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 nobodysavedme
reply to post by VoidHawk
Where is the high definition video and photos?
no one of the deluded had a mobile phone camera?
or thought of it?
seriously.
more likely they were smoking magic mushrooms.
Originally posted by Unidentified_Objective
reply to post by Eurisko2012
So there's no proof that it was a misidentified object then? See, that's where this becomes speculation and assumption...rather than actual proof of an alien craft sighting.
People make stuff up. If you don't think so, look how many people participated in the "Dr. Reed" alien and UFO hoax. Literally, lied. Many people involved. All lying.
Originally posted by nobodysavedme
reply to post by VoidHawk
Where is the high definition video and photos?
no one of the deluded had a mobile phone camera?
or thought of it?
seriously.
more likely they were smoking magic mushrooms.
Westall, a suburb of Melbourne, Australia.
On the morning of April 6 1966
Most people on ATS are aware of why people speak such drivel.
Originally posted by nobodysavedme
more likely they were smoking magic mushrooms.
\
Originally posted by nobodysavedme
reply to post by VoidHawk
Where is the high definition video and photos?
no one of the deluded had a mobile phone camera?
or thought of it?
seriously.
more likely they were smoking magic mushrooms.
Originally posted by Brighter
"Also as yeti said earlier, to scientifically prove the existence of a new species you need more than anecdotal evidence."
Yet, as has been abundantly clear from my posts, I have been explaining how there are different kinds of proof. It is superficial and uninformed to think that the only kind of proof is scientific proof. Scientific proof is only one kind. Other tiers of proof can be supported by, for instance, anecdotal evidence. This is especially the case when all you are trying to prove is the existence of a class of objects with some broadly defined properties. UFOs are such a class of
Originally posted by TheIrishJihad
The willful denial and ignorance on this site amazes me. Half the damn school saw this thing. Pictures and multiple eyewitness accounts make this case much more solid. The skeptics who say its a government craft give me a break. Why on earth would you test a top secret vehicle over a friggin school of all places??? That's a ridiculous argument.
Honestly it wouldn't matter how many people saw this UFO. Skeptics refuse to believe anything involving UFOs. No matter the evidence.
Great job op. A truly fascinating case that I would definitely classify as proof of UFOs. S&F.
Originally posted by cripmeister
Originally posted by Brighter
"Also as yeti said earlier, to scientifically prove the existence of a new species you need more than anecdotal evidence."
Yet, as has been abundantly clear from my posts, I have been explaining how there are different kinds of proof. It is superficial and uninformed to think that the only kind of proof is scientific proof. Scientific proof is only one kind. Other tiers of proof can be supported by, for instance, anecdotal evidence. This is especially the case when all you are trying to prove is the existence of a class of objects with some broadly defined properties. UFOs are such a class of
I am actually a bit embarrased now because I totally misunderstood what you were saying, I was too busy trying to find faults I have become cynical and jaded from investing too much time on junk and hoaxes I think. Thanks for putting up with my nonsense
Originally posted by cripmeister
I have become cynical and jaded from investing too much time on junk and hoaxes I think.
Originally posted by VoidHawk
Originally posted by Druscilla
reply to post by VoidHawk
The infamous witch trials of Salem and other places consisted primarily of witness testimony.
This is why we require more concrete evidence in real criminal cases that just witness testimony.
I agree, but this isn't a witch hunt, its a lot of sensible educated people who say they saw two flying saucers. It's also backed up by adults who had nothing to do with the school.
If people in your town started telling you they saw a flying saucer, how many would it take before you were willing to believe it was true?
Originally posted by VoidHawk
Originally posted by PhoenixOD
reply to post by lordaqua
It usually takes a lot more than just witness testimony alone to convict someone. In a courtroom it is a unique situation where a decision HAS to be reached. In court a 'decision' can be made on witness testimony but that does not make the testimony 'proof' which was the original claim made by the OP.
I might be able to provide 50 people that say that Elvis had lunch at my house yesterday but that doesnt prove he did. You might want to make a decision based on what they say but thats no proof.
Witnesses (circumstantial evidence) does not = proof.
So while the OP may have made a decision based on witness testimony there is no actual proof like he was claiming. Which is a shame, id love to see real proof of flying saucers.
edit on 10-7-2012 by PhoenixOD because: (no reason given)
I'm going to agree with you, but only because NOTHING is proof. We have to weigh up the odds that we're right or wrong. For me hundreds of school children, the school staff, and others in the neighbourhood all saying they saw flying saucers IS proof because the odds are that it really happened.
Personaly I believe these people saw something manufactured on earth that defies gravity. Why they were allowed to see it I dont know.
I agree with many of the people (on the first few pages that I have so far read) that your assertion of nigh-on 'watertight' proof was a bit of an exaggeration.
If you take a rational, unbiased person, and present them with this case (and they study it carefully), it alone should be sufficient to prove the existence of UFOs. And if there is any uncertainty, simply research the untold other reports of multiple-witness sightings, and, if that is not sufficient to convince you, then I would strongly suspect some sort of cognitive or (belief-based) emotional defect, or an ulterior motive.
Originally posted by yeti101
reply to post by Orkojoker
all the material your posting is really old. Its been gone over by several specially convened committees which included scientists like carl sagan & hynek.
Sagan himself spoke to hynek quite a bit on ufos and even invited him and other ufo proponents to debate the issue.
A symposium on Unidentified Flying Objects [sic], sponsored by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, was held in Boston, Massachusetts, on December 27 and 27, 1969."
- UFOs: A Scientific Debate, edited by Carl Sagan and Thornton Page, p. ix
Hynek & vallee didn't believe ufos were nuts and bolts craft of ET origin so its interesting you would put them along side someone who believes abductions are taking place.
I think there's more to be gained in the psychological area of science above anything else with regards to the ufo phenomenon.
still it would be good if one ufo case was proven to be something new to science. But i'm skeptical that will ever happen.
Either way it should be studied in a serious manner by competent professionals.