Alien Misrepresentation

a reply to: Ectoplasm8

I can pick out the ghostface/Scream mask, the creature from the black lagoon, a giant snail, faces to the right of the "alien", and even a sleestak tucked away in the photograph.

I see Chaka and a giant ice cream cone too and a few Pokemon. Squirtle for sure. Very strange.

originally posted by: JadeStar

originally posted by: AdmireTheDistance
a reply to: Erno86

I don't see it either. At all. Perhaps you should start your own thread...

I've found it as useless to show people who have a religious belief that they saw an alien in a rock that, no what they saw was a shape in a rock which their imagination ran wild with as it is useless to point out that "no you didn't see the virgin Mary in a cloud, you just saw a cloud."

Or "No, it's not a sign from above that you saw Jesus on a Lays potato chip,"


They'll never listen so I give up after they reject rational thought.

Thx for the high-minded putdowns. But how do you know the purported alien is a rock? Or do you just hope it's a rock and not the real thing? After all...it could possibly be one of greatest discovery's all time --- if it were true --- So I'm sure that most people will treat it like they have there heads in the sand.

I'm sure that you have downgraded my purported alien picture to a point that you are not willing to discuss the subject anymore, since you've shown no curiosity to have me show you my 2nd alien photo, and have not shown a willingness to even comment about the alien geoglyph carving on the dirt megalith; which could have possibly been a self-portrait of the creature himself.

a reply to: Erno86

Thx for the high-minded putdowns. But how do you know the purported alien is a rock? Or do you just hope it's a rock and not the real thing? After all...it could possibly be one of greatest discovery's all time --- if it were true --- So I'm sure that most people will treat it like they have there heads in the sand.

To be fair, if its an alien, you have to admit that its pretty much indistinguishable from the other rocks and there are lots of examples of paredolia to show how this could be that in all likelihood. If its a real alien, its a shame that you don't have better pictures that distinguishes this from known things that are very common.

I'm sure that you have downgraded my purported alien picture to a point that you are not willing to discuss the subject anymore, since you've shown no curiosity to have me show you my 2nd alien photo, and have not shown a willingness to even comment about the alien geoglyph carving on the dirt megalith; which could have possibly been a self-portrait of the creature himself.

If I am remembering correctly, didn't you discuss this in another thread and say that you sent this off to Hynek?

And I know how you feel because I saw Jesus once in my windshield and the last person I would reveal that to would be JadeStar. And that would be the real Jesus, not pareidolia.

a reply to: ZetaRediculian

I rarely see a rock that has 2 eyes, nose, mouth and left leg and foot...unless it's painted or carved in, with my photo being neither. It's also not photo shop or some Earthling in a costume --- And the creature doesn't look like any other rock in my photograph. He does blend in well with his surroundings though --- which could be explainable due to high tech camouflage on his helmet. It's been speculation by other experts...that an ET entity would not openly pose for a picture, but would be trying to hide behind a rock or something --- And my alien picture fits the bill.

Man on the moon type of pareidolia? You have a right to your own opinion. But like I said before...if you were setting on the Miocene rock that the purported alien is sitting on in my photograph --- Your head, face, left leg and foot would be exposed to my camera angle and exposure, from the same location of where I took the original two alien photos --- which was about 120 feet out in the Chesapeake Bay.

And...oh yes, he is my pagan gaod that I worship --- including the dinosauroid humanoid in my other photograph.

Yes, I did send my alien photos off to Hynek. After Hynek died...his replacement wrote me a letter --- Saying he read my letter I sent to Hynek (along with my alien pictures), but he said he could not find my alien pictures that I sent to Hynek, and would I please send him another set. I never did respond back to Hynek's replacement.

Sew a thread (see what I did there?) starts off being about the hierarchies of alien civilizations, gets side-tracked with comments about exo-biology and tech and then is completely derailed by debunkers. Maybe people should just stop posting stuff about aliens here. Anyways...

RE: Hierarchies
As several have already mentioned, the hierarchy idea comes from abductees/contactees. In many reports, the experiencers are explicitly told who's in charge. I'd take anything these critters say with a grain of salt. Putting a few along your doors and windows might not be a bad idea, while you're at it.

RE: Exo-biology & Tech
These beings must have EXTREMELY advanced tech. There are numerous reports of them stopping time in busy metropolitan areas. They also apparently have the "tech" to whisk everyone in a busy city area away without anyone noticing. There are numerous reports of people being in a normally busy area of their town that just happens to be completely abandoned, birds and squirrels included, during/preceding an encounter. Then there are the reports of people losing consciousness during an encounter as conscious witnesses see nothing. The unconscious person comes to and begins exclaiming wildly about UFOs and aliens. These types of reports, coupled with the fact that this phenom seems to have been going on for a loooong time seems to indicate that we are not dealing with an advanced biological race doing research. We have cloning technology. If this "research/hybrid" theory had any merit, we wouldn't even know about it. If these beings are this powerful, why do they show themselves to us? Why can't they completely wipe memories out? Why can't they just teleport a used condom or a tampon or some other source of genetic material out of a trash can without anyone ever knowing and clone multiple humans for their supposed research? There's something else going on here.

As far as the improbability of humanoid aliens, insect-humanoids, etc - it's all rendered moot when we accept the possibility that these beings aren't entirely physical.

a reply to: ultimafule

Maybe people should just stop posting stuff about aliens here.

Or maybe people who want to post things about aliens here better come with sound evidence. If there are extraterrestrials on this planet, I'd like to meet them. We can discuss multi-valent logic and QED.

originally posted by: Erno86

originally posted by: JadeStar

originally posted by: AdmireTheDistance
a reply to: Erno86

I don't see it either. At all. Perhaps you should start your own thread...

I've found it as useless to show people who have a religious belief that they saw an alien in a rock that, no what they saw was a shape in a rock which their imagination ran wild with as it is useless to point out that "no you didn't see the virgin Mary in a cloud, you just saw a cloud."

Or "No, it's not a sign from above that you saw Jesus on a Lays potato chip,"


They'll never listen so I give up after they reject rational thought.

Thx for the high-minded putdowns.

I'm sorry you feel they were putdowns. You asked for my opinon. I gave it and you instead continued arguing that a rock was an alien. I explained why you might think that but you have a need to believe that was an alien and persisted in trying to get me to "see" it.

It gets old and it IS like people who see Jesus in a cloud or the virgin Mary in a tree trunk.

But how do you know the purported alien is a rock?

You've got the question backwards.

You should ask yourself "how do I know this rock is an alien?"



Psssssttt… those are just rocks too.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: ultimafule

Maybe people should just stop posting stuff about aliens here.

Or maybe people who want to post things about aliens here better come with sound evidence. If there are extraterrestrials on this planet, I'd like to meet them. We can discuss multi-valent logic and QED.

So many assumptions here! How many UFO/abduction reports have you read? Actually, never mind that question...

Has it ever occurred to you that maybe you're not meant to be a part of these discussions? Speaking for myself (as I always do!) I don't need to waste my time trying to prove to "skeptics" and debunkers what I already know to be true. I'm way ahead of youse guise, trying to figure out what is going on, instead of sitting on my dead arse asking for others to provide evidence. If you are genuinely curious, there are plenty of ways to do your own independent research to find answers for yourself.

My main gripe here is it seems that there can't be a single UFO/alien related thread without debunkers derailing it. Almost every post seems to end with a flood of debunkers shouting, "No evidence of aliens - move along, nothing to see here." I totally understand having a skeptical POV and analyzing videos or photos or completely wacked out claims like, "I'm the King of the Moon" or some such, but a thread like this presupposes the belief of UFOs/aliens. In cases like this, the debunking seems inappropriate and border line trollish behavior. Although not entirely analogous, it's somewhat akin to going into a thread about discussing the physics of comic book super heroes and shutting everyone down by telling them that comic books are fiction.

This discussion is not for you. Experiencers/abductees/contactees do not owe you anything at all. Some of us are here to discuss our experiences and try to figure out just what the heck is going on here without having to deal with repeated claims for proof. Which is why I stated maybe no one should discuss UFOs or aliens on ATS, as this seems to be par for the course here lately.

Having said that, a lot of nuts and bolt/true believers are nearly as ignorant regarding the phenom as the rest of you.

a reply to: ultimafule

I think you have some legitimate gripes there. I try to stay away from peoples personal experiences for the most part. We all have them. People should definitely be free to interpret those experiences however they wish since we are dealing with an unknown phenomenon. I think that conflicts occur because some people like to assert their personal experiences into everyone else's reality. There are definitely some good examples of that occurring in this thread. I have seen thread after thread derailed by someone claiming that their personal experience trumps everyone elses experiences that contradict theirs. For instance, my personal experience tells me that people are capable of experiencing a reality that is entirely "not real" and that memories may not be actual memories of real events. People generally put me in the "debunker" camp for expressing that view.

Has it ever occurred to you that maybe you're not meant to be a part of these discussions?

Well, this is an open forum and there are T&Cs to follow as a guide line. I don't think anyone should be excluded from a discussion here. Its easy enough to set up a private website for that kind of thing.

This thread seems highly speculative to me but its being passed along as "fact". These "facts" seem to be established by guys like David Jacobs...who conducted hypnosis on people to "recover" memories. I'm going to stop there and just say that these "facts" cross a boundary for me.

a reply to: JadeStar

It gets old and it IS like people who see Jesus in a cloud or the virgin Mary in a tree trunk.

Jesus is real

a reply to: ultimafule

So many assumptions here! How many UFO/abduction reports have you read? Actually, never mind that question...

Always one of the believer go-to arguments. Skeptics or debunkers can't possibly be familiar with many abduction/UFO cases because if they were, they'd have to believe. This is complete BS. It's the skeptics/debunkers/non-believers that do deep research into cases many times, while believers buy into the surface stories and what they are sold with very little research. They question very little and accept everything. That's not being skeptical, that's being naive and gullible falling for exactly what the seller of the stories want. You have to examine a case in it's entirety. That includes the mindset of the storyteller and if they have a past history of unsubstantiated claims or future questionable actions.

You really need a better go-to argument than this, it's weak.

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
I see Chaka and a giant ice cream cone too and a few Pokemon. Squirtle for sure. Very strange.

Squirtle has me confused, but I'll never forget Chaka's mid 70's UFO story:

originally posted by: Erno86
The background directly behind the creature is not rock...it's Miocene dirt.

Get a grip people!!!

Okay:

Look at the top photo without the distraction of the sun and shade optical illusion of the "alien" nose. You can see what you describe as the helmet is actually part of the mid-ground dirt.

Makes the case even better for a sun and shadow optical illusion with erosion tossed in.

a reply to: Ectoplasm8

Squirtle has me confused

Oh, he's between Sealeo and Bulbasaur in the blue area.

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: JadeStar

It gets old and it IS like people who see Jesus in a cloud or the virgin Mary in a tree trunk.

Jesus is real

But if you saw the face of Jesus in a cloud would you think that was a sign from above or simply a case of pareidolia?

originally posted by: Ectoplasm8

a reply to: ultimafule

So many assumptions here! How many UFO/abduction reports have you read? Actually, never mind that question...

Always one of the believer go-to arguments. Skeptics or debunkers can't possibly be familiar with many abduction/UFO cases because if they were, they'd have to believe. This is complete BS. It's the skeptics/debunkers/non-believers that do deep research into cases many times, while believers buy into the surface stories and what they are sold with very little research. They question very little and accept everything. That's not being skeptical, that's being naive and gullible falling for exactly what the seller of the stories want. You have to examine a case in it's entirety. That includes the mindset of the storyteller and if they have a past history of unsubstantiated claims or future questionable actions.

You really need a better go-to argument than this, it's weak.

It is a weak argument.

I can't tell you how many times someone accused me of not knowing about the subject, being familiar with the cases, etc.

I've probably read more about this subject from both sides of the true believer/skeptical divide at age 20 than most of the people twice my age and older have.

My conclusions are based on what we know about the universe in 2015 not 1955.

originally posted by: JadeStar

But if you saw the face of Jesus in a cloud would you think that was a sign from above or simply a case of pareidolia?

are we talking about a space Jesus or just a regular Jesus? One persons pareidolia is another's life changing experience. I'm not religious and generally very rational but that doesn't prevent a cloud Jesus from causing me to speak in tongues or something. So if I saw a Jesus face in a cloud? I would probably be like "oh that looks like a Jesus face, cool" but if it started talking to me then I would be like "oh no, not again!"

originally posted by: Ectoplasm8

a reply to: ultimafule

It's the skeptics/debunkers/non-believers that do deep research into cases many times,

I never see this happening!

while believers buy into the surface stories and what they are sold with very little research. They question very little and accept everything.

And, I see this all to often! On both sides of the coin.

That's not being skeptical, that's being naive and gullible falling for exactly what the seller of the stories want.

And, THIS is what I see most of the time!!!

You have to examine a case in it's entirety. That includes the mindset of the storyteller and if they have a past history of unsubstantiated claims or future questionable actions.

This I've never seen, especially here at ATS. It seems that most here are already experts in the subject and have no need to actually examine data!!1 Regardless of that data...I could hold you as a prime example of this....though honestly, there are better!

What is worse though is that many of the skeptics/non-believers around here will try to make the issue personal and attack the believer rather than use science to determine the reality. It is almost as if they are s afraid that science will demonstrate something to be real, when they don't want that reality. Thing is; IF the skeptic will not allow the believer to have his "reality", then the skeptic is not entitled to "his" reality either...Perhaps it is best to let science determine the reality; what ever it is.

originally posted by: Ectoplasm8

a reply to: ultimafule

So many assumptions here! How many UFO/abduction reports have you read? Actually, never mind that question...

Always one of the believer go-to arguments. Skeptics or debunkers can't possibly be familiar with many abduction/UFO cases because if they were, they'd have to believe. This is complete BS. It's the skeptics/debunkers/non-believers that do deep research into cases many times, while believers buy into the surface stories and what they are sold with very little research. They question very little and accept everything. That's not being skeptical, that's being naive and gullible falling for exactly what the seller of the stories want. You have to examine a case in it's entirety. That includes the mindset of the storyteller and if they have a past history of unsubstantiated claims or future questionable actions.

You really need a better go-to argument than this, it's weak.

So, my "go-to" argument is a single sentence which I dismissed right away? Did you not read the rest of my post? Or do you prefer to cherry pick statements you think are easy to dismiss, knowing that 90% of readers here do not read entire threads?

Also, nice assumption regarding my inquiry. When did I say reading enough reports would make one a "believer"? The intimation of that single question was that if one has read enough abduction reports, one would already be familiar with the concept of alien hierarchies. Care to address the rest of my post (the parts that are actually relevant to this discussion?)

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: ultimafule

I think you have some legitimate gripes there. I try to stay away from peoples personal experiences for the most part. We all have them. People should definitely be free to interpret those experiences however they wish since we are dealing with an unknown phenomenon. I think that conflicts occur because some people like to assert their personal experiences into everyone else's reality. There are definitely some good examples of that occurring in this thread. I have seen thread after thread derailed by someone claiming that their personal experience trumps everyone elses experiences that contradict theirs. For instance, my personal experience tells me that people are capable of experiencing a reality that is entirely "not real" and that memories may not be actual memories of real events. People generally put me in the "debunker" camp for expressing that view.

Has it ever occurred to you that maybe you're not meant to be a part of these discussions?

Well, this is an open forum and there are T&Cs to follow as a guide line. I don't think anyone should be excluded from a discussion here. Its easy enough to set up a private website for that kind of thing.

This thread seems highly speculative to me but its being passed along as "fact". These "facts" seem to be established by guys like David Jacobs...who conducted hypnosis on people to "recover" memories. I'm going to stop there and just say that these "facts" cross a boundary for me.

Agreed! I know the phenom is real. I'm an experiencer/abductee/whatever, but sometimes I get accused of being a debunker as well, because obvious CGI is obvious. I'm not a "believer", I'm a knower. I'm not familiar with David Jacobs and I too feel a little dubious when it comes to hypnotic regression. Why does Budd Hopkins' recovered memories differ so greatly from John Mack's, for example? But there are other sources for the idea that there is an alien hierarchy. Many people have remembered this info without regression.

Yes, it is an open forum. I haven't read the TC in a while, but how is it not thread drift if a thread starts off with a specific point (alien hierarchies) and ends up with (yet another!) debate regarding the existence of aliens and individual posters qualifications or whatever. I guess as long as it's about aliens/UFOs in general, it's still on topic? Again, I think it's important that people call out BS, but in some instances it seems a bit over the top, if not down right rude.

a reply to: ultimafule

I'm not familiar with David Jacobs and I too feel a little dubious when it comes to hypnotic regression. Why does Budd Hopkins' recovered memories differ so greatly from John Mack's, for example? But there are other sources for the idea that there is an alien hierarchy. Many people have remembered this info without regression.

Memory in general is a tricky thing. How in the world did I remember someone's post from a few years ago that I read in passing? Then how did I remember the moon being in a certain place in the sky one night and then later discovering that the moon wasn't even visible that night? With " memories recovered under hypnosis", that all played out in the 90s. In psychology its known as the memory war. That had more to do with recovered memories of childhood sexual abuse and later spilled over into abduction research. Its pretty well accepted in mainstream psychology that hypnosis doesn't really help recover memories but helps only to form memories. As far as Jacobs, you can listen to his sessions with Emma woods and decide for yourself.

Yes, it is an open forum. I haven't read the TC in a while, but how is it not thread drift if a thread starts off with a specific point (alien hierarchies) and ends up with (yet another!) debate regarding the existence of aliens and individual posters qualifications or whatever. I guess as long as it's about aliens/UFOs in general, it's still on topic? Again, I think it's important that people call out BS, but in some instances it seems a bit over the top, if not down right rude.

Yeah....I get that. I try to stay out of some thread topics. But then I hear complaining about how the skeptics dont comment on certain threads! The reasoning being that those threads are so good that the skeptics run for the hills!

I think what you might be seeing is spillover from other threads where a conflict between members just continues. Its the internet. .