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.
I guess I'm a sceptic for those that need a label. But for the life of me, I can't understand why a sceptic would need such a ridiculous argument for proof against space people flying space ships around.
Originally posted by intrptr
reply to post by zonetripper2065
For one why would a spacecraft need lights, the only reason modern planes have lights is so they don't slam into each other.
Thats only partially true. At plane speeds (hundreds of miles an hour) there is little time to maneuver by "seeing lights". Radar is the controlling factor there, both in the cockpit and on the ground.
Running lights also identify the plane to military jets in case of "international incident or incursion" whatever. And like you said to identify each other in close proximity like for approach, landing and takeoff.
Now why UFO's "need lights" is not readily explainable. I'm not sure if they have lights or emit light. The one I saw was a "blob" of light(s) that hid the object from view...edit on 3-2-2013 by intrptr because: additional...
Originally posted by zonetripper2065
Same as they've ever been, people just aren't as dumb as they used to be.
For one why would a spacecraft need lights, the only reason modern planes have lights is so they don't slam into each other.edit on 3-2-2013 by zonetripper2065 because: (no reason given)
The scale of sightings has diminished and the reliability of reports is at a sewer-level ebb as people make ridiculous claims on the internet and ruin the study of the subject in its modern context.
"why is there such a lack of real evidence with such a widespread phenomenon?" and then sit back and watch all those ad hoc hypotheses fly around.
Originally posted by ZetaRediculian
I guess I'm a sceptic for those that need a label. But for the life of me, I can't understand why a sceptic would need such a ridiculous argument for proof against space people flying space ships around.
Originally posted by intrptr
reply to post by zonetripper2065
For one why would a spacecraft need lights, the only reason modern planes have lights is so they don't slam into each other.
Thats only partially true. At plane speeds (hundreds of miles an hour) there is little time to maneuver by "seeing lights". Radar is the controlling factor there, both in the cockpit and on the ground.
Running lights also identify the plane to military jets in case of "international incident or incursion" whatever. And like you said to identify each other in close proximity like for approach, landing and takeoff.
Now why UFO's "need lights" is not readily explainable. I'm not sure if they have lights or emit light. The one I saw was a "blob" of light(s) that hid the object from view...edit on 3-2-2013 by intrptr because: additional...
All those "why would they need....whatever" points are silly to me.
My point is, you don't need that argument! There are far better arguments to make your case. Sceptics are way ahead of the game from what I can tell. Here is the only question one need to ask. "why is there such a lack of real evidence with such a widespread phenomenon?" and then sit back and watch all those ad hoc hypotheses fly around.
Originally posted by sugarcookie1
The fact is we just don't know what the truth is concerning ET craft all we can do is give our option and my option is there here and there real..peace,sugarcookie1
Of course it will always appear as though there isn't 'proof' for UFOs to the lazy and the uninformed.
This demand for 'proof' is just a symptom of
1) a lack of information
and
2) an abuse of the concept of proof
UFOs never existed