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.

 

Why do people lie about aliens? An in-depth look at why we can discredit near all stories

page: 14
17
<< 11  12  13    15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 18 2015 @ 11:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Scdfa
According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the term ‘unidentified flying object’ goes back at least to the 1950s: it is recorded in 1953, in a book by the US aviator and writer Donald Keyhoe.

Funny....The three times I've already said that (complete with citations) you denied it. You really are a piece of work.

edit on 6/18/2015 by admirethedistance because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 18 2015 @ 11:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: admirethedistance
...And yet again, you sidestep the issue and provide no evidence.

I'm done here. Those reading this thread in the future will see that one of us is a lying, back-pedalling, blithering idiot. They can make up their own minds as to which of us it is.



Scdfa is correct. He simply said "no one reported a "UFO" until 1953, when the Air Force invented the term." And that really bothered you and a few others, because you were corrected by him... by someone you disagree with on the UFO topic. How dare he! You accuse him of "apparently making stuff up"... yet he was correct.

That the Air Force coined the term in 1953 is widely acknowledged as fact, and is actually pretty non-controversial to those familiar with UFO history. There was an Air Force Regulation from July or August of 1953 which marked the first official use of the phrase "Unidentified Flying Object." Ruppelt, the Air Force's UFO 'guy', came up with it and had started using it some months before that. Keyhoe and Ruppelt communicated about flying saucer cases, of course, so the acronym probably entered Keyhoe's vocabulary that way. Or through Chop. No matter. Whether it was in Keyhoe's book a month or two before that, and why, is inconsequential -- it is still true that the Air Force, through Ruppelt, created the term. Even Keyhoe would tell you that.

If you insist on sources for something so basic and non-controversial, then any respected book on UFO history will do. If you must have authors' names, then try Ruppelt's own book, a classic from back then. Or maybe Jerome Clark's encyclopedia. Or Michael Swords' "UFOs and Government," if you want a more recent, excellent source. Or a dozen others. I'm all but positive any of them will confirm it for you.

I don't even care who believes what, and scdfa surely doesn't need my help -- he's doing a great job exposing some of the ignorance as to basic UFO history that's present in this forum -- but it's just painful to see people bicker and make accusations over a fact that's so minor and uncontested. Uncontested by anyone except for one or two people here.

There are more important things to discuss, I'm certain.



posted on Jun, 18 2015 @ 11:26 PM
link   
Folks, earlier in this thread, I stated that the term "UFO" was invented by the Air Force.

That caused another poster, admire the distance, to attack my credibility, call me a blithering idiot, accuse me of always side-stepping, back-pedaling, and other hyphenated insults.

Hopefully, other readers may come to understand that I know what I'm talking about.

The Oxford English Dictionary.

"According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the term ‘unidentified flying object’ goes back at least to the 1950s: it is recorded in 1953, in a book by the US aviator and writer Donald Keyhoe. The OED also gives a citation in 1956 by Edward Ruppelt, an officer in the USAF, stating that he’d invented the term as a more general one to replace the earlier description for such objects, flying saucer."

www.oxforddictionaries.com...

And this:

"Edward J. Ruppelt (July 17, 1923 – September 15, 1960) was a United States Air Force officer probably best known for his involvement in Project Blue Book, a formal governmental study of unidentified flying objects. He is generally credited with coining the term "unidentified flying object", to replace the terms "flying saucer" and "flying disk" - which had become widely known - because the military thought them to be "misleading when applied to objects of every conceivable shape and performance. For this reason the military prefers the more general, if less colorful, name: unidentified flying objects. UFO (pronounced Yoo-foe) for short."[1]
Ruppelt was the director of Project Grudge from late 1951 until it became Project Blue Book in March 1952; he remained with Blue Book until late 1953."

Hmm.

Exactly as I said. The term UFO was invented by the Air Force.

Now let's see if Admire The Distance has the strength of character to apologize, and admit that I was indeed correct.

Who thinks that is going to happen?



posted on Jun, 18 2015 @ 11:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Scdfa

...And yet you still provide no evidence to support your claim. Show me, in writing, where the term 'UFO' was used before Keyhoe's book.

Actually, don't. I don't care. This discussion, and you, are a waste of my time. I'm done.



posted on Jun, 18 2015 @ 11:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: admirethedistance
a reply to: Scdfa

...And yet you still provide no evidence to support your claim. Show me, in writing, where the term 'UFO' was used before Keyhoe's book.

Actually, don't. I don't care. This discussion, and you, are a waste of my time. I'm done.


You lost the argument you started.

Tea and Strumpets is perhaps the greatest wealth of knowledge on this site. You could learn from him. I know I do.

So no apology, or admitting I was correct?



posted on Jun, 18 2015 @ 11:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: TeaAndStrumpets

originally posted by: admirethedistance
...And yet again, you sidestep the issue and provide no evidence.

I'm done here. Those reading this thread in the future will see that one of us is a lying, back-pedalling, blithering idiot. They can make up their own minds as to which of us it is.



Scdfa is correct. He simply said "no one reported a "UFO" until 1953, when the Air Force invented the term." And that really bothered you and a few others, because you were corrected by him... by someone you disagree with on the UFO topic. How dare he! You accuse him of "apparently making stuff up"... yet he was correct.

That the Air Force coined the term in 1953 is widely acknowledged as fact, and is actually pretty non-controversial to those familiar with UFO history. There was an Air Force Regulation from July or August of 1953 which marked the first official use of the phrase "Unidentified Flying Object." Ruppelt, the Air Force's UFO 'guy', came up with it and had started using it some months before that. Keyhoe and Ruppelt communicated about flying saucer cases, of course, so the acronym probably entered Keyhoe's vocabulary that way. Or through Chop. No matter. Whether it was in Keyhoe's book a month or two before that, and why, is inconsequential -- it is still true that the Air Force, through Ruppelt, created the term. Even Keyhoe would tell you that.

If you insist on sources for something so basic and non-controversial, then any respected book on UFO history will do. If you must have authors' names, then try Ruppelt's own book, a classic from back then. Or maybe Jerome Clark's encyclopedia. Or Michael Swords' "UFOs and Government," if you want a more recent, excellent source. Or a dozen others. I'm all but positive any of them will confirm it for you.

I don't even care who believes what, and scdfa surely doesn't need my help -- he's doing a great job exposing some of the ignorance as to basic UFO history that's present in this forum -- but it's just painful to see people bicker and make accusations over a fact that's so minor and uncontested. Uncontested by anyone except for one or two people here.

There are more important things to discuss, I'm certain.


Great post, Tea and Strumpets, thank you for citing Jerome Clark and Michael Swords.

I wish you had more time to post, your vast knowledge is badly needed in here.

I thought this point was common knowledge. Serves me right for thinking knowledge was common.

Thanks for the kind words, undeserved, but I'll take them. I wouldn't waste the time if I didn't feel an enormous responsibility to tell the truth about this momentous situation. Maybe now we can move on.
edit on 18-6-2015 by Scdfa because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2015 @ 11:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: admirethedistance
a reply to: Scdfa

...And yet you still provide no evidence to support your claim. Show me, in writing, where the term 'UFO' was used before Keyhoe's book.

Actually, don't. I don't care. This discussion, and you, are a waste of my time. I'm done.


Oh c'mon. It looks, simply, like you might've been slowly twisting what it is that someone claimed, just so you wouldn't end up being 'wrong' on a message board. All that happened was this: earlier in the thread someone stated that 'UFO' wasn't used until "1953, when the Air Force invented the term." Then you and a few others in here somehow managed to turn that simple, correct statement into a debate about where the acronym 'UFO' was first printed on any page that was available to the public... which, obviously, is not the same thing.



posted on Jun, 19 2015 @ 12:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: TeaAndStrumpets

originally posted by: admirethedistance
a reply to: Scdfa

...And yet you still provide no evidence to support your claim. Show me, in writing, where the term 'UFO' was used before Keyhoe's book.

Actually, don't. I don't care. This discussion, and you, are a waste of my time. I'm done.


Oh c'mon. It looks, simply, like you might've been slowly twisting what it is that someone claimed, just so you wouldn't end up being 'wrong' on a message board. All that happened was this: earlier in the thread someone stated that 'UFO' wasn't used until "1953, when the Air Force invented the term." Then you and a few others in here somehow managed to turn that simple, correct statement into a debate about where the acronym 'UFO' was first printed on any page that was available to the public... which, obviously, is not the same thing.

Just for the record, I have no problem with being "wrong" on the internet. I frequently am, and I'm not afraid of ashamed to admit it. This 'debate' is simply ridiculous. I may not be correct in
what I have said, but I have presented evidence corroborating my argument, something the other member has yet to do. Regardless, though, I really don't care anymore. This isn't worth my time.

Edit: No offense meant to you, TeaAndStrumpets
edit on 6/19/2015 by admirethedistance because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 19 2015 @ 12:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: Scdfa
...Tea and Strumpets is perhaps the greatest wealth of knowledge on this site....


Ha! I chuckled at that one. Thanks, but I'm pretty "newish." Look at my meager post count/frequency. If you want to see how much more some ATS members really put into this topic, check out threads by Isaac Koi, Karl12, and some others. (It'll be obvious who I mean.) Their contributions, and their knowledge, are immense.



posted on Jun, 19 2015 @ 12:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: admirethedistance

originally posted by: TeaAndStrumpets

originally posted by: admirethedistance
a reply to: Scdfa

...And yet you still provide no evidence to support your claim. Show me, in writing, where the term 'UFO' was used before Keyhoe's book.

Actually, don't. I don't care. This discussion, and you, are a waste of my time. I'm done.


Oh c'mon. It looks, simply, like you might've been slowly twisting what it is that someone claimed, just so you wouldn't end up being 'wrong' on a message board. All that happened was this: earlier in the thread someone stated that 'UFO' wasn't used until "1953, when the Air Force invented the term." Then you and a few others in here somehow managed to turn that simple, correct statement into a debate about where the acronym 'UFO' was first printed on any page that was available to the public... which, obviously, is not the same thing.

Just for the record, I have no problem with being "wrong" on the internet. I frequently am, and I'm not afraid of ashamed to admit it. This 'debate' is simply ridiculous. I may not be correct in
what I have said, but I have presented evidence corroborating my argument, something the other member has yet to do. Regardless, though, I really don't care anymore. This isn't worth my time.

Edit: No offense meant to you, TeaAndStrumpets


As far as apologies go, this one is pretty pathetic.

Who are you kidding? I provided two citations that prove me correct, Tea and Strumpets listed several more.



posted on Jun, 19 2015 @ 08:15 AM
link   
A recent thread was all about the feeble memories of people who witness ufo's. This thread is all about what liars these witnesses are. There are many threads supporting the accounts of institutional people - uniformed people - and these imply that the rest of us have no credibility to begin with. I imagine a thread pointing to the poor vision of so many people, and their unwillingness to wear their glasses in public.



posted on Jun, 19 2015 @ 08:35 AM
link   
a reply to: Reddaysun

A recent thread was all about the feeble memories of people who witness ufo's.
There was a thread about memory in general and nothing really about people that witness UFOs specifically. Although people that witness UFOs are subject to the same memory distortions as the rest of us. I think the thread was attempt to gauge what that means in terms of UFOs. Its unfortunate that people see it like the way you describe it.


This thread is all about what liars these witnesses are. There are many threads supporting the accounts of institutional people - uniformed people - and these imply that the rest of us have no credibility to begin with.
I'm not really getting that vibe from this thread either

I imagine a thread pointing to the poor vision of so many people, and their unwillingness to wear their glasses in public.
I was thinking about a thread about how people completely misperceive and distort what they are reading.



posted on Jun, 19 2015 @ 10:24 AM
link   
@TeaAndStrumpets, scdfa latches on to anyone that supports him in anyway at all. He brought this UFO created by the airforce thing when I was referring to what was an unidentified flying object back in about 1915. Suggesting that the bulk of UFO reports started right after commercial flights started. Most people would not have heard news of commercial flights in those days, so it would be a strange contraption in the sky, and I referred to it as a UFO. Then he went on to say it was created in 1953, completely unrelated.

@Reddaysun be careful how you twist the title of the post. There are people who lie as you've seen even one of our members here have admitted to that. But it's not saying the majority are liars, the title was coined in a way to stir controversy. The thread is more about perception of what you're seeing, not essentially calling them liars. Most don't question what it was they just jump the gun to become one of the 'special' ones who've witnessed a great feat. It's not that you have no credibility but it's suggesting think of the story you have and think to see if you may have misconceptualized what happened. There's also a thread in this board that suggests abductees and patients who suffer from brain injury by trauma exert the same brain waves.



posted on Jun, 19 2015 @ 12:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: InhaleExhale

Parker, is that you?

If not then how do you know other than wanting to believe something that would match what you want it to be?



Listen the tape once again. Parker saw the beings and the craft, that's what he says, and corroborates his partner. Parker is in an obvious state of shock. Both men didn't know they were being secretely recorded. Clearly, they didn't lie.


Hickson and Parker were left together in a room with a hidden tape recorder after the formal interviews, with deputies hoping to catch them in a lie.
"Me and the other investigator got up and left to let them talk, to see if they were going to say, 'well, we got them fooled,' but they didn't," Ryder said. "They were really concerned."



posted on Jun, 19 2015 @ 01:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: SuspiciousTom
@TeaAndStrumpets, scdfa latches on to anyone that supports him in anyway at all. He brought this UFO created by the airforce thing when I was referring to what was an unidentified flying object back in about 1915. Suggesting that the bulk of UFO reports started right after commercial flights started. Most people would not have heard news of commercial flights in those days, so it would be a strange contraption in the sky, and I referred to it as a UFO. Then he went on to say it was created in 1953, completely unrelated.

@Reddaysun be careful how you twist the title of the post. There are people who lie as you've seen even one of our members here have admitted to that. But it's not saying the majority are liars, the title was coined in a way to stir controversy. The thread is more about perception of what you're seeing, not essentially calling them liars. Most don't question what it was they just jump the gun to become one of the 'special' ones who've witnessed a great feat. It's not that you have no credibility but it's suggesting think of the story you have and think to see if you may have misconceptualized what happened. There's also a thread in this board that suggests abductees and patients who suffer from brain injury by trauma exert the same brain waves.


I'm sorry Tom, but as far as I am concerned, you have zero credibility on the subject of UFOs and alien contact. You made absurd claims about UFO witnesses lying, and now you make an absurd claim that UFO witnesses mistook airplanes for spaceships.

You have no evidence to support anything you say, you cannot support your outlandish stories.

I make a simple statement of fact correcting you on the origin of the term "UFO", and you're still harping on it.

Your true character is revealed in this post, when you describe UFO witnesses this way:



they just jump the gun to become one of the 'special' ones who've witnessed a great feat.


That tells a lot about you. Mainly, that you're jealous, indignant that you aren't special too.

Grow up.
UFO witnesses come from all walks of life, nothing special about it, they just happened to be there.

You are welcome to post whatever you like, but you have no credibility whatsoever.



posted on Jun, 19 2015 @ 02:12 PM
link   
a reply to: JackHill


Listen the tape once again. Parker saw the beings and the craft, that's what he says, and corroborates his partner. Parker is in an obvious state of shock. Both men didn't know they were being secretely recorded. Clearly, they didn't lie.

They also both agree that Parker was passed out.


How was your buddy doin' then?

He just passed out on me. (Charlie)



CALVIN: I passed out. I expect I never passed out in my whole life.

www.ufocasebook.com...

@around 2:40 Parker talks about how they made up the part of passing out. Which is true? Did he pass out like they both said on the tape? If so, how did he see these things? Did he and Hickson make up that part? that would mean they got together before the interview and agreed to not tell the truth on at least some of it. Remember two people either agreeing that Parker passed out or two people making up that part. Which do you believe?


edit on 19-6-2015 by ZetaRediculian because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 19 2015 @ 02:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: SuspiciousTom

originally posted by: JackHill

originally posted by: admirethedistance
a reply to: Scdfa

You're like a broken record. Yes, many people, from many backgrounds have said many things. Don't you find it at all suspicious that not a single one of them has been able to come away with anything other than a story, though?


During the International Rally Championship that took place in South America in 1978, two participants were lifted by an UFO (along with the car) some minutes after they left a start point and later released close to destination. When the encounter finished, they started the car again and reached the final point. Problem is, they arrived hours before any other car, which is inconsistent with the capabilities of the car they were driving. Long story short, they arrived so early that they were accused of cheating, of course nobody could explain how they did it, basically because you can't cheat considering there was only one road, almost a straight line, and they somehow they also skipped 3 of 4 checkpoints.

'Story' huh? Being uninformed isn't a excuse to talk nonsense.


So no one witnessed this? This story sounds as if someone was just exaggerating that 2 racers were faster than the rest. An international Rally Championship is well televised and have people watching at EVERY POINT, as well as you said it was a straight road? How could this have missed cameras and all the fans in the stands that it came down to them being accused of "Cheating" it would be a CONFIRMED sighting. Also, this is making less sense as I read it, almost a straight line? Are you suggesting it's a straight length of road of it's 1 road that cannot be rentered. Rally's usually take place offroad. Also that simply sounds as if they paid off someone to turn a blind eye and let them back in the track. Also this would signify these men have been in contact with the aliens themselves or are they that generous to cheat other drivers out of their winnings? Also at what point would they lift these cars? Cause in a race they would most likely all start together, or is it a rally where there's it's done by comparison of times?

I also cannot find this event.
en.wikipedia.org...

Please post more details.


This is the rally:

www.cuas.org.uy...

They left the city of Viedma around 1:30 AM, maybe a bit later, after sharing a coffee and talking with other contenders, when around 10-20 kilometers later, the event took place. After the event, they started the car again and a few minutes later arrived at Pedro Luro, a city that's around 160 kms. They were confused about the fact of arriving so early. They're driving before the event at 100 km/h approximately. A few minutes passed the 2:00 AM they arrived and commented the situation to a person was working on a gasoline station. According to this worker, the reserve tank was empty, and the other only had around 20 liters, and he points out that effectively, these guys were the first contenders to arrive. In fact, doing his own math, he doesn't understand how their arrived so early, he considered it just impossible. According to him, the pilots were 'visibly scared', so he proposed them to call the local police if they wanted to tell their story, and they did that some time later. One of the policemen was also interviewed and corroborates the time discrepancies, the general fear of the victims, and several other facts that transpired that night, for instance, that the two crewmen asked for police escort to reach the next town, Bahia Blanca.

At some point after arriving, they felt tired, so decided to take a nap inside the car. Several minutes later, people who worked for the competition woke them up and asked what were there doing there so early. The victims told them they arrived some time ago, and the rally's people said something like 'it couldn't be, time doesn't add up, we just arrived to set up the check point and you arrived before we did?' so they decided to call to the 4 check points on the road. Apparently, they 'missed' the first three somehow. Some time later, several other cars arrived and after taking knowledge of the situation, they reacted accusing the chilean pilots of cheating. Of course it was just impossible considering the characteristics of the road and the terrain.

Around 5:00 AM a blue car piloted by an argentinian crew arrived. The pilots claimed, visibly shocked, that their car's battery was drained, as so the fuel, in the middle of the road, after a 'pretty strong' light surrounded the car. So everybody turned around to talk with the original victims to understand what was happening that night. It seems that even other contenders also saw the lights during that night.

When they arrived to Buenos Aires, the final destination, problems started, after the event took public knowledge. Three guys who presented themselves as members of the argentinian air force tried to convince them to not talk anymore about the event, that it wasn't convenient, etc. Also they met time later some other guys that, according to the victims, were like 'NASA' men, that kind of look. These guys at some point of the conversation convinced the victims to give the clothes they were wearing the night of the event, and also the car. The car was some days later returned, not so the clothes.



posted on Jun, 19 2015 @ 02:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian

@around 2:40 Parker talks about how they made up the part of passing out. Which is true? Did he pass out like they both said on the tape? If so, how did he see these things? Did he and Hickson make up that part? that would mean they got together before the interview and agreed to not tell the truth on at least some of it. Remember two people either agreeing that Parker passed out or two people making up that part. Which do you believe?



Which is true? My guts tell me the second, he claimed to pass out because of fear. When you listen to the guy on tape, he's fearing what people would say about it. I think it's denial in action, he tries to take distance of the event, even when recognizes it happened. The rest, nonsense. They agreed to lie? All the people who came in contact with them after the event claimed more or less the same thing, the guys were in shock. Use the common sense here. They were taped, and they didn't know about it. Sheesh, it's what the very police officers said, they did that on purpose to cath them in a lie:



"Me and the other investigator got up and left to let them talk, to see if they were going to say, 'well, we got them fooled,' but they didn't," Ryder said. "They were really concerned."


In other words, both men claimed to see the craft and the beings, then, and ever.



posted on Jun, 19 2015 @ 03:03 PM
link   
I think its hard to discredit peoples reports of aliens when they've been reported for thousands of years. Back then there was no reason for fabrication or gain from doing so hence drawings on cave walls found all around the world .



posted on Jun, 19 2015 @ 03:24 PM
link   
a reply to: JackHill

Which is true? My guts tell me the second, he claimed to pass out because of fear.

I think that's plausible.

They agreed to lie? All the people who came in contact with them after the event claimed more or less the same thing, the guys were in shock. Use the common sense here. They were taped, and they didn't know about it. Sheesh, it's what the very police officers said, they did that on purpose to cath them in a lie:

Yes, it would mean that they came up with the part about Parker passing out and they must have agreed before the taped interview since they both say that. They both state that explicitly on the tape. Then you really have to ask what other parts of the story they agreed on before the interview.

None of it really adds up though. If they did agree to make up that part beforehand and they didn't know they were being recorded, wouldn't you expect them to say something like that? Instead Parker says "I passed out." not "I will just keep telling them I passed out because I don't want to talk about it" which would be more believable. Instead they stick to the story of Parker passing out even though they don't know they are being recorded.

So the police officers tried to catch them in a lie with this recording and instead they essentially lie about Parker passing out? So really there is no indication that they made up that part about Parker passing out that's on the tape. And really, if you are to use this tape as evidence of them telling the truth, then you really don't get to pick which parts are true and which aren't. Either the tape is evidence of what happened to them or its not. My guess is that he passed out like he says on the tape. Anyway, interesting story.



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 11  12  13    15 >>

log in

join