It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

Help ATS via PayPal:

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

page: 48
94
share:

posted on Jan, 29 2015 @ 03:48 PM

The various links to landing traces, electromagnetic burns from these craft etc. are known to you so there is no need for me to go through the tedium of providing links that have already been provided for you on previous threads.
They are NOT known to me. I have looked at all the links provided and looked on my own. The only thing I have seen is claims and repeated lore with no real backup. I don't recall you ever providing any source for any assertions you have made. in contrast, I have provided multiple links and sources, even in this very thread, which you admittedly ignored and stuck with your beliefs that people were "loons" and "bitter ex wives".

Computing is based on mathematics. So is information theory. It is not possible to get information out of a domain if it does not reside in that domain in the first place.
But it is possible to generate that information where no information exists. For instance in compression algorithms. Jpeg artifacts are a good example of this where even the artifacts are misinterpreted as alien.

A quadratic equation can map onto a range, which could be a graph on paper. The graph on paper cannot reveal information that is not contained in the equation. The equation is a condensed formula for the graph but it contains all the information that in can generate in the graph. This information is contained in they symbolic notation of the equation. The graph may seem to contain a greater QUANTITY of information because it may have millions of points but quantity is not the same as complexity.

So do you have quantified information or not? If not how do you use math like you are describing to reach your conclusions? Obviously, if what you are describing is true, you should be able to show your work. That is what math is all about.

If the perceived abduction narrative is generated by a real narrative that real narrative must be as complex as the thing it generates. In other words, the richness of the perceived narrative originates in the real narrative. But, in real terms, I believe that they are much the same thing. That is essentially what I am arguing.

The narrative is generated over time by a number of different sources. Misperceptions, false memories, hypnosis, hoaxes, lore, tv shows, books, the internet. All these different sources confirm peoples already established beliefs. The lack of ANY verifiable evidence for ET supports that this is in fact the case. Even if ET is here abducting people, you still have all these other elements misleading people. There is no way around it.

edit on 29-1-2015 by ZetaRediculian because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 29 2015 @ 03:48 PM

If the perceived abduction narrative is generated by a real narrative...

There is no “perceived narrative”; there is perception through the senses, followed by how a person narrates what they are experiencing, in that order, therefore there is neither a “real narrative”, i.e., a proto-narrative involving “Aliens” that can be perceived.

...that real narrative must be as complex as the thing it generates.

There is no underlying narrative, there is no “hypostasis” involving “Aliens”, unless you are a confused neo-Platonist, therefore this statement is false.

It is not possible to get information out of a domain if it does not reside in that domain in the first place.

It is when dealing with human fallibility and deciet. Unlike a mathematical function, human beings are capable of serving two masters.

edit on 29-1-2015 by Bybyots because: . : .

posted on Jan, 29 2015 @ 04:41 PM

ok ok, here's a quote-

1. “Sunburned” Skin
Manuel Amparano, a policeman in Kerman, California, observed a bright object in the sky during the night. It
emitted a blue flash then departed straight upward in seconds. Upon returning to the station, he was found to be
sunburned as red as a lobster. The effect faded in four hours. The burn was only on the portion of his body directly
exposed to the UFO. His long-sleeve uniform afforded no protection, but he was completely shielded by the door of
the patrol car."

Burns have been documented. That's evidence, yes?
edit on 29-1-2015 by EnPassant because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 29 2015 @ 04:56 PM

originally posted by: EnPassant

You keep asserting that those who have such experiences do so in a cultural vacuum, and because of this any common "themes" that happen to emerge constitute proof of alien abduction.

I never said that. I argued that cultural influences don't create the image of the grey. I brought attention to the Valensole case that happened only MONTHS after Barney Hill described the grey alien. I have argued using common sense - yes, common sense goes a long way here - that cultural imagery is not as potent as some make it out to be, otherwise people would be getting abducted by Spock and seeing Christopher Lee as Dracula coming through the bed room walls. They'd be imagining Mickey Mouse sliding down a light beam into their bed rooms. These things don't happen. COMMON SENSE and a little thought will tell you that the argument about cultural influences is weak in terms of explaining what is being reported.
At best cultural imagery taints things but there is no evidence that it can provide an entire narrative such as is described by the abductees. These narratives are repeated over and over again; car stalls, bright lights, beings, medical exam...and so on. If cultural imagery was responsible different people would dress things differently according to their cultural conditioning. But the abduction narratives and tediously similar. COMMON SENSE will tell you that cultural conditioning is not likely to produce this repetitive narrative. The narrative began with abductees, not films or books. Certainly not in such quantities that would have people all over the place imagining the were abducted.

I once had a dream in which I was in the bathtub with a famous actor and the president walked into the room. If I had told that story to any UFO researcher do you think it would have been included in a book? No. If I had told one a very similar story but replaced the actor and the president with a grey and a nordic "alien", it might have made it into a book. People who have "experiences" with Dracula intrepret those experiences as dreams or an active imagination. If a child, for example, reports that he was abducted by Dracula, his parents don't call Whitley Strieber or, if they did, he wouldn't include it in his book.
edit on 29-1-2015 by Tangerine because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 29 2015 @ 05:17 PM

originally posted by: EnPassant

I never said that. I argued that cultural influences don't create the image of the grey. I brought attention to the Valensole case that happened only MONTHS after Barney Hill described the grey alien.

But once again, there were science fiction images of short, large headed aliens abducting people that went back years before those cases. There were accounts of encounters with little beings going back years. A lot of the original stories of little aliens are NOT completely consistent with the description of the greys. That consistent image obviously coalesced with a great deal of pop cultural influence. Going back to the fairies, those were accounts of abduction by little men but once again were NOT completely consistent with the contemporary grey abduction details. If there was not a cultural, folkloric, etc. component to this the stories would not vary like this.
edit on 29-1-2015 by DelMarvel because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 29 2015 @ 05:18 PM

Burns have been documented. That's evidence, yes?

Its evidence of a story. Did it really happen like that? Its told in the third person, not directly from the person. As "evidence"? For ET? I don't think so. Doesn't mean its not. Its certainly evidence for an ET mythology since it's only a story. It certainly is questionable that a burn from an external source would last 4 hours only. Sounds more like an allergic reaction. Interesting. Thanks for the link. I actually came across it last night.

posted on Jan, 29 2015 @ 05:31 PM

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian

Burns have been documented. That's evidence, yes?

Its evidence of a story. Did it really happen like that? Its told in the third person, not directly from the person. As "evidence"? For ET? I don't think so. Doesn't mean its not. Its certainly evidence for an ET mythology since it's only a story. It certainly is questionable that a burn from an external source would last 4 hours only. Sounds more like an allergic reaction. Interesting. Thanks for the link. I actually came across it last night.

Your argument relies on undermining the witness testimony. This seems too much like squirming out of things.

As evidence for ET? Yes, indirectly. Here goes-

1. Witnesses who seem to be reliable report ufos. Their reliability is backed up by physical evidence, burns, landing traces...

2. Reliable witnesses report physical craft with beings in them, landed on the ground. No reason to stop trusting the witnesses at this point, just because they report strange things.

3. According to the evidence from reliable witnesses craft have been landing since the time of the dirigibles and before. These craft were not made here, obviously.

4. They were made elsewhere. In this context 'elsewhere' means alien.

So, this simply line of reasoning supports the ETH.

My argument is that the ETH is consistent with the facts and does not contradict them. Conversely, the facts to not contradict ETH, they give strong support to it. Witnesses, many of whom seem reliable, support ETH in their testimony.

posted on Jan, 29 2015 @ 06:30 PM

Your argument relies on undermining the witness testimony. This seems too much like squirming out of things

but its not actual witness testimony. Its told by the researcher. Is it second hand information? Third? Where did the story come from? Does the person actually exist? I have no idea but I have come across stories where they turn out to be less than truthful or very misleading. Which is my point. If there is real documentation, I will look at it.

Real witness testimony is given by the witnesses. Real evidence follows a chain of custody. Neither have been presented.
which is a shame if this is a real account.
edit on 29-1-2015 by ZetaRediculian because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 29 2015 @ 08:16 PM
Does the UFO section seem to be getting less traffic these days?
edit on 29-1-2015 by Bloodydagger because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 29 2015 @ 09:50 PM

So it is a real case. The witness does seem to have a real story but the "sunburn" part seems a little fishy. From the reports I read, it was only when he got back to the station that other people noticed his "sunburn". Then there was a hospital visit where the notes did say he had this sunburn from an aircraft but he added that the doctors said it was from a microwave? Of course that's not documented. Then there is some workmans comp forms that shows that it didn't pay for anything (hospital bill?) with a hand written note that it will pay but nothing showing that it did pay? And what is that proof of anyway? A coverup, of course. So its hard to pin down what this "sunburn" was. maybe it was just sunburn? It was may in California. Was he just trying to get workmans comp?
fringerepublic.com...
He also has permanent sunburn from this incident

Now that is convincing!

Anyway, I found this

After checking the records of
rocket launches from Vandenberg Air
Force Base, I had discovered that there
was a rocket launch at almost the same
time the witness reported seeing his
UFO. Since the police officer stated it was
seen to the south and southeast, it was
no great effort to suggest the UFO was
the rocket launch.

home.comcast.net...

So what we have is a case of sunburn, unpaid workmans comp and a rocket launch

I don't know. maybe you can explain how this is an alien sunburn.

edit on 29-1-2015 by ZetaRediculian because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 29 2015 @ 10:37 PM

originally posted by: DelMarvel

originally posted by: EnPassant

I never said that. I argued that cultural influences don't create the image of the grey. I brought attention to the Valensole case that happened only MONTHS after Barney Hill described the grey alien.

But once again, there were science fiction images of short, large headed aliens abducting people that went back years before those cases. There were accounts of encounters with little beings going back years. A lot of the original stories of little aliens are NOT completely consistent with the description of the greys. That consistent image obviously coalesced with a great deal of pop cultural influence. Going back to the fairies, those were accounts of abduction by little men but once again were NOT completely consistent with the contemporary grey abduction details. If there was not a cultural, folkloric, etc. component to this the stories would not vary like this.

I agree with much that you said except that the descriptions of faeries varied tremendously.

posted on Jan, 29 2015 @ 10:43 PM
After reading this and two other related topics, I'd say it seems more like an organized effort to discredit the debunkers or otherwise criticize their criticism.

Ideally, there would be an organized effort to debunk claims. That is the scientific method isn't it? Question observations and hypotheses?

posted on Jan, 29 2015 @ 10:46 PM

originally posted by: JBurns
After reading this and two other related topics, I'd say it seems more like an organized effort to discredit the debunkers or otherwise criticize their criticism.

Ideally, there would be an organized effort to debunk claims. That is the scientific method isn't it? Question observations and hypotheses?

You're confusing skeptics with debunkers. Like true believers, debunkers simply take a position without regard for testable evidence. Skeptics, on the other hand, demand testable evidence be presented before accepting a claim as fact.

posted on Jan, 29 2015 @ 10:53 PM

Ah, please forgive my mistaken definition of these terms

Yes, I am specifically talking about the "skeptics." I agree that people without an open mind likely won't have anything constructive to add. That is to say that someone who doesn't believe in alien life will naturally dismiss all UFO reports. I am certainly not one of those people

Thanks again for the clarification!

posted on Jan, 30 2015 @ 03:17 AM

originally posted by: Tangerine
I agree with much that you said except that the descriptions of faeries varied tremendously.

Right. That's what I was trying to get at. There are similar elements in such accounts but they aren't consistent. It seems like there must be some connection with contemporary abduction experiences but it doesn't support the argument that this is completely objective reality that isn't significantly filtered through personal psychology, cultural expectations, etc.

This discussion is making me want to dig out my copy of Passport to Magonia. It's been a long time since I read it.
edit on 30-1-2015 by DelMarvel because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 30 2015 @ 05:05 AM

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: JBurns
After reading this and two other related topics, I'd say it seems more like an organized effort to discredit the debunkers or otherwise criticize their criticism.

Ideally, there would be an organized effort to debunk claims. That is the scientific method isn't it? Question observations and hypotheses?

You're confusing skeptics with debunkers. Like true believers, debunkers simply take a position without regard for testable evidence. Skeptics, on the other hand, demand testable evidence be presented before accepting a claim as fact.

"Debunk" is an active verb, not passive.

Debunkers are skeptics that are willing to provide evidence that a claim is actually false. The skeptic only asks for evidence that the claim is true, which is a passive position.

Harte

posted on Jan, 30 2015 @ 07:19 AM

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: JBurns
After reading this and two other related topics, I'd say it seems more like an organized effort to discredit the debunkers or otherwise criticize their criticism.

Ideally, there would be an organized effort to debunk claims. That is the scientific method isn't it? Question observations and hypotheses?

You're confusing skeptics with debunkers. Like true believers, debunkers simply take a position without regard for testable evidence. Skeptics, on the other hand, demand testable evidence be presented before accepting a claim as fact.

"Debunk" is an active verb, not passive.

Debunkers are skeptics that are willing to provide evidence that a claim is actually false. The skeptic only asks for evidence that the claim is true, which is a passive position.

Harte

And "debunking" is a courtesy, not a responsibility.

posted on Jan, 30 2015 @ 11:10 AM

But there are other burn cases, such as the Cash Lundrum case. And others. They are not al likely to be mistakes.

posted on Jan, 30 2015 @ 11:16 AM

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian

He also has permanent sunburn from this incident

Now that is convincing!

Permanent farmer tan, more likely.

posted on Jan, 30 2015 @ 11:55 AM

originally posted by: EnPassant

But there are other burn cases, such as the Cash Lundrum case. And others. They are not al likely to be mistakes.

While the Cash Landrum case is interesting, it isn't evidence of aliens either.

There's also the Stephen Michalak case.
edit on 30-1-2015 by draknoir2 because: (no reason given)

new topics

94