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.

 

UFOlogy, We Need To Talk... Chris Rutkowski Editorial

page: 2
15
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 4 2014 @ 01:38 PM
link   
a reply to: CardDown

No one is forcing you to accept any video as evidence of anything, try to remain calm. All I'm saying is that, for a genuinely open-minded person, his story is plausible. He doesn't necessarily have to drive me out there and introduce me to living ETs. If his tale is as absurd as you claim, there shouldn't be the need for so many, absent an antidisclosure agenda, to press so hard to assure nobody believes a word of it.




posted on Nov, 4 2014 @ 01:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Urantia1111
a reply to: CardDown

No one is forcing you to accept any video as evidence of anything, try to remain calm. All I'm saying is that, for a genuinely open-minded person, his story is plausible. He doesn't necessarily have to drive me out there and introduce me to living ETs. If his tale is as absurd as you claim, there shouldn't be the need for so many, absent an antidisclosure agenda, to press so hard to assure nobody believes a word of it.


The need to press hard against this type of story is that there isn't any evidence for it. No evidence means non-story. Why should attention go to this non-story when there are more worthy stories with more evidence that could be looked into?



posted on Nov, 4 2014 @ 01:49 PM
link   
This is about more than just the Bushman fiasco, that's just a symptom of a larger problem.

I agree that Chris Rutkowski could have gone farther. Someone mentioned that he doesn't offer any suggestions, but in a way, he does, it's by the example he's set: doing decades of quality research.

My own opinion is what's badly needed is a return to focusing on the fundamentals of research and investigation. Sadly, it may take a long while to produce the scientific results we need, but the work has to be done.

Here's an article I wrote on getting back to basics:
The U-Foreclosure ProjectThe U-Foreclosure Project



posted on Nov, 4 2014 @ 01:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: AgentShillington
a reply to: UnderKingsPeak

That opinion has little basis in reality, but it does point squarely to what the article is about. Usually, the veracity of the debunkers is in direct proportion to how zealous the adherents are.

Internal Objectivism is lost on believers because they believe. Once you believe in something, you lose objectivity.

Sometimes it seems some debunkers
are more upset about the quality of witnesses of a UFO report being high.
And high profile reliable accounts get dismissed because "someone"
who simply said they were in the vicinity said they never saw anything.
Or conditions were right for temperature inversions. Even when what was witnessed
could not be explained by such mundane answers.

Astronaut Gordon Cooper relaying a story about a Disc landing at Edwards
AFB right in front of him as he filmed it, comes to mind.
He wrote the UN about it.I don't know about others opinions but certainly
Cooper isn't your everyday witness nor does he strike me as a liar.

Lockheed SR71 designer Kelly Johnson's UFO report wasn't wacky or typical tabloid fodder.
Heck Stephenville Tx in 2008 has pilots police witnesses as well as
DFW's radar returns.
There are plenty of these level of accounts to warrant investigation in my opinion.

Why do debunkers care so much if there is absolutely nothing going on
? Shouldn't the "they must be crazy" attitude suffice ?
And yet tempers rise and reports hundreds of pages long
are written all in in order to discount something so obviously not real
in their mind. That seems a bit odd to me .



posted on Nov, 4 2014 @ 02:04 PM
link   
a reply to: AgentShillington


]Your assumptions about what I may or may not have witnessed isn't the point of the thread, and I would kindly ask you to keep those assumptions to yourself when not applicable.

But you assume everyone is mistaken, prankin', or subject to delusion. I know that from our pervious discussion. So my comments stand.

So others see I have to stand up and be counted as contrary. Don't get me wrong either, i debunk here al the time. I am also looking for truth. You have your mind made up. Theres a difference.



posted on Nov, 4 2014 @ 02:07 PM
link   
a reply to: UnderKingsPeak

Because, ultimately, "debunkers" have an interest in getting to the truth of a claim, and believers simply want to believe all claims, because, heck, if they believe everything SOME of it has to be real, right?

I would rather throw out 1000 real ET experiences than base any of my research on even 1 case of quackery. Anyone that claims otherwise isn't a good investigator.



posted on Nov, 4 2014 @ 02:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: AgentShillington


]Your assumptions about what I may or may not have witnessed isn't the point of the thread, and I would kindly ask you to keep those assumptions to yourself when not applicable.

But you assume everyone is mistaken, prankin', or subject to delusion. I know that from our pervious discussion. So my comments stand.

So others see I have to stand up and be counted as contrary. Don't get me wrong either, i debunk here al the time. I am also looking for truth. You have your mind made up. Theres a difference.


I have made no such assumption in this thread. Seriously, for someone who claims to be open minded, you certainly have made your mind up about me after a single discussion. Please stop making me the target of your posts.



posted on Nov, 4 2014 @ 02:14 PM
link   
a reply to: CardDown

Nice one CD. I don't get around the blogs as much as I should and wouldn't have seen it otherwise


Chris could have gone further, yes, but why should he? He's been at this for decades and I don't think he could have contributed much more than he has done. Even before he was presenting the Canadian UFO statistics, he was making/receiving calls and doing some of the knocking on doors. In that context, he's contributed years of his time and shouldn't be expected to take on all the problems within what passes for ufology.

He could probably write a book that parallels Moseley's 'Shockingly Close to the Truth,' as he's encountered the good, bad and utterly ridiculous personalities in the field. However, that's not his style and maybe best left to others.

Nonetheless, he knows as well as most that ufology is in a bad way. The garbage is becoming so predominant because none of us have anything new to talk about. Solid, or simply intriguing, cases are almost a thing of the past. Last one that caught my attention was BBC's Mike Newell's reported sighting of a disc-shaped craft one dark, early morning en route to work.

I've an idea that ufology is due for some ructions by mid-May although it'll still be focused on past cases.



posted on Nov, 4 2014 @ 02:17 PM
link   
a reply to: CardDown

I understand what you say in that scientific research needs to be done to gain evidence. But thats just one view. Those who feel they are already here dont think science is going to help bring about evidence when presuming they are more technologically advanced. This is where some people feel a spiritual contact is a possibility to gain contact something which science cant yet understand. And unfortunately these contacts on a spiritual level are isolated and provide no evidence except having to trust ones word. This is never going to be enough.

When pointed out that chris ratkowski has so much experience and head ufology groups etc for many years would this not answer his question? Maybe his kind of research which have gained so little rewards is the wrong approach and he is finally seeing this?



posted on Nov, 4 2014 @ 02:26 PM
link   
a reply to: liteonit6969

What you are suggesting as a viable alternative to empirical research is directly analogous to the Prophetic religions of Abraham.

Answer this, if you would.

Advanced being talks to only a few and their information cannot be verified and must be trusted. Am I talking about a thousands of years old religion, or modern day UFOlogy believers?
edit on 4-11-2014 by AgentShillington because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 4 2014 @ 02:49 PM
link   
ufology is in a state of decay for quite some time now,no new cases,no breakthroughs no nothing.We havent learned anything these past few years

if anything we are just rehashing old cases presenting the same old evidence and debating the same old arguments,if anything this forum is dead for some time now unfortunately



posted on Nov, 4 2014 @ 02:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Urantia1111
a reply to: sheepslayer247

Yes, I would expect someone to make a duplicate/toy of the alien in the photograph for the purposes of debunkery. The problem is that people aren't all grotesquely stupid so as to be fooled by that. Apologies.


Wait a second here. Do you realize how illogical and loony that is? It's funny because at my source they quote someone from another site that said almost the exact same thing.


OBVIOUSLY the government made those dolls AFTER they met the aliens. Make a toy from the image of an alien, thus discrediting anyone who ever posts any pictures of the real aliens. It’s so obvious.


When does common sense come in to the picture here? It is much more likely that this guy took pictures of an alien doll than it is that it was a real alien.....and someone quickly made a doll in it's image and got them on the shelves at Walmart.

a reply to: liteonit6969

Sure...it was made after just to discredit this guy. Please. It's the same doll in the pics and this is just crackpottery.

I do have to add that my source said it was sold in walmart, and another sates that the doll in the pictures was actually purchased at a kmart in 1997. Either way, I find that to be much more logical than what you or others have posited.

It is that sort of approach displayed here that has killed Ufology and exactly what the OP's source was describing.



posted on Nov, 4 2014 @ 03:02 PM
link   
Even without devoting as much time and energy and money to the study of UFOs that Rutowski has, I can appreciate the frustration that comes from recognizing the fact that after all this time the UFO field is really no closer to any kind of understanding of the phenomenon than it was in 1947. Sure, we have more cool stories that have accumulated over the years. But still absolutely nothing that points us toward any kind of objective understanding of the thing.

The "conclusion" reached after over 60 years of investigation? People see odd things flying around the sky. That's as far as the data gathering and nuts and bolts exploration of UFOs has gotten us. Who's flying them -- where do they come from -- what are they doing? No answers. And a lot of it has to do with the fact that no matter how good your investigations might be, you'll always get stonewalled by the US Air Force or CIA, who isn't going to admit knowing anything, even if they don't know anything.

I suppose it would be nice to incorporate more of a psychological or parapsychological parameter into the investigation mix. There sure are plenty of high strangeness UFO sightings that include a psi component. But how would you even go about doing that without it quickly degenerating into a bunch of people sitting around a Ouija board channeling alien spirit guides and looking for rides on a comet? I don't know.

Maybe UFOs are nothing more than something personal an individual or a small group of people see that just flies away or vanishes, leaving nothing behind but an odd story or a few fuzzy photos and radar tracks. That's all.



posted on Nov, 4 2014 @ 03:05 PM
link   
a reply to: AgentShillington

No, what i am suggesting is the empirical research that you advocate has not worked and thus does not work. This same tech you want to use to research may appear to them as the those prophets appear to us.
What i suggest is to stop looking down on those who are in touch with their spiritual side as offering nothing on the subject when your own ideas have offered nothing but doubt and ultimately looking to blame someone else for their failures.



posted on Nov, 4 2014 @ 03:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: sheepslayer247

originally posted by: Urantia1111
a reply to: sheepslayer247

Yes, I would expect someone to make a duplicate/toy of the alien in the photograph for the purposes of debunkery. The problem is that people aren't all grotesquely stupid so as to be fooled by that. Apologies.


Wait a second here. Do you realize how illogical and loony that is? It's funny because at my source they quote someone from another site that said almost the exact same thing.


OBVIOUSLY the government made those dolls AFTER they met the aliens. Make a toy from the image of an alien, thus discrediting anyone who ever posts any pictures of the real aliens. It’s so obvious.


When does common sense come in to the picture here? It is much more likely that this guy took pictures of an alien doll than it is that it was a real alien.....and someone quickly made a doll in it's image and got them on the shelves at Walmart.

a reply to: liteonit6969

Sure...it was made after just to discredit this guy. Please. It's the same doll in the pics and this is just crackpottery.

I do have to add that my source said it was sold in walmart, and another sates that the doll in the pictures was actually purchased at a kmart in 1997. Either way, I find that to be much more logical than what you or others have posited.

It is that sort of approach displayed here that has killed Ufology and exactly what the OP's source was describing.


We have a photo of one on an adjacent thread with the tag still dangling... Fright Stuff [frightstuff.com].


The grotesquely stupid have produced the dummies. The enlightened have yet to produce a single alien.



posted on Nov, 4 2014 @ 03:08 PM
link   
a reply to: draknoir2

Interesting. Do you have a link to the thread post and/or image?



posted on Nov, 4 2014 @ 03:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: sheepslayer247
a reply to: draknoir2

Interesting. Do you have a link to the thread post and/or image?


www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Nov, 4 2014 @ 03:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: liteonit6969
a reply to: AgentShillington

No, what i am suggesting is the empirical research that you advocate has not worked and thus does not work. This same tech you want to use to research may appear to them as the those prophets appear to us.
What i suggest is to stop looking down on those who are in touch with their spiritual side as offering nothing on the subject when your own ideas have offered nothing but doubt and ultimately looking to blame someone else for their failures.


Empirical research, scientific inquiry, and technological advance does work. The fact that we are able to communicate over vast distances proves that truth. If empirical research has been proven effective in our day to day lives from everything to how we obtain and store food, to understand how to predict and anticipate weather patterns, empirical research has proven its value.

A lack of verifiable evidence isn't a failure of empirical inquiry, it is a success. If there is nothing to see, you can't blame the tools.

I'd be happy to listen to any information that anyone has from any alien that can be independently analyzed for accuracy.



posted on Nov, 4 2014 @ 03:23 PM
link   
a reply to: liteonit6969



When pointed out that chris ratkowski has so much experience and head ufology groups etc for many years would this not answer his question? Maybe his kind of research which have gained so little rewards is the wrong approach and he is finally seeing this?


A problem with this idea is that Chris Rutkowski has worked with a lot of folks in the field and these have included the abduction guys as well as the nuts n bolts ones.

The approach you're suggesting has been explored by John E Mack and Leo Sprinkle and also led nowhere. Both of these guys are, or were, into the 'spiritual' side. You might look into both of them and stuff by Dolores Cannon, Ann Druffel or even Whitley Strieber. Toss in some Budd Hopkins and Jacobs too.

It's been 70 years of every conceivable approach and not a lot has changed. Debunkers haven't explained everything and neither have the believers. The esoteric guys have fallen short as much as anyone else. Astronomers, physicists, armchair enthusiasts, computer scientists, psychedelic mystics, historians and even my mate's mum have hit the wall.

I don't like having to resort to clichés and yet I will...sigh...it's a huge Rorschach jigsaw with a lot of missing pieces and no box lid to work off.



posted on Nov, 4 2014 @ 03:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: AgentShillington
a reply to: liteonit6969

What you are suggesting as a viable alternative to empirical research is directly analogous to the Prophetic religions of Abraham.

Answer this, if you would.

Advanced being talks to only a few and their information cannot be verified and must be trusted. Am I talking about a thousands of years old religion, or modern day UFOlogy believers?


Ufology has become a religion and therein lies the problem. The worst enemies of ufology are the true believers who insist that everyone accept their word, minus an iota of testable evidence, as proof of their claims. The true believers constantly accuse rational people with an interest in ufology of being government disinformation agents and the true believers seek out media coverage that, by extrapolation, makes all people interested in ufology look like gibbering idiots. It's no wonder legitimate scientists cringe at the thought of being associated with ufology.



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join