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 FlySolo
Have you tried to answer why the object travels up in the last part of that clip?
Originally posted by MrPenny
Originally posted by FlySolo
Have you tried to answer why the object travels up in the last part of that clip?
No, I didn't....but internos did. Go read his posts.
Originally posted by MrPenny
Originally posted by FlySolo
The physics of a balloon is the same regardless of what it is made of.
That's nonsense, and only worthy of a one line response.
Originally posted by FlySolo
I missed this stellar remark.
We're talking about either a latex or polychloroprene balloon, not a flying cardboard box. Don't over complicate things.
Originally posted by drock905
You know, the op claims that skeptics are always insulting the believers, but you know whats funny? The people who are actually insulting are the UFO alien believers. If you don't agree with them your obviously under mind control, your too simple to understand the idea, or you never experienced anything amazing.
Give me a break.
The skeptic is the greatest asset to the UFO debate. Don't you think being a skeptic is a good thing? Or do you just believe anything in a grainy youtube video or a website? Without objectivity in any debate no conclusion can be reached.
Originally posted by drock905
I know its hard to accept because people are so emotionally invested but there is NO undeniable scientific proof that aliens are visting our planet in flying saucers. If there was this debate wouldn't be happening.
Blindly accepting something without real proof is not science it is FAITH. The UFO alien debate demands extraordinary proof not faith, it is NOT religion.
Originally posted by drock905
Don't you see the
I have seen weird stuff, we all have.
I DO NOT MEAN TO INSULT ANYONE BUT,
Saying that millions have seen UFOs and been abducted is not proof. Maybe you don't realize it yet, but many people in this world are LIARS, HOAXERS, CHARLATANS or simply CRAZY.
Again I am not saying anyone here is any of those things, just that they exist.
With all that said,
Is it possile aliens are visiting? Of course it is. Anything is possible.
I have an open mind, but I'm also open to the fact that they are not.
Originally posted by thrashee
Originally posted by FlySolo
Basics to what? Is that another typical back door retort? Much like swap gas and balloons?
The basics of logic. I was addressing how your conclusion did not follow from your statements. I don't know what exactly you mean by back door retort, but swamp gas and balloons are two phenomena that have actually been proven to be the cause of many UFO sightings, so to dismiss them outright because they are cliches seems fool hearty to me.
Further, I would respectfully ask you to withdraw your comment about flying unicorns. Trying to lump me into the same category as those who create laughable threads is only an attempt to distract. Its a typical ad hominem remark and has nothing to do with what I said.
I didn't say that specifically to you. It was a rhetorical reply to the oft-heard complaint by believers that skeptics never have the same burden of proof that believers had. And what exactly makes such threads laughable? Where do you draw the line between obvious belief in nonsense, and rational beliefs supported by bona fide evidence?
Originally posted by FlySolo
I'm sorry, in 10 words or less can you explain how my logic doesn't follow my statement? About what? That skeptics should try and debunk their own answers?
I've heard over and over that the burden off proof lies on the one making the claim. True. But it works both ways. If one makes a rebuttal and offers an explanation, then it must be backed.
Back door retort:
cheap one word cliche cop out used over and over again because it worked once
Originally posted by FlySolo
We're talking about either a latex or polychloroprene balloon, not a flying cardboard box.
Originally posted by thrashee
Originally posted by FlySolo
I missed this stellar remark.
We're talking about either a latex or polychloroprene balloon, not a flying cardboard box. Don't over complicate things.
Hey, you were the one who wanted to bring physics into the equation. When questioned on these physics, now you're telling us to be simple about it?
Priceless.
Originally posted by MrPenny
Originally posted by FlySolo
We're talking about either a latex or polychloroprene balloon, not a flying cardboard box.
Okay...so the physics of a balloon are not the same regardless of what they are made of....just wanted to clear that up.
Because of course....that throws your entire shtick about how a balloon is supposed to react, into doubt.
We have zero idea what materials the balloon may have been constructed with....meaning the performance and characteristics of any possible balloon, to be totally unknown. They could even be what was exhibited in the video.