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.

 

Skeptic misses point behind UFO book

page: 11
22
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 03:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: EnPassant

The behaviour of theses ufos is clearly deliberately ambiguous.

Can you give a real example of something that is clearly and deliberately ambiguous?
I mean, how do you determine that something is deliberately ambiguous? I guess you first have to assume that something is being intentionally ambiguous but that something is the thing that is ambiguous in the first place which means it could just as easily be something else. I think what you are saying is that they are blending in so well with misperceptions that nobody can differentiate between the two.


No, that's not what I am saying. I am saying they are ambiguous because they are not revealing themselves openly or truthfully yet they do reveal themselves partially. They say 'We are from a small galaxy near Neptune' to one person. That is just a head game. They stay in the shadows but let us know they are here. They leave everyone guessing as to their agenda. They are on the fringes, clearly visible to some and then they disappear leaving everyone guessing. They give different messages to different people. They set up 'broken down' flying saucer scenarios to fool people etc. etc.

All of this is, I believe, intentionally vague and ambiguous.
edit on 14-4-2015 by EnPassant because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 03:25 PM
link   
a reply to: EnPassant



They set up 'broken down' flying saucer scenarios to fool people etc. etc.


how can we be sure they don't set up 'extraterrestrial visitor' scenarios to fool people as well?



posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 03:26 PM
link   
EnPassant: The counter argument is that these witnesses are deluded, or their brain's wiring is gone wrong or they are mistaken or whatever.

Zeta Rreiculi: Don't start that because that is entirely false. It is actually common knowledge that people can hallucinate without there being anything wrong with them. en.wikipedia.org...

I deliberately said '...mistaken or whatever' to cover all possible objections, not just hallucinations.
edit on 14-4-2015 by EnPassant because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 03:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: aynock
a reply to: EnPassant


They set up 'broken down' flying saucer scenarios to fool people etc. etc.

how can we be sure they don't set up 'extraterrestrial visitor' scenarios to fool people as well?


If this is what they are doing what or who are they?



posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 03:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: EnPassant

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: EnPassant

The behaviour of theses ufos is clearly deliberately ambiguous.

Can you give a real example of something that is clearly and deliberately ambiguous?
I mean, how do you determine that something is deliberately ambiguous? I guess you first have to assume that something is being intentionally ambiguous but that something is the thing that is ambiguous in the first place which means it could just as easily be something else. I think what you are saying is that they are blending in so well with misperceptions that nobody can differentiate between the two.


No, that's not what I am saying. I am saying they are ambiguous because they are not revealing themselves openly or truthfully yet they do reveal themselves partially. They say 'We are from a small galaxy near Neptune' to one person. That is just a head game. They stay in the shadows but let us know they are here. They leave everyone guessing as to their agenda. They are on the fringes, clearly visible to some and then they disappear leaving everyone guessing. They give different messages to different people. They set up 'broken down' flying saucer scenarios to fool people etc. etc.

All of this is, I believe, intentionally vague and ambiguous.

I see. They act like hallucinations on purpose.



posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 03:42 PM
link   
a reply to: EnPassant

I deliberately said '...mistaken or whatever' to cover all possible objections, not just hallucinations.


So you were deliberately ambiguous? Can you be more specific and factual?

...a strong case can be made that all UFOs are due to whatever


edit on 14-4-2015 by ZetaRediculian because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 04:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian


What, in your opinion, is an hallucination?



posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 04:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
So you were deliberately ambiguous? Can you be more specific and factual?
...a strong can be made that all UFOs are due to whatever


No, I was just listing all possible objections that could be raised about what people report.



posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 04:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: EnPassant

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian


What, in your opinion, is an hallucination?


Its not so much an opinion, its how its defined.

A hallucination is a perception in the absence of external stimulus that has qualities of real perception. Hallucinations are vivid, substantial, and located in external objective space. They are distinguished from the related phenomena of dreaming, which does not involve wakefulness; illusion, which involves distorted or misinterpreted real perception; imagery, which does not mimic real perception and is under voluntary control; and pseudohallucination, which does not mimic real perception, but is not under voluntary control.[1] Hallucinations also differ from "delusional perceptions", in which a correctly sensed and interpreted stimulus (i.e., a real perception) is given some additional (and typically absurd) significance.

Hallucinations can occur in any sensory modality—visual, auditory, olfactory, gustatory, tactile, proprioceptive, equilibrioceptive, nociceptive, thermoceptive and chronoceptive.

A mild form of hallucination is known as a disturbance, and can occur in most of the senses above. These may be things like seeing movement in peripheral vision, or hearing faint noises and/or voices. Auditory hallucinations are very common in schizophrenia. They may be benevolent (telling the patient good things about themselves) or malicious, cursing the patient etc. Auditory hallucinations of the malicious type are frequently heard, for example people talking about the patient behind his/her back. Like auditory hallucinations, the source of the visual counterpart can also be behind the patient's back. Their visual counterpart is the feeling of being looked or stared at, usually with malicious intent. Frequently, auditory hallucinations and their visual counterpart are experienced by the patient together.


compared to:

They stay in the shadows but let us know they are here. They leave everyone guessing as to their agenda. They are on the fringes, clearly visible to some and then they disappear leaving everyone guessing. They give different messages to different people.

There is truly a fine line between what you are describing and what you might find in the DSM-5.

But really, for the most part I think we are dealing with illusions which are quite easily demonstrated and particularly in the cases that Jim Oberg has laid out. Originally I would have thought some cases like the Yukon case would have needed to be a fool blown hallucination but it seems like all you need is some illusory contours and some excitement.



posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 04:56 PM
link   
a reply to: EnPassant

No, I was just listing all possible objections that could be raised about what people report.

Well there certainly are all kinds of things that could explain what people report and some that probably haven't even been discovered yet. I wouldn't call them "objections" either which is an odd choice of words.

I guess I could make up some new psychological phenomenon and then pick the cases that support that or even allow for my new explanation to fit whatever scenario I wish. I could call it "alien brain farts" and instead of aliens being some technologically advanced hyperdimensional beings as the explanation for anything unknown, I could just say that ABF accounts for all of that as well. Fortunately it would get as far as "aliens" in the science world.



posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 06:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Scdfa
Is that too much? Too difficult? We're talking about verifying the existence of something questionable. Why settle for less?

I see that you think my criteria for proof are too "unrealistic."

All I would like for proof is the same kind of proof of existence that I would want for anything, just a little higher because of the controversy. How would you prove to me that the chair you're sitting on exists if I'm not there to see it for myself? You could send me a picture. But how do I know you didn't fake it? A number of pictures would be nice, from different people who clearly identify themselves. After that, maybe you could send me a piece of fabric or bolt from the chair. Or course showing some clear link between the photos and the bolt would be necessary. And so on.

But we all know that chairs exist. Not so with aliens or alien craft. That would require more verification by experts. More confirmation. I suppose it boils down to personal preference. Maybe you're the kind of person who just believes whatever anybody tells you if they seem like an "honest person." I know that even honest people can be mistaken, and even I can get things terrifically wrong. So if such a thing really, REALLY exists, then all the things I would like to prove it would be possible. Not asking for anything impossible here.



posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 06:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
Easy. I just need a random obnoxious anonymous poster spamming the forum with their personal stories of the reality of ET contact.

An interesting story full of old UFO tropes and a blurry photo is all I need!



posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 08:21 PM
link   
a reply to: JimOberg


I've always tried to make clear that I believe the question of alien presence on Earth is non-disprovable. It is entirely possible it is occurring, the only question I feel competent to offer opinions on, is whether specific events can ONLY be explained by such presence, and I am persuaded in such cases, that is not true.




This is a fair statement and a worthwhile approach that does offer important and valuable research to draw conclusions from, regardless of whether you find yourself more of a skeptic or a believer. The kind of information resulting from this search benefits everyone. I guess it's just that like any case people will interpret the results in different ways. I respect the question and the intent of the research.



posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 08:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Blue Shift


But we all know that chairs exist. Not so with aliens or alien craft. That would require more verification by experts. More confirmation. I suppose it boils down to personal preference. Maybe you're the kind of person who just believes whatever anybody tells you if they seem like an "honest person." I know that even honest people can be mistaken, and even I can get things terrifically wrong. So if such a thing really, REALLY exists, then all the things I would like to prove it would be possible. Not asking for anything impossible here.




Even as a person who tends to believe the idea of aliens, not necessarily specific cases but be overall idea that they exist, I don't find these demands unreasonable. If they exist then all of these criteria should be able to eventually be met.



posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 09:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheBolt

Even as a person who tends to believe the idea of aliens, not necessarily specific cases but be overall idea that they exist, I don't find these demands unreasonable. If they exist then all of these criteria should be able to eventually be met.


EnPassent's point that an ET presence could be manipulating our perceptions of them, bizarre as it may first appear, is IMHO actually as reasonable as any other speculation on their motives and methods [to the extent we could even comprehend them in human terms], but it complicates our own efforts to crack the puzzle enormously, perhaps irremediably.

But working the puzzle, even in absence of proof there IS an answer, has in my experience produced realizations and appreciations that otherwise might never have been noticed. Diligent records-keeping by generations of devoted hobbyists HAVE created a data base with far wider applications than most of them imagined. In the end, serendipity rewards most quests, often with [as the song tells] not with what we wanted, but what we needed.

The game is worth the candle. It's by no means 'all nonsense', even if it doesn't turn out to be aliens.

Does that make me a 'crypto-believer'? Don't snitch on me to CSICOP.



posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 11:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed

originally posted by: JimOberg

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed


There is a common pattern I have seen with all the main stream talking heads, and that is to attempt a conclusion that no non human intelligence is here, coming here, or been here, in order to keep the status quo uneventful and as mundane as possible. ....


If this is a pattern you have 'seen', as well as what you have 'seen' inside the minds and motives of these people, I suggest you consider the possibility that YOU are a poor observer, and that your inability to even concede that possibility is blinding you to a better understanding of this fascinating cultural phenomenon.

I've tried -- and it seems, failed -- to make clear that determining prosaic explanations for many 'classic' cases of ufology has NO bearing on disproving fundamental issues of alien intelligence visiting our planet -- it would be possible for it to be occurring with NO detectable signs, based on reasonable assumptions of their technology. And I have consistently maintained that a more diligent assessment of these kinds of stories has a lot of valuable lessons to teach. And that it is not skeptics who have brought serious UFO studies into disrepute, it's believers who 'see' things they way you seem to.

Any clearer?


I considered I might be a poor observer, but then I carefully examined everything I know and did so WITHOUT any personal bias. I did this even though I knew I would be wasting my time.
Anyone who would say in public that UFO's are never extraterrestrial space craft in any case, and then puts forth the extremely ignorant and naive statement :

"People see things at the limits of their vision" (In other words, when people see a UFO, it is always "at the limits of their vision" and then People only see UFO's as alien spacecraft they must be "Filling in the blanks from their imaginations and from their fears. (Because there is no such thing as alien spacecraft near Earth according to our transparantly epically stupid leaders and officials.
Because you already think you know your own conclusions are true, and you can't tell that you aren't as smart as you feel you are, so you make statements that to you make sense and are logical sometimes, (I bet you don't even believe half of your own BS). But when you say the things that you do to someone in a position to know the truth Like I have been fortunate to come to know, your arguments look put together without much thought.

I have heard you make many suggestions what a sighting is, only to see much more credible people totally shred your explanation every single time. Bruce Maccabees is one good example of the type of person who always destroy your hastily put together explanations.

This shows that YOU ARE THE POOR OBSERVER. Not me. I have connections in the field to know a few things about who and what is flying around our unfriendly sky's, in the Army, The Navy, and the FAA.

You are smarter than the the dumbest of them all though, James Graham. (He is also infinitely more arrogant, but only 1 -1/2 times as pompous. Not sure if that is a compliment, but it is better than nothing.

But you could easily do better than you have been by not using insults, demeaning speech, and ridicule, BECAUSE the truth stands on it's own merit and doesn't need any propping up, so if the things you find yourself saying are true, then stick with the facts and drop the "counter Intel officer act" Using ridicule and other similarly constructed arguments expose a total lack of truth within your arguments, because you know that you do not truly know for sure in every case, so that void is filled using ridicule as a method to give strength to an argument by attempting to make anyone else look misinformed and foolish.

And take up jogging.

By the way, I am an expert in human sociology and behavior motives and so when people do things like LIE, or make stuff up quickly like I have seen you do with the landing saucer case on the dry lake bed at Edwards AFB with Gordon Cooper. You said in a recent documentary that He wasn't even on base at the time, then quickly said "although he was on base" (Big contradiction), And then continued on with the NASA tradition of discrediting our Astronauts.

Based upon your sometimes careless and care free approach to debunking unknowns, I see you are really just a cheap PR man for NASA. And when you have said in the past that you don't get paid for that, and you do it for prosaic and humanitarian reasons, who can blame them for not paying you for your propping up the status quo?

If you do not know and, or,employ the truth 100% of the time, you will be discovered. When you do what you do in the future, remember the former Axiom I just stated as "rule number one".

And then keep going back to it until you no longer need to fear discovery.


Wow! Great post! I'm with you, I don't see how people fall for such an obvious agenda of obfuscation.

And whenever the witness accounts cannot be twisted into a rocket booster re-entry or Venus, then he tells us with haughty indignation that witnesses are worthless failures and are far too ignorant to accurately describe events or objects.

The way he has dragged our great astronauts through the mud is appalling and outrageous. His posts on Gordon Cooper are shameful, stooping so low as to harp on his financial failures in an effort to undermine his stance on alien contact.

His deep involvement with the less-than-reputable organization CSICOP is telling, they've been accused of outright fabrication and fraudulent data, and that's according to their own founding members.

Anyway,great post, it's encouraging to see another person who is wide awake.



posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 11:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: EnPassant
a reply to: JimOberg
From your Omni magazine quote-


An old contactee described the homeland of his alien friends as "the constellation Ganymede."

Since Ganymede is a moon of Jupiter, this and similar nonsensical ravings led some serious UFO theorists to suggest that the aliens were trying to deceive earthlings and retard our planet's progress by providing false astronomical data. But that silly explain-everything hypothesis is meaningless --under its umbrella, every ridiculous utterance would prove the aliens real.

Such pseudo-poetic, pseudo-scientific gibberish clearly aims at bad metaphysics, not good science

One contactee was even told they came from "A small galaxy near Neptune." (you should have no difficulty spotting what is wrong here.) But would aliens really speak like this? And why would they? They would and I can explain why.

It has been suggested (I forget the name but it does not matter) that if aliens were to contact people they might provide them with false information to deflect undue attention. Especially from scientists. Perhaps the aliens are not interested in proving themselves and want to sow confusion. The behaviour of theses ufos is clearly deliberately ambiguous. They want to be seen but they don't want everyone to see them. What seems to be happening here is they are being selective about who they contact and by saying silly stuff they are deliberately driving many people away (especially academics); they don't want wholesale belief amongst earthlings. But they do want some believers.

This is not the only way these beings deceive and play games. In many cases of flying saucers and dirigibles it appeared that the flying saucer/dirigible was 'broken down' and they were fixing it. Well well, here we are fixing our stuff and lo, a friendly earthling comes along to help. How fortunate!

The flying saucers are not broken down. This is a ruse, a little game they play, perhaps to calm the witness, or distract him, or buy time, or to make an appeal to his willingness to help, or to deflect his attention from the real agenda (which may involve missing time). This theme of game playing emerges in many aspects of the phenomena and the fact that they play games with scientific concepts and new age ideas may be telling us something about them. I find it very interesting that this theme of game playing and deception has emerged in different aspects of the phenomena and it is one of the quirks that links dirigibles to flying saucers; the occupants of both are playing similar games. (incidentally the woman who they told they were from a small galaxy near Neptune knew this could not be true.)


Absolutely en Passant! One thing Budd Hopkins tried to make clear is that these beings are liars.

There are cases where they abducted a group of people, and gave each of them a different reason for taking them. They told one person they were here to warn us of environmental disaster, they told the next guy that they were a dying race and needed our DNA, etc. And they most certainly have given many different stories as to where they come from.

All these incidents add up to paint a pretty clear picture of a bad situation.



posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 11:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: EnPassant

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: EnPassant

The behaviour of theses ufos is clearly deliberately ambiguous.

Can you give a real example of something that is clearly and deliberately ambiguous?
I mean, how do you determine that something is deliberately ambiguous? I guess you first have to assume that something is being intentionally ambiguous but that something is the thing that is ambiguous in the first place which means it could just as easily be something else. I think what you are saying is that they are blending in so well with misperceptions that nobody can differentiate between the two.


No, that's not what I am saying. I am saying they are ambiguous because they are not revealing themselves openly or truthfully yet they do reveal themselves partially. They say 'We are from a small galaxy near Neptune' to one person. That is just a head game. They stay in the shadows but let us know they are here. They leave everyone guessing as to their agenda. They are on the fringes, clearly visible to some and then they disappear leaving everyone guessing. They give different messages to different people. They set up 'broken down' flying saucer scenarios to fool people etc. etc.

All of this is, I believe, intentionally vague and ambiguous.


It seems disinformation is not limited to earthlings. Or NASA. Or Fox News.



posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 11:59 PM
link   
a reply to: ZetaRediculian




Originally I would have thought some cases like the Yukon case would have needed to be a fool blown hallucination


This is why I love you, you have such a turn of phrase, it always puts a smile on my face/ Thanks

I hope the fool used protection.


edit on 15-4-2015 by Scdfa because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-4-2015 by Scdfa because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 15 2015 @ 12:39 AM
link   
a reply to: Blue Shift





But we all know that chairs exist. Not so with aliens or alien craft. That would require more verification by experts. More confirmation. I suppose it boils down to personal preference. Maybe you're the kind of person who just believes whatever anybody tells you if they seem like an "honest person."


Require more verification by experts? What experts? I first encountered aliens directly in 1966. I'm about as close to an expert as you're going to find. I don't want to be off-topic, so I won't discuss my personal experiences here, but you were asking how I came to my conclusions.




top topics



 
22
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join