The growing burden of truth (long winded)

Greetings friends.

I have been thinking about this topic on and off for the last couple of years, and I chose the UFO section of the forums because it was one of the main attractions for me when I first started visiting ATS anonymously in the early 2000s. Another reason this area seemed like a good fit is because over the years, members have worked very hard to analyze various bits of material throughout every post. They have methodically sifted through every story, photo, article and document readily available.

The great war between believers and skeptics has had some pretty epic threads. Despite any highs and lows the forums have experienced, few people could really argue that is hasn't become a trove of information. This information has turned ATS into a fairly impressive database regardless of whether you're a believer or not. If you have recently come across a case you previously knew nothing about and want to know if it has been "debunked" or has enough dirt to convince you not to bother researching further, the ATS search engine is a good starting point.

This applies, despite the countless drivel posts that plague any forum. This applies even with the "Pseudo-skeptics" that call hoax almost on reflex, and it also applies despite the Tin-Foil hat Militia that see an alien craft every time a bird drops a bomb. That middle ground has a ton of information in it for curious people with no previous exposure to investigating UFOs. There are even threads explaining how to take a good pic, what kinds of cameras to use, how to measure distance, speed, latitude, how to tell when a photo or footage has been doctored.

Despite some ugly and disparaging threads, believers and skeptics need one another desperately. Healthy skepticism is a necessity, it brings logic, rationality and objectivity to the table. Skepticism unhinged, oppresses, degrades and mocks (Guilty of it myself)- limiting not only a believer but also the skeptic him or herself - essentially shutting down the debate. Believers are often the dreamers, open-minded, non-judgmental, the only ones willing to investigate something that at first glance may seem completely ridiculous. Unhinged believers often have their minds so open that (I know you've heard this before) their brains fall out. They are quick to become financial fodder for charlatans and have a tendency to tie every little detail together to form a structure that is usually highly improbable, often based on the desire to believe (which I think is something skeptics and believers secretly have in common).

It doesn't matter what side of the fence you find yourself on, if you're objective and reasonable enough, there is something here for you to read that will enhance your next Google search at the very least. That being said, I believe there is a bit of a crisis unfolding with the ease and availability of CGI. I have seen it stated in single sentences in more than one post, but I haven't seen too many discussions covering it head on, and I think it's important to develop some methods, or bring to light those that already exist.

It's 2014 now, and hoaxes are beginning to evolve to utilize such quality tools that even Hollywood is trumped in quality. Once upon a time when there was a new UFO video to analyze, it was fairly easy to spot a turd in the pretzel bowl. The ship, light, artifact looked awesome, but maybe the people were acting strange. Maybe the frames didn't match up. Maybe there was a distortion around the image itself, there was always something that someone could spot. But now we are entering a new realm, where I have heard people say it looks too good (I can sympathize by the way). I never thought I'd see the day where footage looks so good that it simply can't be authentic. What will happen when a real piece of genuine, clear and remarkable footage shows up?

Imagine what you could do with mini drones (which are cheap and available by the way) and some glow sticks/lanterns. In a strange way, the very technological improvements that should have made it easier to spot and get good picks of odd objects could very well be the damnation of Ufology itself. This is at a small time hobby hoaxer level too, what about the wealthier folk that are inclined to actually put some cash into an expensive hoax? Those people are actually out there. Considering how rare it is that a truly compelling piece of evidence comes along, will the time in between only get worse until eventually most people stop looking out of futility?


www.youtube.com...

yeah but you don't need a video to know if aliens are real.

The drone theory has no merit when UFOs shoot off leaving trails of light.

Look for stuff that looks absolutely out of the norm. Non of our technology could mimic such scenario.



Go out there and experience aliens for yourself. They are out there, I'v seen them.

Actual aliens, and their saucer. I'v seen something that was mind blowing but the E.T i was dealing with could teleport, were made of energy and communicated via emotion well at the same time have electrical disturbances on appliances and electronics.

Cameras wouldn't work well. They would simply drain the battery since they could technically syphon the energy out to fuel themselves.

Probably why they hangout by power plants and thunderstorms.

a reply to: BS_Slayer

Here's the video you tried to post
Just copy everything after the '=' and paste into the youtube box

a reply to: SecretKnowledge

Thank you kindly.

originally posted by: BS_Slayer
That being said, I believe there is a bit of a crisis unfolding with the ease and availability of CGI.

I believe this is over exaggerated perhaps?

In this area, your average UFO enthusiast isn't that particularly interested in the mathematics of bayer filters and when confronted with mathematical information they are keen to argue about its inauthenticity. It's simply not worth while to present mathematical information on a forum like ATS 90% of the time.

a reply to: AnuTyr

a reply to: SecretKnowledge

Yeah. I thought i'd missed a segue or something.

I realize the structure of this post is a bit odd. I think I had a couple themes running through my head simultaneously, so I apologize if it is a bit convoluted.

I believe this is over exaggerated perhaps?

In this area, your average UFO enthusiast isn't that particularly interested in the mathematics of bayer filters and when confronted with mathematical information they are keen to argue about its inauthenticity. It's simply not worth while to present mathematical information on a forum like ATS 90% of the time.

No, not necessarily. Though I agree that there is probably a majority that won't use reason even in the face of good data. I'm not really targeting those people though. Technology has changed substantially even in the last 10 years or so. I think the relevance of whether or not something is authentic is very important, so in my admittedly verbose post; I want to know if people feel that their methods of observation have evolved along with it, assuming that is even possible.

I think its a rather fun thread when someone finds something new to watch and everyone puts in their two cents. Kind of a tradition on ATS. I feel that new technologies such as holograms, more efficient drones and even unusual but very terrestrial craft have made an already difficult task of observation even more difficult. Considering you can't get a very balanced consensus as it is, seems fairly reasonable to wonder if things will have become so questionable that people may as well stop trying. I didn't load my post up with exclamation points and dire sensationalism; just posed a question to see if anyone else was a bit concerned over it.

God himself or herself could show up in a big spaceship and skeptics would be like nope it aint god and this is a hoax until god comes knocking on my door. Even still they would be like this isnt real cant be true this must be a dream, someone must have slipped me something.

And then if that didnt work they would be like I must have gone crazy, or thats just some dude in a glow suit, it must be a hologram.

Disbelief is so trained into our current human society I wouldnt expect anyone to ever believe anything no matter what.

originally posted by: FormOfTheLord
God himself or herself could show up in a big spaceship and skeptics would be like nope it aint god and this is a hoax until god comes knocking on my door. Even still they would be like this isnt real cant be true this must be a dream, someone must have slipped me something.

And then if that didnt work they would be like I must have gone crazy, or thats just some dude in a glow suit, it must be a hologram.

Disbelief is so trained into our current human society I wouldnt expect anyone to ever believe anything no matter what.

When I first read this I was like "oh no, not another God post", but then I saw the Hologram part and I was like "yeah, it totally could be a hologram". but then I was like "holograms aren't that advanced yet, so maybe it could be a dude in a glow suit".

a reply to: draknoir2
Most visions of god are due to just some dude in a glow suit. I remember tripping balls once and was like totally seeing god. Nope. Just a dude in a glow suit.

I'd imagine this video has been posted before, but even if it comes close I could see (at least from a technical perspective) a government being able to pull off an illusion. Not saying that to get into conspiracies but to merely point out that we seem to be entering an age where even what you see with your own eyes is more questionable than ever. Incidentally, I'm not sure this is a hologram but impressive nonetheless.

a reply to: FormOfTheLord

Disbelief is so trained into our current human society I wouldnt expect anyone to ever believe anything no matter what.

Disbelief?


Do yourself a favor and just use ATS as model and count how many are believers that jump to alien before anything else vs skeptics that look to understand vs debunkers that call hoax straight away.

In my opinion its the complete opposite, religion is one major factor where over half the worlds population believes in one God or another with nothing but an authority figure or group or a book saying things are real.

Belief is so trained in society so authority can speak and followers can listen and do as they are told simply by believing in authority.

If disbelief was trained into society there would be constant rebellions everywhere and the world would be in a much more chaotic state than it is now.

Belief is trained in me and its only when people answer or ignore questions is when I disbelieve at times more than I believe, that could be due to language barriers or a person expressing themselves in a way that seems false to me, however I see the complete opposite of what you do.

originally posted by: BS_Slayer
I didn't load my post up with exclamation points and dire sensationalism; just posed a question to see if anyone else was a bit concerned over it.

Agreed, I just think it's a misunderstood topic.

I want to know if people feel that their methods of observation have evolved along with it, assuming that is even possible.

The ability to research these kinds of things is actually a relatively new phenomenon. Back in the analog / chemical film days we didn't have the ability to not only look at images but analyze them in a 'close to source' format. For example, previously looking for evidence of compositing or editing was limited to the handful of experts that could convince the original picture owner to send them the originals.

The methods of observation are still being built and spread, and people have far greater methods at their finger tips now than ever before. The uptake of those methods is a completely different matter unfortunately.

seems fairly reasonable to wonder if things will have become so questionable that people may as well stop trying.

So my personal answer to this is 'no'. If people are serious about their investigations they will learn serious techniques and get good, if somewhat depressing, results. The creation of a digital image is a linear mathematical event with predictable results, and those results can be reverse engineered to great benefit for those who try.

There are some members of the skeptics’ groups who clearly believe they know the right answer prior to inquiry. They appear not to be interested in weighing alternatives, investigating strange claims, or trying out psychic experiences or altered states for themselves (heaven forbid!), but only in promoting their own particular belief structure and cohesion.

en.wikipedia.org...

Although I consider myself a contactee and a psychic, I flip to the pseudo-skeptic side (torn between my experiences but with a scientific open mind) because I want to help ascertain credibility and have concrete physical proof found to substantiate my experiences to remove the stigma (discredit) which is still going strong.

My instinct is in harmony with the pessimism of Buddha and of Schopenhauer. It is a doubt which never leaves me, even in my moments of religious fervor. Nature is indeed for me a Maïa; and I look at her, as it were, with the eyes of an artist. My intelligence remains skeptical. What, then, do I believe in? I do not know. And what is it I hope for? It would be difficult to say. Folly! I believe in goodness, and I hope that good will prevail. Deep within this ironical and disappointed being of mine there is a child hidden — a frank, sad, simple creature, who believes in the ideal, in love, in holiness, and all heavenly superstitions. A whole millennium of idyls sleeps in my heart; I am a pseudo-skeptic, a pseudo-scoffer.

nvm