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.

 

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

page: 7
94
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 11:16 AM
link   
a reply to: MKMoniker




For one-third of the population to believe in UFOs/ETs AND Ancient Aliens, means you debunkers/deniers/shills have already lost your battle to "actively discourage interest" in these topics.


You have no idea what my beliefs are so anything else you say calling me a denier or whatever else you think is one great exercise in self delusion.


well I am doing so right now by debating you, battling those that actively discourage interest because of the crap they post and want to believe in.

The crap they post, as seen all over ATS UFO forum is whats makes research into the subject a laughing stock, none is done by those bringing the material to ATS and its skeptics that get the bottom of whats presented most times because they are skeptical and want to know instead of believe.

Its good to post any and every video but save the drama or opinion of being real unless you are really sure and if posters that post the proof undeniable would post asking what are your thoughts instead creating thread title to guarantee debate and ridicule, they are the shills in my opinion and its always posters that post from a believers perspective.

I believe and have my reasons to,

I am looking to find evidence that so far hasn't presented itself to me to stop the debate once and for all, many other skeptics are in the same shoes as me, have had experiences and have exhausted many avenues of research to explain their experience.

Its the repeated insanity and ignorance that has made me into a cynical skeptic that has only grown in size and abundance on ATS that OP and others see the opposite of and think its people who debunk every crap video posted that are shills, I just think the shills are the ones that post Proof and have a video of dot of light in the sky.




posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 11:16 AM
link   
a reply to: ZetaRediculian



I don't think those are a fair representation of "skeptical" arguments. Its much easier to setup the "dumb down" versions and argue with an imaginary "debunker" then it is engage in an actual discussion. It has become commonplace to label someone as an "evil debunker" simply for having other views on a topic


Well said.

I happen to be a skeptic, but I am fascinated by the topic. Unfortunately, you cannot have a very productive conversation about aliens or UFOs because there are too many people that 100% believe they exist/been here/have been abducted...etc.

That goes back to the belief.



posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 11:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: OrionsGem

originally posted by: PhoenixOD
a reply to: InhaleExhale

That's not entirely true, there have been successful convictions without there being a body. The Cray twins springs to mind.



Ive already shown there were convictions without a body, however this poster continues to cherry pick and manipulate my quotes to suit his (flawed) arguments.

OG


Actually i pretty much agree with his point of view on the subject. The analogy you are putting forward is not comparable. For a start we know humans exist so building a case about one of them without a body is not to crazy. On the other hand we dont know aliens and flying saucers exist so trying to use the same logic is crazy.

Skepticism is the basis of all scientific investigation.



posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 11:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: PhoenixOD

originally posted by: OrionsGem

originally posted by: PhoenixOD
a reply to: InhaleExhale

That's not entirely true, there have been successful convictions without there being a body. The Cray twins springs to mind.



Ive already shown there were convictions without a body, however this poster continues to cherry pick and manipulate my quotes to suit his (flawed) arguments.

OG


Actually i pretty much agree with his point of view on the subject. The analogy you are putting forward is not comparable. For a start we know humans exist so building a case about one of them without a body is not to crazy. On the other hand we dont know aliens and flying saucers exist so trying to use the same logic is crazy.

Skepticism is the basis of all scientific investigation.


So first hand witness testimony is not acceptable in a UFO or Alien encounter from your perspective is that right?

OG



posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 11:29 AM
link   
a reply to: ZetaRediculian

"Well there is some very ambiguous evidence that is being pushed rather hard by The History Channel for ratings I guess."

There is nothing "ambiguous" about the evidence for UFOs/ETs. If you really delve into the topic, instead of being just a cursory-shill, the "evidence" for UFOs/ETs is overwhelming:

1) Why are there stone pyramids all over the world? "Simultaneous inventions" doesn't fit, since these pyramids are also connected to civilizations with abrupt and profound "new knowledge."

2) Why do so many of these abrupt-civilizations have such an interest in astronomy and especially certain distant constellations, like Orion? This is far more than just a "marking of the seasons." Our Moon Phases do that better.

3) How do you explain away ancient cave paintings of humanoids in spacesuits, when primitive man was not into "fiction", but recording what they really saw and experienced?

4) How do you explain all the religious paintings in the Middle Ages with discs/UFOs in the sky overhead? Some even alluding to the fact that Jesus, although born on Earth, was really an Advanced Soul from off-planet? (And his virgin-birth was similar to the abduction phenomenon today, or implantation of fertilized eggs in a female host.)

Like I said, the proof IS here. And the only inconsistencies are natural misunderstandings based on all the different ETs interacting with Earth. And the deniers/debunkers/shills over-arching efforts to explain away UFOs/ETs - which are often more ridiculous and convoluted than just admitting that something was an ET-craft!



posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 11:31 AM
link   
a reply to: duaneology

Ask yourself, from what strong motivation does one acquire the ability to so persistently and thoroughly maintain a presence as a pseudo-skeptic professional debunker, in every UFO thread, on every board here, without fail?

It sounds almost like a job, right? I've said it a few times now. These people do not have thousands of posts for no reason. It's literally their job. There is no incentive in what they do, regardless of how hard they try to imply it is their passive hobby. Their post history refutes this notion as anything but "passive". They are professional and serial debunkers. Who pays them for this drudgery? That's a very good question to ask.
edit on 21-10-2014 by yourignoranceisbliss because: typo



posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 11:33 AM
link   
a reply to: OrionsGem

It could be acceptable part of a wider range of evidence but it doesn't prove anything on its own. Its untestable and humans are just to flawed , not to mention dishonest.

People have reported seeing fairies ,unicorns and dragons in the past.


edit on 21-10-2014 by PhoenixOD because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 11:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: OrionsGem
So first hand witness testimony is not acceptable in a UFO or Alien encounter from your perspective is that right?

It's not ideal. When I was doing interviews at the 2011 International UFO Conference, I met and spoke with quite a few people who claimed to have contact experience (slightly less than a dozen). In each case, they confessed to having gone to UFO conferences, and purchased books about UFO's, prior to their claimed contact experience. To any researcher, this puts a lot of doubt on a lot of stories.

Also, here's my interview with Stanton Friedman: video.abovetopsecret.com, he thinks skeptics are important to UFO research.
edit on 21-10-2014 by SkepticOverlord because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-10-2014 by SkepticOverlord because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 11:48 AM
link   
a reply to: SkepticOverlord

Your link is broken Sir.

Just thought you might want to know!



posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 11:49 AM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit

fixed

Thanks.



posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 11:50 AM
link   
The history of reporting anything to do with ufo's has become the subject of ridicule. People are afraid of being labeled a nut case for reporting or saying anything publicly about the subject. In my mind the best way to hide something is right out in plain sight. The disinformation spread by governments have made it a subject many shy away from.

The fact remains that throughout time mankind has reported strange things in the sky that cannot be explained away as natural phenomenon. I don't think anything will change unless ET lands on the parking lot at the mall, then there would be no denying the truth. The other problem is a lot of so called experts always want to sell you something on the subject which makes it hard to sift thru the truth tellers and those out to make a buck.



posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 11:53 AM
link   
a reply to: IsaacKoi

Check your PMs Isaac...



posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 11:58 AM
link   
a reply to: MKMoniker


There is nothing "ambiguous" about the evidence for UFOs/ETs. If you really delve into the topic, instead of being just a cursory-shill, the "evidence" for UFOs/ETs is overwhelming:

I really have delved into the topic and determined that I was being sold a lot of bad information. The evidence that's being peddled is quite underwhelming and ambiguous at best. The quantity arguments are really poor. It wasn't that long ago that I felt the same way as you.



posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 12:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: SkepticOverlord

originally posted by: OrionsGem
So first hand witness testimony is not acceptable in a UFO or Alien encounter from your perspective is that right?

It's not ideal. When I was doing interviews at the 2011 International UFO Conference, I met and spoke with quite a few people who claimed to have contact experience (slightly less than a dozen). In each case, they confessed to having gone to UFO conferences, and purchased books about UFO's, prior to their claimed contact experience. To any researcher, this puts a lot of doubt on a lot of stories.

Also, here's my interview with Stanton Friedman: video.abovetopsecret.com, he thinks skeptics are important to UFO research.


It may not be ideal. Ideal would be little green men landing on the white house lawn and giving free saucer rides.

But what are skeptics, believers and everyone in between supposed to do in a field such as this where ALL WE HAVE is witness testimony?

As Ive said before, there may NEVER be any hard testable evidence of UFOs or Aliens existing.

What we have is skeptics and debunkers screaming for evidence, which simply does not exist at this time.

And on the other hand, the folks who choose to believe in the ET presence are labeled as blind believers, closed minded individuals who live in a fantasy world, believing in fairy tales.

Since when has this field become so polarizing?

Why cant I choose to believe some cases, and label others as a hoax? Why are we being forced to choose between option A and option B?

I personally believe in the existence of ETs and their vehicles, but that is due to several encounters during my childhood which solidified this "knowing" that its real. This DOES NOT mean that I believe every BS you tube video that's posted, or every story from an alleged govt "insider"

Now if I shared my childhood encounters here, which were very real to me indeed, it would be considered witness testimony, which is ALL I HAVE.

I would then be accosted by people swarming the thread saying things like
"extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" Give me a break!

Asking me for hard evidence which does not, and may NEVER exist this field is pointless.

So I ask you, if skeptics and debunkers accepted the fact that hard evidence may never be presented, then what method can be used to verify the authenticity of an alleged encounter??

We seem to be going in circles over and over again in this forum, its become highly predictable and is stagnating;

We cant ride this "proof or it didn't happen" merry go round forever.

Thoughts?

OG



posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 12:04 PM
link   
a reply to: SkepticOverlord
Just FYI. I'm 53 years old, and I vigorously disbelieved in UFOs until November 27, 2013
when this huge high strangeness thing flew
low over my house. ..making zero noise
and doing mach something.

Until that time I had read zero UFO stuff...
as I found none of it credible.In fact the
UFO researchers overall heckled me a fair
bit because I knew NOTHING about UFO
mythology. I couldn't have told the difference
between Roswell/project Mogul and Dulce
dumb to save my life. I was 100% ignorant
about UFOs and had no interest in them.

However 'the UFO' apparently never got the
memo.

I still don't 'believe in UFOs'. From my research
at least 95% of the material out there (and on
ATS) doesn't even rise to the level of being
wrong.

I share this to dispute your overly wide brush
characterization of 'UFO experiencers'.

On the other hand your charcterization does
indeed fit the profile of selection bias
for some.

Kev



posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 12:12 PM
link   
a reply to: OrionsGem



But what are skeptics, believers and everyone in between supposed to do


See this is one of the flaws to your thinking right here, many skeptics ARE believers.



posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 12:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: MKMoniker
a reply to: wmd_2008

"Any thing that flies could be called a gravity canceller then !"

The articles I've read about the TR-3B STRESS that it doesn't use true anti-gravity, but a "gravity-canceller" that negates about 90% of gravity. It can fly straight up for lift-off - no launchpad, no super-expensive chemical fuel.



So how do you know the articles that you have read are true ?

It's speculation with claims of engines that reduce mass, you CAN'T reduce mass that's when you realise the claims made by people are BS when these people don't know the difference between the MASS and the WEIGHT of an object !

Also claims of its super fast top speed are also bull cookies because even in space any large acceleration off the vehicle will cause g force for the passengers.


In the absence of gravitational fields, or in directions at right angles to them, proper and coordinate accelerations are the same, and any coordinate acceleration must be produced by a corresponding g-force acceleration. An example here is a rocket in free space, in which simple changes in velocity are produced by the engines, and produce g-forces on the rocket and passengers.


Another example here on Earth


A top-fuel dragster can accelerate from zero to 160 kilometres per hour (99 mph) in 0.86 seconds. This is a horizontal acceleration of 5.3 g


Have you ever been in a really fast car accelerating hard or on a plane at take off.

When people making these claims make them why don't people like you check them ?

Is it just because you think it's not from an official source it's true or you never did any science at school ?


edit on 21-10-2014 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 12:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: PhoenixOD
a reply to: OrionsGem



But what are skeptics, believers and everyone in between supposed to do


See this is one of the flaws to your thinking right here, many skeptics ARE believers.


No flaw at all, someone who is a skeptic and a believer (I am both) Would fall into the "everyone in between" part of my statement. Please read more carefully.

OG



posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 12:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: MKMoniker
a reply to: ZetaRediculian


4) How do you explain all the religious paintings in the Middle Ages with discs/UFOs in the sky overhead? Some even alluding to the fact that Jesus, although born on Earth, was really an Advanced Soul from off-planet? (And his virgin-birth was similar to the abduction phenomenon today, or implantation of fertilized eggs in a female host.)



Yes because we all know artists record exactly what they see!

Woman



posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 12:23 PM
link   
And this is how things go sideways.


originally posted by: KellyPrettyBear
I share this to dispute your overly wide brush
characterization of 'UFO experiencers'.


It was a characterization of 'less than a dozen people'. I sure didn't see that as overly wide, or a blanket characterization of experiencers. Merely an observation about the people he spoke with at a conference and why maybe a researcher might not accept a person's statement as 100% gospel. If you're going to buy everything everyone tells you you're not a researcher, you're a stenographer. The Overlord, Springer and Crakeur all have more than a passing interest in this topic, and certainly have no wish to place all people who have seen UFOs or had experiences in a negative light. To say we have a dim view of hoaxers however, would be an understatement. That's a 100% guaranteed permaban. We do recognize a difference between those who are wrong or lack proof, and those who are deliberately fabricating.

Thanks for sharing your sighting, by the way. Most interesting.



new topics

top topics



 
94
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join