If Just ONE video, photo, anecdote, piece of evidence...were TRUE!

What about the disclosure project? I know Greer is an ass but are all those witnesses lying?
I don't think so.

originally posted by: BatheInTheFountain


All it takes out of the thousands of files is ONE.

Is that enough to be concerned? Is my theory valid? I ask ATS.

Why would that "concern" you?

Yes, all it would take is one, and I'm sure I'm not the only member here eagerly awaiting.

a reply to: BatheInTheFountain

At least 5 % cannot be explained any other way...so it is true.

Done issue. They, thm...ufos-aliens...ARE. real.

So there....!

I lean towards Jacques Vallee and LA Marzulli in that I believe they are hyperdimensional in origin and are NOT benevolent. For what its worth

It's just like the days when Pythagoras claimed the earth was round .. History always repeats itself .. One day Columbus will fall down from the stars...

a reply to: UKWO1Phot

What if they don't know that their own brain is lying to them?

Your brain lies to you

False beliefs are everywhere. Eighteen percent of Americans think the sun revolves around the earth, one poll has found. Thus it seems slightly less egregious that, according to another poll, 10 percent of us think that Senator Barack Obama, a Christian, is instead a Muslim. The Obama campaign has created a Web site to dispel misinformation. But this effort may be more difficult than it seems, thanks to the quirky way in which our brains store memories - and mislead us along the way.

The brain does not simply gather and stockpile information as a computer's hard drive does. Facts are stored first in the hippocampus, a structure deep in the brain about the size and shape of a fat man's curled pinkie finger. But the information does not rest there. Every time we recall it, our brain writes it down again, and during this re-storage, it is also reprocessed. In time, the fact is gradually transferred to the cerebral cortex and is separated from the context in which it was originally learned. For example, you know that the capital of California is Sacramento, but you probably don't remember how you learned it.

This phenomenon, known as source amnesia, can also lead people to forget whether a statement is true. Even when a lie is presented with a disclaimer, people often later remember it as true.

With time, this misremembering gets worse. A false statement from a noncredible source that is at first not believed can gain credibility during the months it takes to reprocess memories from short-term hippocampal storage to longer-term cortical storage. As the source is forgotten, the message and its implications gain strength. This could explain why, during the 2004 presidential campaign, it took weeks for the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth campaign against Senator John Kerry to have an effect on his standing in the polls.

Even if they do not understand the neuroscience behind source amnesia, campaign strategists can exploit it to spread misinformation.

They know that if their message is initially memorable, its impression will persist long after it is debunked. In repeating a falsehood, someone may back it up with an opening line like "I think I read somewhere" or even with a reference to a specific source.

In one study, a group of Stanford students was exposed repeatedly to an unsubstantiated claim taken from a Web site that Coca-Cola is an effective paint thinner. Students who read the statement five times were nearly one-third more likely than those who read it only twice to attribute it to Consumer Reports (rather than The National Enquirer, their other choice), giving it a gloss of credibility.

Adding to this innate tendency to mold information we recall is the way our brains fit facts into established mental frameworks. We tend to remember news that accords with our worldview, and discount statements that contradict it.

In another Stanford study, 48 students, half of whom said they favored capital punishment and half of whom said they opposed it, were presented with two pieces of evidence, one supporting and one contradicting the claim that capital punishment deters crime. Both groups were more convinced by the evidence that supported their initial position.

Psychologists have suggested that legends propagate by striking an emotional chord. In the same way, ideas can spread by emotional selection, rather than by their factual merits, encouraging the persistence of falsehoods about Coke - or about a presidential candidate.

originally posted by: stosh64
I lean towards Jacques Vallee and LA Marzulli in that I believe they are hyperdimensional in origin and are NOT benevolent. For what its worth

Don't be afraid to admit that you believe in demons, evil spirits and all the rest of the spawn of Satan.

Man with his primitive science, limited senses, and arrogance can't even imagine what the cosmos holds.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: BatheInTheFountain

First you need to produce the evidence that a UFO sighting equals alien sighting. All a UFO is an unidentified object that is defying gravity. So even credible evidence that a UFO exists, != credible evidence that an alien spaceship exists.

I basically said the same thing in my OP as I specified "Earth Origin" vs. Non

a reply to: BatheInTheFountain

Also, keep in mind, that science's idea of taking an investigation seriously isn't the same as a ufologists idea of taking an investigation seriously. Science will go in directions that the UFOlogist has shut out because he already believes in aliens. A serious investigation from science will PROBABLY turn up an answer that you won't like, but you have to be ready to accept that answer and discard any preconceived notions.

Science starts with nothing given and builds its evidence. If all you have is an event that definitively happened, then to start with you start with identifying what happened in the event, then try to figure out the objects involved. You do this by following the various pieces of evidence. If at the end of the day, science still cannot conclude a satisfactory answer, then you have to accept that not enough evidence exists to explain it. Are you willing to be able to do all of this?

I for one saw something really well in 1970 and haven't seen anything the likes of it since. Not a picture not a drawing maybe a few other stories.

a reply to: Krazysh0t
LOL.
So if they've worked on physical projects where they've written reports and analysed data relating to that work their brain is fooling them?
Right..

a reply to: UKWO1Phot

Doing something over and over until it is ingrained in your head is a BIT different than recalling the events of a singular afternoon. For one, reflex recall and event recall come from two different places in the brain. Why don't you actually read the article and see what it is saying and attempt to actually deny ignorance instead of posting a useless (and incorrect) rebuttal to a scientific article?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Because most of the disclosure witnesses actually worked on physical things.
They didn't just see something once and let their mind make up what it was.

I did read the article. Deny your own Ignorance

a reply to: UKWO1Phot

So if you read it then you should know that what you are saying there is a rationalization in the face of evidence to the contrary. Just because someone is familiar with something like say aircraft manuveurs of terrestrial flights doesn't mean that his brain won't play tricks on him at times. There are a myriad of reasons why someone may think they see something that they didn't. They could be sleepy, there could be an illusion created by light reflecting off of water in the air, they could be intoxicated, they might not given it their full attention at the time, etc.

I am by no means discounting that they saw something (or think that they saw something), I am discounting that it is anything more than a cool story. It certainly isn't valid evidence of anything.

a reply to: Krazysh0t
Seeing something from a distance etc , yes you could be right.
When they've actually seen something close-up or physically touched something then the study has no merit.

originally posted by: UKWO1Phot
a reply to: Krazysh0t
Seeing something from a distance etc , yes you could be right.
When they've actually seen something close-up or physically touched something then the study has no merit.

How many verifiable reports of close-up viewing or physical touching do we have?

originally posted by: UKWO1Phot
a reply to: Krazysh0t
Seeing something from a distance etc , yes you could be right.
When they've actually seen something close-up or physically touched something then the study has no merit.

Sleep paralysis disagrees with you. Charlatans trying to get their 15 minutes of fame disagree with you. CONFIRMATION bias from people (yes even experts in a field can have confirmation bias for aliens) disagrees with you.

Also, like Soylent said, how many of these close up reports are there exactly? Most of the ones I know about involve one person who can't keep his story straight or involve two people who have conflicting stories. Sounds like liars to me.