Is there an organized effort to undermine the Aliens and UFOs forum?

originally posted by: Mehmet666Heineken

originally posted by: aynock
a reply to: Mehmet666Heineken

Been here for a few hours and noticed it immediately. "They're all just Murrican military super duper aircraft" yeah tell that to witnesses in Peru retards.

i'd be impressed if you'd read all that ats has to offer on the subject in a few hours - but i suspect you haven't - there's actually quite a broad range of ideas posted here

A former voiceless lurker. Read a few comments saying UFO are just American test craft and a bunch of people seemed to back it up. Felt surprised that such a stupid theory could gain traction is all. Cheers

Some are. Not a theory, but a fact.

And while we now have some of the actual American test craft that were reported to inspect, there is no such alien vehicle available for study... or alien pilot, for that matter.

But if you want to rail against "stupid theories", there are more than a few here for you... but I wouldn't base my opinion of the entire population of the site on a few comments.

originally posted by: Mehmet666Heineken

A former voiceless lurker.

Right. That's what they all say.

You registered today and you're on here calling people retards.

Welcome to the "pay no mind" list.

originally posted by: DelMarvel

originally posted by: Mehmet666Heineken

A former voiceless lurker.

Right. That's what they all say.

Well if they didn't that would make them current voiceless lurkers.

a reply to: Tangerine

It is not about proof it is about evaluating the evidence.

a reply to: Tangerine
Jenny Randles in her book Abduction recounts a story of how a psychologist was presented with the details of abductees mental states. The psychologist did not know the were abductees. She was just asked to do an assessment. She said they all were normal and she was shocked to see they were all abductees. ET researchers don't just 'simply' believe stories they are told. They are convinced by the evidence and by careful analysis. Yes, mistakes are sometimes made and some researchers have been taken for a ride, but the general drift of the evidence is compelling.

originally posted by: EnPassant
a reply to: Tangerine

It is not about proof it is about evaluating the evidence.

It's not about evaluating the evidence. It's about interpreting the eyewitness reports.

a reply to: Tangerine

The theory that it is all a set up is not as compelling as the ETH. Anything can be true but the evidence of aliens is simpler than theories about the collective unconscious. Besides the collective unconscious does not leave trace effects or electromagnetic burns on people's skin.

a reply to: DelMarvel
The descriptions of the greys emerged through hypnosis. One hypnotic subject describe greys? - well, maybe. Two describe them without having heard the other's testimony? - interesting. People all over the place are describing the same beings without knowing each other? The only explanation here is that these are objective real beings.

originally posted by: draknoir2

originally posted by: EnPassant
a reply to: Tangerine
It is not about proof it is about evaluating the evidence.

It's not about evaluating the evidence. It's about interpreting the eyewitness reports.

Are you joking? Witness testimony is only part of the evidence. There are also photographs, radar traces, trace effects, landing marks...there is a mountain of evidence.

originally posted by: EnPassant
a reply to: Tangerine
Jenny Randles in her book Abduction recounts a story of how a psychologist was presented with the details of abductees mental states. The psychologist did not know the were abductees. She was just asked to do an assessment. She said they all were normal and she was shocked to see they were all abductees. ET researchers don't just 'simply' believe stories they are told. They are convinced by the evidence and by careful analysis. Yes, mistakes are sometimes made and some researchers have been taken for a ride, but the general drift of the evidence is compelling.

I see you have yet to purchase another book.

originally posted by: EnPassant
(The descriptions of the greys emerged before they were in the media and they were described by people who had no exposure ufology because they did not take an interest in it. The greys just emerged spontaneously from many independent sources.)

Absolutely false and you know it.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: draknoir2

I see you have yet to purchase another book.

and I have yet to see any direct quotes from said book... Considering how badly misinterpreted my words were in that thread, I have hard time imagining the accuracy of the reinterpretation.

Just to reiterate. People that see UFOs are not delusional. As far as I know, GLOC has never been the cause of a UFO sighting and I never suggested that it did anywhere.

Just considering how badly the word "delusional" got twisted...jeez, don't get me worked up.

originally posted by: draknoir2

originally posted by: EnPassant
(The descriptions of the greys emerged before they were in the media and they were described by people who had no exposure ufology because they did not take an interest in it. The greys just emerged spontaneously from many independent sources.)

Absolutely false and you know it.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

In the Hill case the description of the greys did not come until very late - only months before the Valensole case.

a reply to: duaneology

I'm going to write an ATS crawler that logs everyone who has posted anything in the UFO forum and then analyzes sentiment, and recurring sentiment on all of those individuals in that forum. Perhaps those users site-wide. Tired of it and I want to put some of these people's ignorance in the dirt with facts.

Expect me...

originally posted by: EnPassant

originally posted by: draknoir2

originally posted by: EnPassant
(The descriptions of the greys emerged before they were in the media and they were described by people who had no exposure ufology because they did not take an interest in it. The greys just emerged spontaneously from many independent sources.)

Absolutely false and you know it.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

In the Hill case the description of the greys did not come until very late - only months before the Valensole case.

Again...

The Hills met with a NICAP investigator for an interview in October of 1961, after having reported the events to the USAF, three and a half years before the Valensole case. The Hills discussed the case with friends and UFO researchers alike, even lecturing on it in 1963. It was well known in UFO circles by 1965.

originally posted by: DigitalJedi805
a reply to: duaneology

I'm going to write an ATS crawler that logs everyone who has posted anything in the UFO forum and then analyzes sentiment, and recurring sentiment on all of those individuals in that forum. Perhaps those users site-wide. Tired of it and I want to put some of these people's ignorance in the dirt with facts.

Expect me...

How impressive and intimidating.

Will this program also flag posters who author hoax threads and are subsequently banned?

a reply to: draknoir2

paranoia at its best, there is no need for a direct discrediation of the UFO ETH topic stupid arguments and in fighting does that well enough.

there are for sure 101% some UFO-like USAF/SC out there im sure would fool pretty much anyone but myself having seen something i would classify as non-terrestrial have to by my own observations admit SOMETHING is among us


i believe, sceptically

originally posted by: EnPassant
a reply to: Tangerine

It is not about proof it is about evaluating the evidence.

Can you give us some of the evidence that, when evaluated, leads to the ETH rather than, say, interdimensional beings or faeries as the cause?

originally posted by: draknoir2

originally posted by: DigitalJedi805
a reply to: duaneology

I'm going to write an ATS crawler that logs everyone who has posted anything in the UFO forum and then analyzes sentiment, and recurring sentiment on all of those individuals in that forum. Perhaps those users site-wide. Tired of it and I want to put some of these people's ignorance in the dirt with facts.

Expect me...

How impressive and intimidating.

Will this program also flag posters who author hoax threads and are subsequently banned?

No need; the entire project would violate T&C!

originally posted by: EnPassant
a reply to: Tangerine
Jenny Randles in her book Abduction recounts a story of how a psychologist was presented with the details of abductees mental states. The psychologist did not know the were abductees. She was just asked to do an assessment. She said they all were normal and she was shocked to see they were all abductees. ET researchers don't just 'simply' believe stories they are told. They are convinced by the evidence and by careful analysis. Yes, mistakes are sometimes made and some researchers have been taken for a ride, but the general drift of the evidence is compelling.

Who was the psychologist? What kind of psychologist? What was her degree? What was her license? What process did she use to determine whether they were "normal" and how did she measure that assessment against a control group? If she concluded that they were "abductees" as you called them, how did she do so? How did she distinguish between "alleged abductees" and "abductees"?

"ET researchers don't just 'simply' believe stories they are told? They are convinced by evidence and by careful analysis"? How do you know that? You might be interested in reading George P. Hansen's evisceration of Bud Hopkins' claims.
www.tricksterbook.com...