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 silver6ix
You see this is what I was saying about "Balloon Theory". Balloon theory will always come up with the one theoretical scenario that could be balloon related.
You say a balloon would burst, they will google and tell you "not if the balloon was made of neopolykryptonicplasmagel!!".
You say ok well then a balloon couldnt move like that, they will google and tell you "yes, in theory if there was a hydrosonic power wind fluctuation from the east when venus crossed the seventh eliptic plane while the magnetic field was x-y to the power of z then it could happen".
Balloon theory will never consider the odds against a freak balloon made of the only kind of material on earth that could not burst being in that position at the exact moment the freak earths forces were applied to it...no no of course that would be rediculous
As for the comment on skeptics provinding proof, yes on SOME occasions they do, many of you though just debunk based on what you think not matter how unlikely or unrealistic it is, and call that proof.
"reasonable scientific explanations"
What defines reasonable? What the poster determines is reasonable? If its a "reasonable" scientific explanation that has outside odds of a gazzillion to one to be possible then I wouldnt call that an explanation at all, id call it a convenient way to avoid considering other options.
[edit on 19-10-2008 by silver6ix]
Originally posted by FlySolo
hehe ya. Now they are trying to get me backed into a corner regarding bloody physics. Twist twist turn turn avoid avoid...
Let me take a look at Zorgon's skepticnazi flow chart again and see how much longer this will go on.
Originally posted by EliteLegends
Bet none of you have even seen the 'Disclosure Project' that an earlier member stated and even if you did you would try to come up with some lame ass rebuttal as to why the people have no credibility even though they are anyone and everyone who is/has run our country
I sometimes wonder if other ppl got their intelligence out a cracker jack box
Originally posted by SaviorComplex
No one is saying these people have no credibility. However, they have no evidence to back up their claims. Lacking evidence to prove or disprove all we are left with is a story.
Originally posted by weneedtoknow
Originally posted by spacebagel
reply to post by weneedtoknow
Show me an alien spacecraft. You can't. Show me an alien. You can't. Show me a piece of an alien spacecraft. You can't. Show me one place on this earth where space aliens have landed. You can't. Show me some impact that space aliens have had on this planet. You can't. End of story.
show me jesus
show me physical evidence jesus.. whom billions of people believe in existed,,,, you cant can you!
Originally posted by silver6ix
Exactly the same as saying its a balloon or a bird 99% of the time then isnt it? Theres no evidence to prove or disprove that and all you have is a stroy you are quite willing to accept as fact, whats the difference?
Originally posted by SaviorComplex
No one is saying these people have no credibility. However, they have no evidence to back up their claims. Lacking evidence to prove or disprove all we are left with is a story.
But credibility of these witnesses has nothing to do with it. If credibility was the issue, you would believe the government and military officials who say extraterrestrials are not visiting the planet, or that the government is not covering-up such visitation. However, you don't, because they are not saying what you want to hear.
I am sure you could say those same government and military officials are lying. But that begs the question: if you believe the government and military are lying, why do you suddenly believe them once they are saying what you want to hear?
Originally posted by SaviorComplex
Originally posted by silver6ix
Exactly the same as saying its a balloon or a bird 99% of the time then isnt it? Theres no evidence to prove or disprove that and all you have is a stroy you are quite willing to accept as fact, whats the difference?
The difference is Sagan's Law: extrordinary claims require extrodinary evidence.
Originally posted by silver6ix
Why bother? All they need to do is discredit the entire field, create the illusion of UFO belief to be a crackpots field of interest and hey presto they blinded the masses without lifting a finger.