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 Ectoplasm8
I don't debate that there are unusual objects in the sky, just the ET part of that "equation".
Originally posted by Orkojoker
Originally posted by Ectoplasm8
I don't debate that there are unusual objects in the sky, just the ET part of that "equation".
I'm curious to know what you consider to be the distinguishing characteristics of these "unusual objects in the sky", as anyone reasonably familiar with the topic should realize that there are certain fascinating traits that have continued to crop up among the "unknowns" for about seven decades. If you aren't familiar with these characteristics and the reports that describe them, your comment about the "ridiculousness" of the possible extraterrestrial origin of some UFOs makes more sense.
On what basis is the ETH "ridiculous", as I believe I've seen you state a few times now? (In the first sentence you'll say it's ridiculous, then in the next next sentence emphasize that there's no proof. That's why I asked that prior question -- there's a LOT of room in between 'no proof of' and 'ridiculous' that you seem to be ignoring.)
Originally posted by Ectoplasm8
Your "odds, nuances and general thrust of evidence" I'm guessing is coming from what you've read, videos, etc.,correct? Not first hand experience? I'm speaking of extraterrestrials, not UFO's in the skies. I don't debate that there are unusual objects in the sky, just the ET part of that "equation".
WHY would you draw such a conclusion? MY conclusion is that a tiny percentage of UFOs may be extraterrestrial in origin, and therefore, you say, I likely also believe in Bob Lazar, vast government conspiracies, alien abductions, cattle mutilations, etc.?????
So, you also must subscribe to the many levels of conspiracies out there in order for these "ET's" to be real.
Ahhh, now I see why you needed to make that assumption up above. It's much easier to to discredit me if you assume I believe in all the UFO fringe stuff, right? Nicely played, and very original. (Haha.) And note that you just did EXACTLY what Brighter and Orkojoker have been talking about in Brighter's "Critical Thinking..." threads.
If that's the mindset that you have, there's an awful lot of assumptions in each level of this extraterrestrial answer. Assumptions, that you turn into "odds" in favor of extraterrestrial beings. Interesting.
What does 'belief' have to do with anything I've mentioned? I think Hynek was a man who was led by the evidence. You seem to be consistently having a hard time dealing with those gray areas that lie in between 'probably' and 'proof'. Have you ever taken a course in statistics? Do you understand the concept of levels of certainty?
You seem to reference Dr. Hynek a lot also. Did he have a strong belief that UFO's were ET controlled or have actual proof? I don't remember reading that he had proof.
Originally posted by Ectoplasm8
Originally posted by Orkojoker
Originally posted by Ectoplasm8
I don't debate that there are unusual objects in the sky, just the ET part of that "equation".
I'm curious to know what you consider to be the distinguishing characteristics of these "unusual objects in the sky", as anyone reasonably familiar with the topic should realize that there are certain fascinating traits that have continued to crop up among the "unknowns" for about seven decades. If you aren't familiar with these characteristics and the reports that describe them, your comment about the "ridiculousness" of the possible extraterrestrial origin of some UFOs makes more sense.
"Unusual" as in unidentified, unexplained. An unusual earthly answer, rather than an unusual unearthly answer. I'm just acknowledging that objects in the sky exist. Be it aircraft, stars/planets, meteors, blimps, satellites, balloons, etc. So, many different types of objects in the sky is a fact. Therefore, with a variety of so many, one can draw a logical conclusion that some can look unusual or unexplainable to many people. Just use this board as an example. Many people here jump on a youtube video with the first thought in their mind of a possible alien UFO. Only to find out later that it's a balloon, hoax, or some other realistic explanation. They approach an answer as to what this object is, with something that's still questioned and not proven. Thats the "ridiculous" part in this.
Originally posted by Orkojoker
Originally posted by Ectoplasm8
Originally posted by Orkojoker
Originally posted by Ectoplasm8
I don't debate that there are unusual objects in the sky, just the ET part of that "equation".
I'm curious to know what you consider to be the distinguishing characteristics of these "unusual objects in the sky", as anyone reasonably familiar with the topic should realize that there are certain fascinating traits that have continued to crop up among the "unknowns" for about seven decades. If you aren't familiar with these characteristics and the reports that describe them, your comment about the "ridiculousness" of the possible extraterrestrial origin of some UFOs makes more sense.
"Unusual" as in unidentified, unexplained. An unusual earthly answer, rather than an unusual unearthly answer. I'm just acknowledging that objects in the sky exist. Be it aircraft, stars/planets, meteors, blimps, satellites, balloons, etc. So, many different types of objects in the sky is a fact. Therefore, with a variety of so many, one can draw a logical conclusion that some can look unusual or unexplainable to many people. Just use this board as an example. Many people here jump on a youtube video with the first thought in their mind of a possible alien UFO. Only to find out later that it's a balloon, hoax, or some other realistic explanation. They approach an answer as to what this object is, with something that's still questioned and not proven. Thats the "ridiculous" part in this.
Your answer makes it clear that you are unfamiliar with the serious literature on the subject. Like many, you are probably simply unaware that there is a body of serious literature on the subject, so your opinion is understandable. Certainly the readiness with which people on ATS declare a video of a Chinese lantern to be a likely spaceship is a bit ridiculous, but that has nothing to do with the actual topic. Have you read any books on the subject of UFOs? If so, which ones?
Originally posted by UFOskeptic
The problem with UFOlogy is that most people, not including this group, do not take the topic serious. When we walk into a library or bookstore we tend to find UFO books in the same section as bigfoot, chupacara, ghosts, etc. Not once have I found a UFO related book in the non-fiction section. This is because proof of little green men, proof beyond a reasonable doubt that can muster all criticism, is lackluster at best. The best we have is a good handful of credible witnesses and once in a while a worthy photo or video to analyze. The burden of proof lies on us to come up with hard physical evidence that would accepted by the masses.
Originally posted by Ectoplasm8
You can't write off people that don't believe in extraterrestrial piloted UFOs as: "simply unaware that there is a body of serious literature on the subject". That's a naive assumption, especially in a world of the internet where everything is out there to read or watch. As I'm sure with most other non-believing members, I don't come here uninformed of the subject. I'm fully aware of a majority and probably most UFO claims. Obviously the major claims since the 40s. It's convenient for people like yourself to read a post and chalk it up to -well, just one more of the uninformed- while at the same time having no actual proof of extraterrestrials yourselves. If you do have proof, tell me what it is. Because before you can even make an assumption that a UFO in the sky is in fact an ET controlled craft, you need to prove the existence of those extraterrestrials first.
Why not say UFOs are piloted or connected to bigfoot? They seem to fly in remote areas at night searching for something. There have been many reports and photos of bigfoot. I'm sure there are stories somewhere of a connection. So there's all the proof you need right there. There's the catalyst for the story and therefore the "good possibility of" in the minds of the believers. That's the foundation of the "open mind" isn't it? Photos + Word of Mouth = Proof
Originally posted by Ectoplasm8
The ridiculous claims don't lie in explaining away UFOs as swamp gas etc. I do however agree some of the "answers" are insulting to the believers intelligence. The ridiculous claims to me actually lie in the believers claim as UFO's being extraterrestrial. That's more of a ridiculous statement than swamp gas. Swamp gas, Venus, earthly aircraft etc is a given. They exist and are proven to exist. Extraterrestrials have not been proven to exist.edit on 26-7-2012 by Ectoplasm8 because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Ectoplasm8
You can't write off people that don't believe in extraterrestrial piloted UFOs as: "simply unaware that there is a body of serious literature on the subject".
Originally posted by Ectoplasm8
Why not say UFOs are piloted or connected to bigfoot? They seem to fly in remote areas at night searching for something. There have been many reports and photos of bigfoot. I'm sure there are stories somewhere of a connection.