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.

 

The Decline of Ufology: Decades of Fraud, Frustration and Failure?

page: 13
55
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 8 2015 @ 05:50 PM
link   
As far as I know there are numerous witnesses to aliens and UFOs that have never been debunked nor universally proven.

I recall those kids in South Africa and I've read 100s of cases similar where reliable witnesses have reported these things

Sure many of them are bogus but many are not


Therefore we'll just have to be satisfied with uncertainty until the certain arrives


I mean there’s enough out there to say with a degree of confidence:

Where there’s smoke there’s likely some degree of fire
...and there's a hell of a lot of smoke out there!
edit on 8-11-2015 by Willtell because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 9 2015 @ 01:04 AM
link   
a reply to: mirageman

"Are you talking about Malmstrom 1967? There are heavy doubts over that story as there is little to prove the missiles were offline on the dates and time Bob Salas has claimed. He initially claimed the incident happened at an earlier date (when the missiles did go offline) until it was proven he could not have been present at that time."

Have you read Robert Hasting's book UFOs and Nukes? If you haven't, you will find chapters from it and other articles on this subject on his website, including testimonies from more than 120 servicemen involved in these events who have been willing to come forward with what they know since their retirement from the armed services. There is a long history of ufo incursions over nuclear fuel production facilities, atomic and nuclear test sites, SAC missile bases in the US and similar sites in Russia, and air force bases here and abroad where nuclear weapons and warheads are stored. All this began over the Hanford atomic plant in 1941 and continues into the present decade.

Fortunately, Hastings's documentary on this subject is now completed and he is negotiating with television broadcast and cable networks for its presentation. A five-minute clip is available at Hastings's website at this link:

www.ufohastings.com...

That page also links to all the sections of his website for further reading. Hastings is a superb researcher who has been investigating these cases for more than two decades. The information he has obtained is unquestionably significant and should, and will be, shared with the public thanks to his work.



posted on Nov, 9 2015 @ 06:49 AM
link   
PPE: I actually got a bit more passionate about this than expected.

The question I always ask myself pertaining the Government's involvement is "If our government, or any government on earth for that matter, had obtained stark and irrefutable evidence of extraterrestrial activity on earth, would they do everything in their power to keep that information from the general public?"
And every time I ask myself that question, I always result at a clear and resounding answer of: YES!

There are a multitude of issues with the subject of UFOs, and all of them irritate me greatly.

The way it is treated with ridicule. This is the main one. This ties into a lot of the others. There are hundreds of cases where official entities have come up with an answer of "darned if we know what it is" despite doing everything in their power to come up with an even minutely plausible explanation and even obfuscating things to make it appear as if more things have been explained than really have. Why are we not studying these phenomena more closely? Because a bunch of quick-to-assume fools claim "aliens!" at the drop of a hat? I am a personal proponent of the "aliens" theory, yes, but I don't care if that's correct or not. It could be strange weather, military experiments, a trick of the light, a crowd hallucination caused by noxious fumes escaping from a nearby weather balloon (that one was sarcastic).
I just want an actual investigation into the matter that doesn't do everything in its power to serve some agenda rather than the truth.

The way expressing an interest or belief in it can lead to career suicide. Unlike religion, which is, quite frankly, an even more ridiculous and outlandish claim in comparison to that of alien activity on Earth. While I am not denying religions as a possibility (I am agnostic) one of these things is technically capable of being true within our understanding of reality, and one of these is not. Needless hint: It's the one that doesn't start with a book written two thousand years ago.

The way charlatans and fraudulent parasites contaminate the field even further beyond that of simple hoaxes.

The way organizations or projects that are supposedly there for the sake of an objective study of the phenomenon fabricate their results and statistics to suit an agenda, political or otherwise. (I'm looking at you, Blue Book.)

The way some people will just latch onto something and refuse to see other possibilities. Both "sides" are equally guilty of this (there shouldn't even be sides in the first place. The objective was, is, and always should be, the absolute truth.)
Stop going into things with a pre-determined answer. Maybe it was the military. Maybe it was swamp gas. Maybe it was a weather balloon. Maybe it was aliens.
But maybe, just maybe, it was none of those things.
edit on 9/11/2015 by Eilasvaleleyn because: Minor Issues



posted on Nov, 9 2015 @ 09:23 AM
link   
it's not good to ridicule but with no proof people should expect it.



posted on Nov, 9 2015 @ 09:29 AM
link   
I think i mentioned the cometa reports before, very smart people an official study and they concluded "appear to be intelligent controlled". COMETA pdf



posted on Nov, 9 2015 @ 02:29 PM
link   
a reply to: trueskepticnumberone




So let me get this straight; you find it somehow "diversionary" for me to point out the complete failure of NASA, our official space travel administration, into a discussion of UFOs, that travel here through space?


Yes because this is not a discussion about the the frustration of NASA's failures or fraud. But now I am digressing.

Because if anything we can point to many successes of NASA from the the moon landings, Viking, Pioneer, Voyager, Mars Rovers, the discovery of exo-planets. The list goes one. What has Ufology actually been successful at?



Everything we know about UFOs and aliens has come from Ufology, nothing has come from NASA. And they are the space agency, for god's sake. Ask a person on the street what an alien looks like, and they will accurately describe a grey. Thanks, ufology.



We do not know what UFOs actually are. Although many are eventually found to be natural or man made and thus become IFOs. Nor do we know what real aliens look like. The 'grey' alien is a product of science fiction and popular culture and promoted by certain personalities in ufology who have no proof beyond hearsay of their existence. Most of us know know what dragons look like? Do you think they exist?

As for Hoagland saying there is water on Mars. Well done. But who actually proved it?



posted on Nov, 9 2015 @ 02:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Constance

I haven't read that book so will take a peek. Thanks for the link.



posted on Nov, 9 2015 @ 02:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Willtell
Where there’s smoke there’s likely some degree of fire
...and there's a hell of a lot of smoke out there!

But after nearly 75 years, the problem is still, "smoke from what?" And is it really smoke? Is it mist? Is it fog? Is it blurry vision? Has ufology gotten us any closer to finding out what it is?



posted on Nov, 9 2015 @ 02:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

Good post. It is an enduring mystery and the problem is that people draw conclusions and then look for the answers that match their opinion and belief.

As I said earlier, why doesn't an organisation like MUFON fund sky cameras to watch out for UFOs in known hotspots or provide equipment to people claiming to be 'abductees' to monitor them as they sleep?



posted on Nov, 9 2015 @ 02:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: mirageman
a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

Good post. It is an enduring mystery and the problem is that people draw conclusions and then look for the answers that match their opinion and belief.

As I said earlier, why doesn't an organisation like MUFON fund sky cameras to watch out for UFOs in known hotspots or provide equipment to people claiming to be 'abductees' to monitor them as they sleep?
sky cameras sound expensive, isn't that another name for satellite? I'm sure govt such as NASA has access to that but if they found pics of UFOs with their satellites, they ain't showing em. Provide equipment to people? Not as expensive but still costly to be handing out cameras, which you would want the best quality of because blurry pics are worthless.



posted on Nov, 9 2015 @ 02:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: mirageman
As I said earlier, why doesn't an organisation like MUFON fund sky cameras to watch out for UFOs in known hotspots or provide equipment to people claiming to be 'abductees' to monitor them as they sleep?

As I said in another topic, sky cameras will always run into the brick wall of government/aerospace secrecy. Even if somebody got nice clear footage of a flying saucer, the Air Force or whoever is not going to tell you for sure if it's one of theirs. Besides, we already have nice clear images. But nothing solid to determine what they are.

Before he died Budd Hopkins was experimenting with video monitoring abductees. His "conclusions" were curious. The videos tended to show nothing, but witnesses still reported something happening. He was slowly persuaded to change his mind from his earlier hypothesis that abductions represented fairly straightforward alien attempts at cross-breeding, to considering that these abductions take place in a kind of modified or shifted temporal frame -- outside what we normally perceive as time -- and for unknown reasons. More study could be done, possibly modified to test for these things. But so far the conclusions from video monitoring abductees have been sketchy at best.
edit on 9-11-2015 by Blue Shift because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2015 @ 06:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: DelMarvel

originally posted by: trueskepticnumberone
a reply to: mirageman





Start with NASA and the space program.


Indeed if you want to use diversionary tactics to avoid the main topic.
What about communism? That seems to have failed badly in the last few decades as well.

Ask a person on the street what an alien looks like, and they will accurately describe a grey. Thanks, ufology.


To be fair that clearly is connected to that image being portrayed in popular media for many years.

That's not always been the consensus description. For that matter, even now there are many different first hand accounts of what aliens look like. Over the years stories and descriptions that didn't fit the popular narrative were often disregarded.


Make no mistake: The image of grey aliens originates solely from reported alien encounters and abduction reports, which were documented and made public by ufologists, of course. The image did not come from Spielberg, the X-files, or anywhere else, it is ufology that presented these reports to the public, and that includes the segment of the public that write and produce movies and TV shows.

Yes, of course there are descriptions of different types of aliens that are not greys, that is because there are more than one type of alien. Nonetheless, the grey alien is apparently the most prevalent, and responsible for the overwhelming majority of abductions. I don't see anyone "disregarding" reports of aliens that differ from the greys, other than those who "disregard" all alien reports.



posted on Nov, 9 2015 @ 07:54 PM
link   
a reply to: mirageman





As for Reagan's sighting. He saw a light in the sky whilst he was aboard a light aircraft. The fact that he was 5 or 6 years from becoming President is inconsequential.


You're selling Reagan's encounter short. It was far more substantial than "seeing a light in the sky". It is clear to me that you are downplaying significant UFO encounters.

It was an unidentified flying object, not just a "light in the sky" that could be mistaken for a star, or Venus, or anything conventional. It flew directly at Reagan's plane, from a perpendicular trajectory, and when it was just off the wing of the plane, it changed trajectory instantly to pace the plane, travelling at the same speed immediately next to the plane. Then. most dramatically of all, it proceeded to make circles around the hull of the airplane; over the top, around the other side, underneath the plane, and then going around again, toying with the aircraft. Reagan was astonished and frightened by the encounter, as was the pilot. Then it shot off at an incredible speed.

That's a long way from seeing "a light in the sky".



posted on Nov, 9 2015 @ 08:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: trueskepticnumberone
a reply to: mirageman





As for Reagan's sighting. He saw a light in the sky whilst he was aboard a light aircraft. The fact that he was 5 or 6 years from becoming President is inconsequential.


You're selling Reagan's encounter short. It was far more substantial than "seeing a light in the sky". It is clear to me that you are downplaying significant UFO encounters.

It was an unidentified flying object, not just a "light in the sky" that could be mistaken for a star, or Venus, or anything conventional. It flew directly at Reagan's plane, from a perpendicular trajectory, and when it was just off the wing of the plane, it changed trajectory instantly to pace the plane, travelling at the same speed immediately next to the plane. Then. most dramatically of all, it proceeded to make circles around the hull of the airplane; over the top, around the other side, underneath the plane, and then going around again, toying with the aircraft. Reagan was astonished and frightened by the encounter, as was the pilot. Then it shot off at an incredible speed.

That's a long way from seeing "a light in the sky".



What's your source for this? Different sources have differing accounts, which to believe?

For instance:

science.howstuffworks.com...


There were four persons aboard the plane: pilot Bill Paynter, two security guards, and the governor of California, Ronald Reagan. As the airplane approached Bakersfield, California, the passengers called Paynter's attention to a strange object to their rear. "It appeared to be several hundred yards away," Paynter recalled. "It was a fairly steady light until it began to accelerate. Then it appeared to elongate. Then the light took off. It went up at a 45-degree angle-at a high rate of speed. Everyone on the plane was surprised. . . . The UFO went from a normal cruise speed to a fantastic speed instantly. If you give an airplane power, it will accelerate-but not like a hot rod, and that's what this was like."


Still interesting, but quite different to the sighting you claim.



posted on Nov, 9 2015 @ 08:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Blue Shift

I was under the impression that "Sky Cameras" meant "Cameras pointed at the sky" rather than "Cameras in the sky", though I may have been wrong.

I still can't believe these occurrences aren't looked into more, though. They're just so intriguing. Honestly, from my perspective, freak weather conditions that produce random glowing balls of light are pretty important to study. I mean, just their existence implies a fundamental lack of knowledge on our part in regard to certain aspects of physics.

I genuinely feel that even if it isn't "Aliens", the government is hiding something from us, something beyond ordinary black projects.

Even if we look at it from a purely materialistic/realistic standpoint, I can only see a few reasons why.

A) It can't be profited from/exploited for monetary gain.
B) It can't be weaponized.
C) ???

Something just sits very, very wrong with me. There should at least be a small department dedicated to it, but there's... Nothing. At least, on the surface.

edit on 9/11/2015 by Eilasvaleleyn because: Additional Detail



posted on Nov, 9 2015 @ 10:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: HorusChrist
it's not good to ridicule but with no proof people should expect it.


Not really, its embarrassing imo, its what I expect from children. We would already have the answer if not for the childishness.



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 03:37 AM
link   
a reply to: mirageman




Nor do we know what real aliens look like. The 'grey' alien is a product of science fiction and popular culture and promoted by certain personalities in ufology who have no proof beyond hearsay of their existence.


Who's we?

We know what real aliens look like.
If you don't, well, so be it. But please don't speak for everybody.
Grey aliens are not science fiction, they are as real as it gets. But if that is a situation that is difficult to accept, then perhaps believing as you do is for the best. Because you really do not want to know where it's going.



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 07:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: trueskepticnumberone

Make no mistake: The image of grey aliens originates solely from reported alien encounters and abduction reports, which were documented and made public by ufologists, of course. The image did not come from Spielberg, the X-files, or anywhere else, it is ufology that presented these reports to the public, and that includes the segment of the public that write and produce movies and TV shows.


I have to disagree. The history of Science Fiction starts long before Spielberg or the X-Files. H.G. Wells described beings that looked like Greys in books in the nineteenth century. There were decades of Bug Eyed Monsters in the pulps and movies long before people started reporting encounters with Greys.

Don't misunderstand me. I believe there could be some sort of "reality" to such encounters. But you have to take into account that what people are perceiving has been to a large extent structured by Science Fiction.


originally posted by: trueskepticnumberone I don't see anyone "disregarding" reports of aliens that differ from the greys, other than those who "disregard" all alien reports.


It's been a long time since I was actively researching this but just for starters I remember multiple accounts in David Jacobs' books where he would get stories of non-greys from hypnotized abductees. He defined those as "screen memories" and would re-hypnotize the subjects (multiple times if necessary) until they produced descriptions of greys.



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 07:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: trueskepticnumberone
a reply to: mirageman




Nor do we know what real aliens look like. The 'grey' alien is a product of science fiction and popular culture and promoted by certain personalities in ufology who have no proof beyond hearsay of their existence.


Who's we?

We know what real aliens look like.
If you don't, well, so be it. But please don't speak for everybody.
Grey aliens are not science fiction, they are as real as it gets. But if that is a situation that is difficult to accept, then perhaps believing as you do is for the best. Because you really do not want to know where it's going.


So... is your screen name intended to be ironic?



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 08:26 AM
link   
a reply to: trueskepticnumberone

Who's we?


I don't know...
scdfa, debonkers, afdcs and trueskepticnumberone.....?

Anyway, "we" means our collective knowledge. Alien reality is not part of that collective knowledge. Unless "you" have the information to change "our" understanding of aliens, then "we" includes "you" and the rest and "us".
edit on 10-11-2015 by ZetaRediculian because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
55
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join