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 hornum
But where is the proof?
this is a classic catch 22...god...where and what's the proof?creation...evolution...adam...missing link ...the bible ,they're proof? our very own existence can't even provide proof of what and who we really are...but at least let's not lose our common sense.reality check ? is that we are exchanging ideas here at ats right now trying to find "your proofs"...
Originally posted by network dude
reply to post by Gawdzilla
I think you missed my point. There will always be debunkers. Every theory (not proven yet) can and will be debunked. The true believers are usually that way because they saw something. Obviously there is no way you can debunk my eye wittness account, but then again, it's only hear say and can't be used as evidence. The world needs a good ballance of debunkers and blind followers. It keeps the chi good.
Originally posted by hornum
I havent made up my mind but I certainly wont be holding my breath. I ask you this question. If I went to an airshow and there was the B2 stealth bomber doing some manouvers for the crowd to see and I was filming it with an HD video camera that I have, then took it home plugged it into my tv for some friends to watch, would they believe it to be real or fake? You can't tell me that with the amount of sightings in recent years and with the fair technology around to capture it we dont have ANY good footage of a so called UFO
Originally posted by Xtraeme
Awhile ago I made a thread to address the very question of "I need proof."
If you're looking for a case that is sufficiently strange and yet to be truly explained. Look no further.
All anyone needs to prove there is an unexplained aerial phenomenon is one verifiable case, and we have that, in spades. So I'm not sure what the debate is at this point.
The real question right now is how do we better study this phenomenon.
[edit on 7-4-2009 by Xtraeme]
Originally posted by Xtraeme
All anyone needs to prove there is an unexplained aerial phenomenon is one verifiable case, and we have that, in spades. So I'm not sure what the debate is at this point.
Originally posted by Gawdzilla
"Spades"? Sorry, but you've only dug a hole for yourself. Your case depends on faith that the reports are correct and the interpretation of the information is correct. That just doesn't work for me.
Originally posted by Xtraeme
Originally posted by Gawdzilla
"Spades"? Sorry, but you've only dug a hole for yourself. Your case depends on faith that the reports are correct and the interpretation of the information is correct. That just doesn't work for me.
Rather than get in to a long breathless debate over differing positions why don't you take the challenge? We'll talk after you offer up your own explanation.
[edit on 7-4-2009 by Xtraeme]
Originally posted by Gawdzilla
I jump through hoops at my own request, not someone else's. I guess this means you won't talk to me any more.
Originally posted by Xtraeme
Originally posted by Gawdzilla
I jump through hoops at my own request, not someone else's. I guess this means you won't talk to me any more.
I'll happily talk to you. I just don't know what we'll talk about. Arguing against another persons beliefs is an exercise in futility. To argue against a specific case, now that has tangible merit!
Whether you choose to believe it or not I greatly enjoy talking with people that are deeply skeptical. Unfortunately most of my professional colleagues are what I would call disbelievers. They don't offer explanations. They disbelieve on faith rather than on anything they know for fact. This is not only frustrating it's boring. They refuse to confront cases that are put in front of them.
Skeptics, on the other hand, are far cry from a disbelievers. They have an explanation to backup their disbelief.
I hope you change your mind. I honestly would like to hear your take on that case.
[edit on 7-4-2009 by Xtraeme]