 'alien'. Due to my understanding of the magnitude of the Universe, life probably exists elsewhere. ( in my opinion)

I'm happy to accept that I can't know everything, and thus things may exist which I don't understand.

What I will not do, is put labels on things I don't understand and that are unproven or verified, simply because of popular culture.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: hawkguy
a reply to: celltypespecific

That's a slide from Hal putoff's 2018 YouTube video

Not exactly. Here's the slide from 9:12 in Hal Puthoff's presentation. Someone has been changing slides, Hal Puthoff's slide says "possibly including off-world""

The intelligence agents get training on how to feed us BS:

Too bad there's no course for us in the pubic to teach us how to tell when we are getting fed "deception" by the intelligence agents. How do we know? When slides change?

originally posted by: mirageman
So you saw a UFO?

An unidentified flying object

I don't think anyone would deny that you saw something you couldn't identify. Are you inferring that sceptics deny people see flying objects they can't identify?

Neil DeGrasse Tyson explained it. "I saw something I couldn't identify, therefore it was alien" His suggestion was to just say "I saw something I couldn't identify" and stop there, but what fun is that?

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: neoholographic

Dr. Kaku would be wrong.

If I say an alien from whereever Centauri landed on my front lawn...and no one else saw it, the burden of proving my claim is all mine.

Not yours. Mine. ...and, yes, even though I've seen UFO's on a couple of occasions I remain skeptical that it's aliens.

What nobody in this thread has mentioned yet is how utterly stupid the research was that Kaku referred to. Part of it discussed the Nimitz event, where someone made this re-creation of about what Kevin Day's radar showed, which shows 9 radar returns or "UFOs", he didn't know what they were, no transponder IDs:

So he's got all these blips. A blip disappears and another blip appears elsewhere, and he assumes it's the same object? That's nuts. Well he couldn't see the blip disappear where Fravor was because of the "merge plot" condition where the returns are on top of each other, but Fravor said it disappeared. Then this scientist, using a not very scientific method writes that the blip that appeared may not be the same thing that disappeared, because it wasn't tracked on radar traveling to the new location. So if he had any sense he would have stopped there. But he didn't have any sense, so he continued, despite the fact there's absolutely not a single shred of evidence that it's the same blip that popped up elsewhere, and he said let's assume it is the same (as Kevin Day assumed for no good reason), and let's do some calculations that show how incredible the performance must have been to go from point A to point B that fast, it must have had 150g's of acceleration and so on with his garbage in, garbage out calculation.

So, Michio Kaku apparently sees a paper from this scientist, saying 150g's and mach 20 and performance no earthly vehicle is known to have, this is compelling evidence for aliens. Did Kaku read the part where the scientists explained that there's not a shred of evidence supporting the assumption it was the same object? The scientist also mentioned there were multiple other unidentified objects in the area, which adds further doubt to the calculations? Did Kaku get any of those caveats? It's really a horrible paper from a scientific perspective even if it's not technically wrong, to go calculating these extreme performance values when the scientist who does that points out himself so many more likely alternatives that Occam's razor points to, that it probably wasn't the same object.

Then Kaku proclaims "Burden of proof has shifted", a sad day for science indeed when a scientist says something so unscientific.

WRONG>>>>>>> See Leslie's reply to your Nonsense:

originally posted by: Rob808
It’s no different than assuming the unknown is angels because it fits your assumed world belief. Your attempt to rebuff my claim it’s more logical to be a terrestrial object is a lack of proof, your assumption has far less proof. I can prove objects found on earth came from earth, there is precedent for that, not for aliens though. It’s illogical to assume it’s something from far away when it far more likely it would be something from much closer. Your theory is created from a belief, neither is provable which is part of my point that ALL of this is speculation. Yet it’s unhinging for you that I challenge your world view on aliens, why is that? Your point is a plea from emotion.

You again assumed, this time I make an assertion of an ancient space program and even assume specifics about my (your) theory? Your ability to reason it’s entirely governed by your own world view.

My assertion is your claim of following sound science in your personal theory is extremely flawed and built entirely on your faith in your belief. That’s my primary point, not to debate alternate theories on an anecdotal piece of evidence.



a reply to: FishBait

That's what I thought. You can't prove anything, have no alternate explanation and insist I'm wrong because you believe you are right. Typical ATS convo. You want to talk semantics, I want to talk aliens lol. I would be perfectly happy to find out we are way more advanced than the general public knows and have super advance flying vehicles. I'm not saying it's not possible, I'm just saying there really no evidence to support that so theorizing aliens is entirely plausible.

a reply to: celltypespecific

Just for my own understanding...

The phrase "possibly including off-world" was used in the past, and in light of the new situation, it was changed to "including off-world" thereby making it a definitive statement, more than a suggestion?

To be clear, I'm asking if the above is what happened, I'm not stating it as a fact.

a reply to: ufoorbhunter

By experiencing a full on UFO then the individual becomes a believer
Until then you will always be that sceptic due to the way yu were educated / brainwashed from birth

A believer in what though?

a reply to: mirageman

It really is a whole belief system to some people I guess.

originally posted by: celltypespecific
WRONG>>>>>>> See Leslie's reply to your Nonsense:

I see Leslies reply is a lie where she says the slide is the same one Hal showed in 2018, it's not the same. Hal's slide in 2018 says "possibly including off-world". The slide in the NYT aricle by Leslie and Ralph says "including off-world". That is not the same, and it's not a trivial point.

"I saw a UFO, possibly it's not from this world", that may be true. ET is always a possibility for UFOs even if not the most likely possibility. ET could also be a possible suspect in unsolved murders in New York City too, though again not very likely.

If I remove the word possibly, it doesn't have the same meaning

"I saw a UFO, it's not from this world", that means something totally different, it implies knowledge about the origin rather than merely listing a possibility, which is a significant difference.

We need an answer from either Leslie or Hal, asking them if they changed the slide in their presentation in light of new facts or not.

originally posted by: celltypespecific

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: hawkguy
a reply to: celltypespecific

That's a slide from Hal putoff's 2018 YouTube video

Not exactly. Here's the slide from 9:12 in Hal Puthoff's presentation. Someone has been changing slides, Hal Puthoff's slide says "possibly including off-world""

The intelligence agents get training on how to feed us BS:

Too bad there's no course for us in the pubic to teach us how to tell when we are getting fed "deception" by the intelligence agents. How do we know? When slides change?

originally posted by: mirageman
So you saw a UFO?

An unidentified flying object

I don't think anyone would deny that you saw something you couldn't identify. Are you inferring that sceptics deny people see flying objects they can't identify?

Neil DeGrasse Tyson explained it. "I saw something I couldn't identify, therefore it was alien" His suggestion was to just say "I saw something I couldn't identify" and stop there, but what fun is that?

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: neoholographic

Dr. Kaku would be wrong.

If I say an alien from whereever Centauri landed on my front lawn...and no one else saw it, the burden of proving my claim is all mine.

Not yours. Mine. ...and, yes, even though I've seen UFO's on a couple of occasions I remain skeptical that it's aliens.

What nobody in this thread has mentioned yet is how utterly stupid the research was that Kaku referred to. Part of it discussed the Nimitz event, where someone made this re-creation of about what Kevin Day's radar showed, which shows 9 radar returns or "UFOs", he didn't know what they were, no transponder IDs:

So he's got all these blips. A blip disappears and another blip appears elsewhere, and he assumes it's the same object? That's nuts. Well he couldn't see the blip disappear where Fravor was because of the "merge plot" condition where the returns are on top of each other, but Fravor said it disappeared. Then this scientist, using a not very scientific method writes that the blip that appeared may not be the same thing that disappeared, because it wasn't tracked on radar traveling to the new location. So if he had any sense he would have stopped there. But he didn't have any sense, so he continued, despite the fact there's absolutely not a single shred of evidence that it's the same blip that popped up elsewhere, and he said let's assume it is the same (as Kevin Day assumed for no good reason), and let's do some calculations that show how incredible the performance must have been to go from point A to point B that fast, it must have had 150g's of acceleration and so on with his garbage in, garbage out calculation.

So, Michio Kaku apparently sees a paper from this scientist, saying 150g's and mach 20 and performance no earthly vehicle is known to have, this is compelling evidence for aliens. Did Kaku read the part where the scientists explained that there's not a shred of evidence supporting the assumption it was the same object? The scientist also mentioned there were multiple other unidentified objects in the area, which adds further doubt to the calculations? Did Kaku get any of those caveats? It's really a horrible paper from a scientific perspective even if it's not technically wrong, to go calculating these extreme performance values when the scientist who does that points out himself so many more likely alternatives that Occam's razor points to, that it probably wasn't the same object.

Then Kaku proclaims "Burden of proof has shifted", a sad day for science indeed when a scientist says something so unscientific.

WRONG>>>>>>> See Leslie's reply to your Nonsense:

Good points. The recent NYT article illustrates why the days of ignorant, knee jerk pseudoskepticism is over.

We’re often asked by well-meaning associates and readers, “Do you believe in U.F.O.s?” The question sets us aback as being inappropriately personal. Times reporters are particularly averse to revealing opinions that could imply possible reporting bias.

But in this case we have no problem responding, “No, we don’t believe in U.F.O.s.”

As we see it, their existence, or nonexistence, is not a matter of belief.

www.nytimes.com...

Pseudoskeptics said for years on this board and others if the Govt. denies it then it's just conspiracy theorist and wishful thinking. Now the Govt. is talking about these things, it's you can't trust the Govt. and every Scientist who talks about these things is always not credible so they don't have to think or do any research.

Notice how they shut off any logical thinking by claiming asinine things like all Pilots are unreliable eyewitnesses when Hynek clearly showed that they're some of the most reliable eyewitness when identifying U.F.O.'s because of their technical training.

Up to present date the whole history of U.F.O.'s is totally meaningless information.

There's actually more beneficial information concerning the fruit fly than all the
evidence combined concerning U.F.O.'s

Human nature is inquisitive and loves to speculate on hypothesis, and multiple
theories of the unknown. The subject of science fiction gives some people
hope and a sense comfort.

originally posted by: mirageman
a reply to: ufoorbhunter

By experiencing a full on UFO then the individual becomes a believer
Until then you will always be that sceptic due to the way yu were educated / brainwashed from birth

A believer in what though?

UFO's

originally posted by: MrBlaq
Up to present date the whole history of U.F.O.'s is totally meaningless information.

There's actually more beneficial information concerning the fruit fly than all the
evidence combined concerning U.F.O.'s

Human nature is inquisitive and loves to speculate on hypothesis, and multiple
theories of the unknown. The subject of science fiction gives some people
hope and a sense comfort.

Sorry, but there is more than enough evidence that something explained is flying in our air-space. What it is, we do not know, but yo say there is nothing to this, or no evidence is just wrong.

I think even the hardend skeptics on here would agree that some ufos and cases defy explanation, but tbe does not mean ET.

a reply to: Kreeate

Many thanks for the clarification Kreeate Going with you completely on not following this that and the other when it comes to what / where the UFOs are coming from as it's all guesswork right now.

Personally I believe from studies into this field and personal experiences with various types of UFOs that these things are ossibly from somewhere we can't even contemplate with our limited Human being mindsets, we just don't get it............ In many ways it's staring us in the face with the countless experiences people have had out there since verbal /written records existed but we just can't connect the dots and work it out.

Maybe someone higher ups have figured it out and it's so terrifying they'd rather keep us in the dark for fear of the Capitalistic / wage slave system collapsing and it not in their interests to allow this.

To me I do believe the UFOs are everywhere around us even next to you and me right now. Why we can't see them, just like why we can't see that Roman Soldier on an old Roman Road for a few seconds, or in your case a First Nation dance for a few seconds, or a mothership (possibly going the other way in the time line maybe us in the future) whiz by, well we can only guess, but it's like we come out of our own timeline life experience for those few seconds and enter another. Maybe time just slips in and out the future / past every now and then.

My other theory is it's all hidden but still around us all the time due to our limitation of senses. A dog will often follow something around the ceiling even though we can't see anything, the dog is seeing something. Maybe our sight is so limited that we can not pick the UFOs up most of the time even though bthey are around us all of the time. Something like 2% of the general public can see Infra Red spectrum, maybe we are part of that 2%

originally posted by: Jay-morris

Sorry, but there is more than enough evidence that something explained is flying in our air-space. What it is, we do not know, but yo say there is nothing to this, or no evidence is just wrong.

I think even the hardend skeptics on here would agree that some ufos and cases defy explanation, but tbe does not mean ET.

Holy smoke............... Stone the crows................. Bring the flags out.................. That's the first thing that came from Jay that I've ever agreed with

Sigh... typical idiot. I’m not trying to make specific claims, THATS YOU. I don’t have to counter your claim with a fleshed our theory I can simply prove yours is flawed. You cant continue defending it as the best scientific conclusion, as again anecdotal evidence only supports faith in an idea, not a reality, and that’s the best believers have. And what do they do, THEORIZE making endless guesses of reptilians or soul eating beings, annunaki hollow earth... endless theories with endless origins for the “ufos”. Your PERSONAL belief isn’t the best scientific conclusion, it’s just yours.

. I proved my point fully yet you can only focus on yours which is entirely disproven as you moved the goal post. Im not asserting aliens aren’t possible. Ive clearly refuted your claim it’s the best conclusion to draw using scientific reason like you claimed. I have no issue stating it’s possible, it’s also possible we are living in a matrix and it’s it’s just computer code, but with the current evidence it’s NOT the MOST LOGiCAL conclusion to draw.

Take the L it’s ok you have faith still in the little green men, they might even take you up for a good ol probing if you’re well behaved.

reply to: FishBait

a reply to: ufoorbhunter

We all "believe" in UFOs. You'd be an idiot not to.

Do I believe there's unidentified objects that are flying around? Someone might have identified them but to me they're unidentified.

Absolutely I believe in them! And they will remain unidentified untill someone tells me what they are.

But just because I don't know what they are doesn't mean I'm willing to jump to conclusions

a reply to: mirageman

In the existence of unidentified flying objects...

a reply to: hawkguy

Too right It's like the cows in the field................ They see them Boeing's flying over, they know they're there, they been seeing them for many decades, but they still have no idea whatsoever why where how