Is This Damning Evidence Of Aliens And UFO’s?

60 years of the modern "flying saucer" and this is your damning evidence?

sorry , doesnt convince me

This stuff is real simple:

One of the most fundamental principles of reasoning and investigation is what has come to be known as Occam's Razor. Named after the 14th century logician William of Occam, it is the principle which favors the least complicated of two or more possible explanations for an observation. Needless to say, most conspiracy theories don't satisfy this rule.

In practice, Occam's Razor is used to cut away elements of theories which cannot be observed. For example, Einstein described space-time in the special theory of relativity. Lorentz had theorized that space-time fluctuations are caused by motion through the "ether". However, Lorentz's ether cannot be observed even though his equations produce the same results as Einstein's, so it represents an unnecessarily complicated model. It doesn't prove Einstein right and Lorentz wrong, but because there's a whole lot less baggage to Einstein's model, it's more likely to be correct given the current set of observations.

Conspiracy theories generally entail the opposite of Occam's Razor. That is, when explaining observations, the conspirators often propose more complicated explanations than the commonly believed story. Their conclusions often require us to believe in additional postulated events or factors for which there is seldom any direct proof. Occam's Razor clearly requires us to eliminate candidate explanations which imply the existence of unobserved phenomenon.

Both NASA and the conspiracists offer explanations which fit the observable phenomena. But some Apollo conspiracy theories require us to believe in things like NASA death squads and top-secret soundstages in remote locations. There is no direct evidence for either of those. The possibility that these things -- if they existed -- might explain the conspiracists' observations is not proof that those things exist.

SOURCE

Using that rule instead of imagining or speculating anything from second or third or fourth hand sources or possible rumors of rumors can still bring us to some pretty amazing conclusions, even if they arent what anyone wants to see. The more grandious any proposition for any given conclusion is the more likely that both the proposition and conclusion are in error if derived from anything but provable facts accepted by a general consensus.

This doesnt mean that all of this is bunk. It simply means that using the above rule with the provable data at hand a good portion of this is more than likely, well unlikely. This also allows for the conclusions about any of the given statements like in this thread can change with newer and better data sets and could possibly convert a speculation into a truth.

Do I speculate? Sure I do but I simply dont try to prove anything with a speculation or anything I do try to verify I do with what would be generally considered a legitimate source.

Dont mean everybody works like this, I wouldnt expect them to but it is how I work.....

[edit on 10-5-2007 by Lost_Mind]

[edit on 10-5-2007 by Lost_Mind]

Originally posted by yeti101
sorry , doesnt convince me

What will? Perhaps an alien handshake? Or a walk in the park with a blond Andromedian? Sorry, if that's the evidence you want, it isn't possible.

Even after France is making government UFO files public followed by Mexico, Brazil and UK, you still need convincing that UFOs are a hoax? Isn't that damning evidence that UFOs are a reality and that we've been taken for a ride for the past 60 years by these same governments who now want to 'come clean'? What is the hidden agenda behind this graduated disclosure?

When governments lie about the existance of UFOs, we crib. When they're gradually coming out with the truth about the reality of UFOs, we still crib!

Cheers! Have a nice day!



[edit on 10-5-2007 by mikesingh]

mikesingh I have a theory that Armstrong and Co were politely asked to say they saw UFO's while travelling to the moon.

Why, because they never went to the moon. But the interest the story creates may give more credibility they did indeed travel to the moon.

Astronauts are still asked to fabricate sightings so public interest is maintained in NASA's space programme thus they will still receive government funding.

Of course this is only a theory and I kinda believe they did land on the moon.

I do totally believe in UFO’s too, but this thought just niggles on my mind.

This is my first post, please don't flame. In regards to Lost_mind's comment about Occams razor. Applying Occam's razor to many sightings and events leads me to believe that the event did occur. What is the most simple explantion? An elaborate hoax, a government coverup regarding balloons crash dummies and other ignorance, or a genuine unidentifiable object or event? Why is it that we have to prove the event occurred? Prove that it didn't? Innocent until proven guilty remember? Or is this something society has forgotten.

Originally posted by Karilla
Great thread, MikeSingh, particularly bringing up the tether incident.

I agree. I always thought it was funny how they explain this phenomenon off as space debris or dust that's out of focus. So it's the fact that the image is over-exposed and makes it look "as-if" it passes behind the tether?

But, it's convienent for them to forget that these things only show up on in the infrared during this tether incident. Show me the regular video of the space debris and dust and I'll agree with them on this issue. Surely if an infrared camera can pick up these dust particles - a regular camera could pick them up?

And I don't want some random dust or debris. Only debris that can be associated with that in the tether video. Or it doesn't really have to be the tether video. If you can find these thing somewhere else where they show them in infrared and regular video that's fine too.

Originally posted by jhamende
This is my first post, please don't flame. In regards to Lost_mind's comment about Occams razor. Applying Occam's razor to many sightings and events leads me to believe that the event did occur.

It is possbile that it could strengthen the fact that something did occur, an event happened, but the baby in the tub is - What exactly was it that happened?

Here is another example of how Occams razor works and what it is intended to do:

Suppose I have a cat. One night, I leave out a saucer of milk, and in the morning the milk has gone. No one saw who or what drank the milk. Lets say there are two possibilities:

The cat drank it
or
The milk fairy drank it
Occam tells us to reject option 2. This is because option 2 requires us to invent an unnecessary entity - the milk fairy. It is an invention because we have no proof that the milk fairy exists. And it is unnecessary because there is a plausible explanation that does not require the milk fairy - the cat. (We know he exists.)
Note: we haven't proven that the cat drank the milk. Or disproven the milk fairy option. Strictly speaking, we keep an open mind about both options. But Occam says that if you insist it could be the milk fairy, you have invented an unnecessary entity. And why would you do that?

Note also that strictly speaking, both solutions are equally simple. The cat hypothesis is only simpler in that you haven't had to invent a new, unproven entity. Also note that there are additional options that we could choose if we abandon Occam. For example, it could have been ghosts, or aliens, or the boogieman or Santa Claus. Why choose one of these over the others when there is an equal lack of proof for any of them?

Occam Applied

Occam can be applied to a myriad of supposed paranormal events, including ghosts, psychics, UFOs, people who talk with the dead, reincarnation, the soul, spoon benders, near death and out of body experiences. Usually, the paranormal explanation for these phenomena cannot be disproven, and this is often given as the reason we should consider the paranormal explanation. But Occam says go with the natural explanation for now, until any new evidence challenges it. But if there is a natural explanation and you believe, without proof, that the paranormal one is possible, you are inventing the milk fairy.

SOURCE

Occam is designed to help prevent us from inventing something to use as a tool to get at the truth or to provide evidence for a truth. Its not saying that these things couldnt be true, it telling us that we need to be very careful in what we use to get at the truth, that is until new irrefutable evidence comes to light that can stregthen any given arguement, pro or con.

Thanks Mike for all the great links! I can't believe anyone who has seen this video with the shuttle tether still thinks it's debris but go figure. The battle of L.A. also had a front page article of the event with a photograph of the unknown vehicle being hit with floodlights and artillery fire. This event lasted for approximately 30 minutes. The photo of the ship was analyzed and it actually shows in a negative hightlight that the shells were hitting all around but no direct hits. Bizarre. Then the ship just moved away as if it become uninterested. Hahhaa, I guess it was a weather balloon or swamp gas.

Ok Mike, so where are you taking this thread? You have no proof, so far it is just speculation like other posters have said. If it was proof the answering posts would read"OMG! Where did you get this info!!!" not "sniff........it's been debunked and by the way where are the links". I'll admit my take on Occams Razor :"Did it happen? No, couldn't have. Thats the easiest way out so that must be it" but I still require proof.

Oh my god. If someone like Neil Armstrong really said those things then it would be one of the biggest stories of the century. Please provide some proof for this, and if it already has been provided in this thread then I apologize because I haven't read the whole thing.

Then this other guy comes in here and says that the astronauts were told to make up stories about Aliens and UFOs because they never even went to the moon in the first place?

Where do you people get this crap? Why does this guy supposedly "know" about this, but I don't? Please by all means, help me to "know" about this like you do. I want to know. If astronauts were really being told to make up stories about UFOs, then please tell me HOW you know this to be true and how I can research it so I can "know" for myself...

Thank you Mike . grat work

Again more great composition of actuall evidence. But many just wont believe or will post scorn messages without even researching a fraction of what you have to bring in these and other very inticing threads. So many of these pilots, astrounauts,military have been deemed worthy to participate in multi billion dollar missions with top of the line craft and secrets you and I arent privy too yet if they mention UFO's,Moon,aliens,Mars,etc.. other than the Company line are called nutz or disinfo agents. Please. Our Military handlers and Gov. prove everyday to be liars and cheats and imo are way less credible than the many who have servered with distinction as those mentioned above and those include John Lear as well. Its funny that most debunkers are faceless and unverifiable unlike our Pilots and astrounauts. Worth thinking about before buying the its rocks or ice crystals theories IMO.
Great work Mike.

Originally posted by mikesingh

Originally posted by yeti101
sorry , doesnt convince me

What will? Perhaps an alien handshake? Or a walk in the park with a blond Andromedian?

Sorry, if that's the evidence you want, it isn't possible.

Not really the point there fella. You have a made up conversation between an unnamed professor and Armstrong at the beginning of this thread. You offer no proof whatsoever that this conversation took place. You splice together a bunch of other astronaut stuff taken out of context and hold this up as 'damning proof.' It isn't. It is totally uncorraborated.

Even after France is making government UFO files public followed by Mexico, Brazil and UK, you still need convincing that UFOs are a hoax? Isn't that damning evidence that UFOs are a reality and that we've been taken for a ride for the past 60 years by these same governments who now want to 'come clean'? What is the hidden agenda behind this graduated disclosure?

I don't think you really meant what you said there. 'You still need convincing UFOs are a hoax?' --you probably mean the opposite. If you don't mean the opposite, you aren't making sense. What's the big deal about some country releasing some files? the US released the Blue Book files years ago. No one would accuse the US of 'coming clean' on UFO files. Do you really think Great Britain or France is going to release some outstanding smoking gun? well, the files are released. I'm waiting.

The incident named "The Battle of Los Angeles" has pictures...and a short video floating around somewhere on the internet. Has 100's of witnesses and no explanation.

February 26, 1942....So much ammunition was used to try and shoot this thing down....to the point where civilians were injured by our own AA shells falling down on them.

65 years ago...imagine that. This is one that makes me wonder.

Originally posted by Mr Mota
The incident named "The Battle of Los Angeles" has pictures...and a short video floating around somewhere on the internet. Has 100's of witnesses and no explanation.

February 26, 1942....So much ammunition was used to try and shoot this thing down....to the point where civilians were injured by our own AA shells falling down on them.

65 years ago...imagine that. This is one that makes me wonder.

That video was posted on ATS about a month ago. It was fascinating
footage, but looked a bit unreal with all these searchlights shining up
onto this big UFO and the UFO itself seemingly blinded and paralyzed
by all the commotion. Weird. Anyway, if you do a search on "Los
Angeles" I'm sure those who want to see the vid will easily locate the
thread. -cwm

The following personnel need to be put into the mental asylum for claiming to have seen UFOs. They should be branded as liars or should have been sent for psychiatric treatment. They should also be charged for attempting to spread disinformation and influencing a gullible public that UFOs from other extraterrestrial civilizations are a fact.

www.uga.edu..." border=0>
Ex President Jimmy Carter
Secretary Jody Powell helped President Carter contact various agencies and people to determine what could be done to get some answers to the UFO question. The agencies Powell contacted included NASA and the FBI. Asked what he thought of the UFO sighting of Carter's UFO sighting Powell said, "I do remember Jimmy saying that he did, in fact, see a strange light or object at night in the sky…
www.presidentialufo.com...

www.syti.net..." border=0>
Major Gordon Cooper
During the final orbit, Major Gordon Cooper told the tracking station at Muchea (near Perth Australia) that he could see a glowing, greenish object ahead of him quickly approaching his capsule. The UFO was real and solid, because it was picked up by Muchea's tracking radar. Cooper's sighting was reported by the National Broadcast Company, which was covering the flight step by step; but when Cooper landed, reporters were told that they would not be allowed to question him about the UFO sighting.

Major Cooper also testified before the United Nations: "I believe that these extra-terrestrial vehicles and their crews are visiting this planet from other planets... Most astronauts were reluctant to discuss UFOs."


Maurice Chatelain
In 1979 Maurice Chatelain, former chief of NASA Communications Systems confirmed that Armstrong had indeed reported seeing two UFOs on the rim of a crater. Chatelain believes that some UFOs may come from our own solar system, specifically Titan. "The encounter was common knowledge in NASA, but nobody has talked about it until now." "...all Apollo and Gemini flights were followed, both at a distance and sometimes also quite closely, by space vehicles of extraterrestrial origin - flying saucers, or UFOs, if you want to call them by that name. Every time it occurred, the astronauts informed Mission Control, who then ordered absolute silence."

There are more who need to be sent for psychiatric examination, but that later. But what were these ‘things’ in the photographs taken by the astronauts?





Courtesy: Skywatch

These pics may, needless to say, be just swamp gas on the Moon, or dust on the lens or ice particles from the boosters. Its lunacy if someone says these may be UFOs. Because there are no such things!

Cheers!

Here

Originally posted by mikesingh
The following personnel need to be put into the mental asylum for claiming to have seen UFOs. They should be branded as liars or should have been sent for psychiatric treatment. They should also be charged for attempting to spread disinformation and influencing a gullible public that UFOs from other extraterrestrial civilizations are a fact.
.........
....
.....

Cmon...you expect me to believe any of this? pah! *scoff*
All 'those' people are obviously misguided liars and incompetents with eye problems.

The real evidence is in UFO landing trace cases, there is a ton of physical proof of soil and plants permanently altered by rare forms of high radiation. It still is "not real proof" of UFOs, its only proof of "something radiating the ground in circular patterns". For all we know...it could be swamp gas eradiating the ground.

[edit on 11-5-2007 by Unplugged]

No offense Mike, but what about this thread is bringing new evidence to ANY of the "damning" material you posted? I had to read it twice just to be sure of what I was reading. All you did is post almost every controversial topic in UFOlogy, and stated that it was damning evidence! You provided NO additional information, or research.

Please explain what new evidence you have that we couldnt already find in the hundreds of existing threads on the same topics. . . I hope I'm missing something here. . .

Originally posted by amongus
No offense Mike, but what about this thread is bringing new evidence to ANY of the "damning" material you posted?

Here's the opinion of people we can't be brand as lunatics. Coming from them points to the evidence of unidentified vehicles and ETCs (Extra Terrestrial Civilizations).

OK. Read the ribbon below of what these gentlemen have to say...

Dr Herman Oberth.
Gordon Cooper, NASA Astronaut.
General Nathan Twining, Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Admiral Roscoe Hellenkoetter, firstst Director, CIA
Ex President Jimmy Carter.
Air Chief Marshall Lord Dowding.
Ex President Harry S Truman.
Dr James Mc Donald, Professor, Atmospheric Sciences.
Edgar Mitchell, NASA Astronaut.




Oh! They're just talking out of their hats. Absolute rubbish! We need to hear from more credible and reliable sources, don't we? General Nathan Twining, Chairman JCS, Admiral Hellenkoetter who was the first Director of the CIA and the ex Presidents of the US of A were all nuts with zero credibility. UFOs? Blah! What a pack of liars!

Have a nice day! Cheers!

Watching the tether video all of that was explained as ice crystals and other junk floating around. All of them look identical and have the same notch in them some small some large. When the camera was zoomed in, the tether was several miles away one of the larger discs passed behind the tether. That's a mighty big piece of ice.

[edit on 11-5-2007 by sean]

[edit on 11-5-2007 by sean]