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

originally posted by: EnPassant
a reply to: ZetaRediculian
But there are other burn cases, such as the Cash Lundrum case. And others. They are not al likely to be mistakes.

There are always others. But they need to be looked at individually because they are each unique in their own way. I haven't looked at the Cash Lundrum case too closely but I do recall that there is some doubt about the injuries and some of the details. Most of the high profile cases seem to get obscured by hype. There are always alternate explanations and usually after more information is provided, they seem less alien. Its the absence of information that makes our brains fill in the blanks. It is very rare to find cases that are well documented. They always seem to be documented just enough and presented in a leading way.

Colares is an interesting one also but it seems to fall in that category where there is just enough information missing.

So what is the likeliness of them all being mistakes? No clue. You can only determine the likelihood of individual cases having a known explanation. Its impossible to assign a likelihood to something when you don't know if it has occurred. Saying that something unknown must have occurred because there are so many cases is just wrong. Then assigning a value like aliens to that unknown is even worse. Then saying that it has to be aliens because there are so many cases is just plain circular reasoning coupled with misunderstanding a basic mathematical concept. I will defer to Hart at this point because I don't want him correcting me again I actually hope he does because I want to make sure I am saying this correctly and clearly.

but really what you need is one well documented case that clearly shows that there are physical effects from these things. Having a bunch of cases that "could be" only feeds the mythology.

a reply to: draknoir2

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

There's also the Stephen Michalak case.

is that one aliens?

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: draknoir2

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

There's also the Stephen Michalak case.

is that one aliens?

Nope.

a reply to: ZetaRediculian

It is very hard to investigate these thing because almost every case is under attack just for the sake of trying to debunk regardless of the merits or otherwise of the case.

originally posted by: EnPassant
a reply to: ZetaRediculian

It is very hard to investigate these thing because almost every case is under attack just for the sake of trying to debunk regardless of the merits or otherwise of the case.

If investigation were your actual intent you'd be asking the same questions.

a reply to: EnPassant

It is very hard to investigate these thing because almost every case is under attack just for the sake of trying to debunk regardless of the merits or otherwise of the case.

The difficulty is getting accurate information. And you do have to battle bias on both sides. Every case is under attack because they are all covered in BS. Every one of them. The "sunburn" case you pointed out is undoubtedly going to be around forever as a good case for physical effects. Its really not and it seems like you conceded that one. What about the rest of the cases in that report? Well you would think that someone would reevaluate those cases and update them with new information. It probably took me about 20 minutes to get the info I found so its not that hard. But its almost like someone wants to leave the information as it is and mislead you into believing in aliens. Doesn't that piss you off? Even a little? You have been had. So if you think that I'm the bad guy for pointing that out, you might want to reevaluate that and start questioning the sources and the folks that are misleading you and lying to you. Like Jacobs and Hopkins for one.

a reply to: draknoir2

Waffle iron accident?

originally posted by: CosmicRay
a reply to: draknoir2

Waffle iron accident?

Grate joke.

a reply to: draknoir2

Seriously though, what was it?

originally posted by: EnPassant
a reply to: ZetaRediculian

It is very hard to investigate these thing because almost every case is under attack just for the sake of trying to debunk regardless of the merits or otherwise of the case.

What merits? Someone has a burn and a story. OK, that's evidence of a burn. The burn suggests that the story is worthy of investigation. Where is the investigation? What results does the investigation reveal? This is like someone coming home from the woods with a lump on his head and claiming that Bigfoot did it. OK, the lump is real but that's not proof that Bigfoot exists and created the lump. More evidence is needed to reach that conclusion.

originally posted by: Tangerine

This is like someone coming home from the woods with a lump on his head and claiming that Bigfoot did it. OK, the lump is real but that's not proof that Bigfoot exists and created the lump. More evidence is needed to reach that conclusion.

Bigfoot is real.

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: EnPassant
a reply to: ZetaRediculian

It is very hard to investigate these thing because almost every case is under attack just for the sake of trying to debunk regardless of the merits or otherwise of the case.

What merits? Someone has a burn and a story. OK, that's evidence of a burn. The burn suggests that the story is worthy of investigation. Where is the investigation? What results does the investigation reveal? This is like someone coming home from the woods with a lump on his head and claiming that Bigfoot did it. OK, the lump is real but that's not proof that Bigfoot exists and created the lump. More evidence is needed to reach that conclusion.

Bigfoot doesn't create lumps. Lumps create Bigfoot.

Harte

originally posted by: CosmicRay
a reply to: draknoir2

Seriously though, what was it?

As I recall he got too close to the exhaust grate of a UFO. The marks would reappear throughout the remainder of his life.

originally posted by: RunForTheHills
a reply to: duaneology

I too have noticed a lot of threads get derailed. I go to a thread to read what others have to say and get tired of the derailing and give up reading any further. This problem has recently been addressed by the mods of ATS.

I'm a Christian and believe in ET UFOs.

But...

What of it? I used to spend much time checking into many reports, looking a blurry videos (some are excellent- most are not), reading UFO incident reports.....

Well after some time arrived at a conclusion that even though they are real- they are neither here nor there. Obviously they do not want to be disclosed, yet. And the naysayers are perfectly happy with this setup. The way that things are - is sometimes I think done on purpose to frustrate UFO-ologists. I don't want to be continually frustrated. It's not fun.

So why should I get excited about them?

Seeing little glowing balls in the sky whizzing around doesn't do anything for me. They are probably real. That's nice dear.

If/when they start overtly invading our world, our governments, our lives... then I'll pay more attention to them again.

In the mean time, fight the good fight, if you're up for it.

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: EnPassant
a reply to: ZetaRediculian
It is very hard to investigate these thing because almost every case is under attack just for the sake of trying to debunk regardless of the merits or otherwise of the case.

What merits? Someone has a burn and a story. OK, that's evidence of a burn. The burn suggests that the story is worthy of investigation. Where is the investigation? What results does the investigation reveal? This is like someone coming home from the woods with a lump on his head and claiming that Bigfoot did it. OK, the lump is real but that's not proof that Bigfoot exists and created the lump. More evidence is needed to reach that conclusion.

Yes but one way around this problem is to observe how themes emerge from ufo reports. There are enough reports of burns to constitute a theme. The more burn reports you get the less likely they are to be, for example, an allergic reaction or caused by a rocket launch (it is most unlikely that a rocket would burn because the heat from them cannot extend far from the exhaust). There is also a thematic link between the dirigibles and more modern examples of craft landed on the ground. I mentioned this earlier. It is useful to ponder these themes and try to see why they emerge.

originally posted by: MarkJS

originally posted by: RunForTheHills
a reply to: duaneology

I too have noticed a lot of threads get derailed. I go to a thread to read what others have to say and get tired of the derailing and give up reading any further. This problem has recently been addressed by the mods of ATS.

I'm a Christian and believe in ET UFOs.

But...

What of it? I used to spend much time checking into many reports, looking a blurry videos (some are excellent- most are not), reading UFO incident reports.....

Well after some time arrived at a conclusion that even though they are real- they are neither here nor there. Obviously they do not want to be disclosed, yet. And the naysayers are perfectly happy with this setup. The way that things are - is sometimes I think done on purpose to frustrate UFO-ologists. I don't want to be continually frustrated. It's not fun.

So why should I get excited about them?

Seeing little glowing balls in the sky whizzing around doesn't do anything for me. They are probably real. That's nice dear.

If/when they start overtly invading our world, our governments, our lives... then I'll pay more attention to them again.

In the mean time, fight the good fight, if you're up for it.

Why announce that you're a Christian? How is that relevant? I like gardening. How is that relevant to the topic?

originally posted by: EnPassant

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: EnPassant
a reply to: ZetaRediculian
It is very hard to investigate these thing because almost every case is under attack just for the sake of trying to debunk regardless of the merits or otherwise of the case.

What merits? Someone has a burn and a story. OK, that's evidence of a burn. The burn suggests that the story is worthy of investigation. Where is the investigation? What results does the investigation reveal? This is like someone coming home from the woods with a lump on his head and claiming that Bigfoot did it. OK, the lump is real but that's not proof that Bigfoot exists and created the lump. More evidence is needed to reach that conclusion.

Yes but one way around this problem is to observe how themes emerge from ufo reports. There are enough reports of burns to constitute a theme. The more burn reports you get the less likely they are to be, for example, an allergic reaction or caused by a rocket launch (it is most unlikely that a rocket would burn because the heat from them cannot extend far from the exhaust). There is also a thematic link between the dirigibles and more modern examples of craft landed on the ground. I mentioned this earlier. It is useful to ponder these themes and try to see why they emerge.

I agree that it's useful to note and consider themes. But we also need to consider whether the burns really are unexplainable by other means or truly anomalous. We also need to explore the idea that there's something about UFOs that might bring out trickster figures who want to hoax. I seem to remember Vallee mentioning this. Does anyone else recall this?

a reply to: EnPassant

Yes but one way around this problem is to observe how themes emerge from ufo reports. There are enough reports of burns to constitute a theme.

Yes but that theme could just represent a myth. Themes don't necessarily represent reality. What I think you mean is pattern recognition which is based on patterns in data. For that pattern to be valid, the data must be valid. So far, with burns, it doesn't appear to be valid data and we shouldn't assume that it is.

The more burn reports you get the less likely they are to be, for example, an allergic reaction or caused by a rocket launch (it is most unlikely that a rocket would burn because the heat from them cannot extend far from the exhaust). There is also a thematic link between the dirigibles and more modern examples of craft landed on the ground. I mentioned this earlier. It is useful to ponder these themes and try to see why they emerge.

Where are you getting "an allergic reaction or caused by a rocket launch"? Another misperception? It is seriously bizarre. Do you realize that you do this? There was a rocket launch that accounts for his sighting. Somehow his "sunburn" was linked the sighting but it probably was just sunburn. Its not unlike how you managed to link two completely separate thoughts into one. "allergic reaction" was a thought based on your first post of the report which was inaccurate stating that the "burn lasted 4 hours" which it didn't. The "rocket launch" was a whole separate report explaining the sighting.

What you are again providing is evidence of misinterpretation and loose association and how common it is. These "themes" are likely due to this loose association of unrelated ideas. These "themes" emerge because there is no quantification of the data and because of the poor quality of the data. The scientific method was designed to help prevent this from happening because that is what will happen, which you are demonstrating. That's the common theme I see.

originally posted by: Tangerine
We also need to explore the idea that there's something about UFOs that might bring out trickster figures who want to hoax. I seem to remember Vallee mentioning this. Does anyone else recall this?

John Keel as well. That was one of his conclusions in the Mothman Prophecies IIRC.

originally posted by: DelMarvel

originally posted by: Tangerine
We also need to explore the idea that there's something about UFOs that might bring out trickster figures who want to hoax. I seem to remember Vallee mentioning this. Does anyone else recall this?

John Keel as well. That was one of his conclusions in the Mothman Prophecies IIRC.

Yes, I recall that. Thanks for bringing that up.