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: 14
55
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 10:44 AM
link   
People like Sean David Morton, Billy Meier and Michael Horn etc, all fraudsters who ruin the subject just for their own personal monetary gain.




posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 11:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: Blue Shift

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?


That tells us that indeed a superior alien race may be holding all the cards.
If what ever their doing gets done with all the doubt, uncertainty,disbelief and apathy regarding this phenomenon then like a thief in the night these “aliens” can just leave and no one would ever know what they did until what they did becomes MANIFEST

...and even then we'll never know for sure whether they did it or not

edit on 10-11-2015 by Willtell because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 11:30 AM
link   
a reply to: Willtell

That tells us that indeed a superior alien race may be holding all the cards.
If what ever their doing gets done with all the doubt, uncertainty,disbelief and apathy regarding this phenomenon then like a thief in the night these “aliens” can just leave and no one would ever know what they did until what they did becomes MANIFEST

...and even then we'll never know for sure whether they did it or not


Well yeah. Either aliens are not real or they are managing to avoid detection and blend in with our imaginations. That's the problem that hasn't changed.



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 11:38 AM
link   
a reply to: DelMarvel





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.


I'm calling your bluff. Show me an image of a gray alien that predates the first reported alien encounter with a gray alien.



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 11:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: draknoir2

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?


I'm not sure I understand your question. I am a true skeptic. True skeptic number one, in fact.

Why, would you have us believe that a skeptic can only only be skeptical of one side of an issue?



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 11:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: trueskepticnumberone
a reply to: DelMarvel





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.


I'm calling your bluff. Show me an image of a gray alien that predates the first reported alien encounter with a gray alien.


H.G. Wells - 1893.




posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 11:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: trueskepticnumberone

Why, would you have us believe that a skeptic can only only be skeptical of one side of an issue?


Who's "us" - all of your screen names?



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 12:10 PM
link   
a reply to: DelMarvel





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.


I suggest you read Jacobs book from this year, "Walking Among Us". He spends several chapters detailing the appearance, abilities, and behavior of the different types of aliens that make up the vast majority of reports.



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 12:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
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".


Are you under the impression that our "collective knowledge" is all in agreement? It is not.

As a matter of fact, according to The Huffington Post, to 52% of Americans, alien reality is part of our collective knowledge.

Or are you saying that our collective knowledge is defined by the official position of government and established institutions?

If "we" means our collective knowledge using your definition, that would mean "we" know that Oswald acted alone.



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 12:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Willtell

originally posted by: Blue Shift

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?


That tells us that indeed a superior alien race may be holding all the cards.
If what ever their doing gets done with all the doubt, uncertainty,disbelief and apathy regarding this phenomenon then like a thief in the night these “aliens” can just leave and no one would ever know what they did until what they did becomes MANIFEST

...and even then we'll never know for sure whether they did it or not


You are absolutely correct, and that is exactly what has happened. And most people simply slept through it.



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 12:51 PM
link   
a reply to: trueskepticnumberone

Are you under the impression that our "collective knowledge" is all in agreement? It is not.


Quite the opposite. Collectively we don't know because collectively are not in agreement. Which is the point.

If "we" means our collective knowledge using your definition, that would mean "we" know that Oswald acted alone.

No. It would mean collectively that we don't know. I dont think you are following. I pointed this out to the "others" also.



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 01:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: trueskepticnumberone

As a matter of fact, according to The Huffington Post...



You lost me, then you lost me again.



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 02:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: trueskepticnumberone
I suggest you read Jacobs book from this year, "Walking Among Us". He spends several chapters detailing the appearance, abilities, and behavior of the different types of aliens that make up the vast majority of reports.


Let me first say I've had high strangeness and seen UFOs myself. I don't know if it was "aliens" or my mind or what it was.

I had a very open mind on the subject twenty years ago and read Jacobs and concluded he was full of it so I won't be reading any more of his book.

Having said that, if he is writing about "the different types of aliens that make up the vast majority of reports" doesn't that just confirm my comment that started this exchange about "people on the street" describing aliens as Greys because that is the most common image in popular media?



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 02:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Blue Shift




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.


I don't know if I used an incorrect term referring to 'sky cameras;. But there are a whole bunch of cameras pointed skyward around the UK to monitor meteors and the like. You can even watch the skies live if you wish.



www.ukmeteornetwork.co.uk...

Why has MUFON (or any other UFO organisation) not considered something like this? It would help corroborate sightings.




Before he died Budd Hopkins was experimenting with video monitoring abductees. His "conclusions" were curious....

....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.


Maybe that explains alien abduction to some degree? That it's all in the mind. By that I don't mean mental illness but an unknown phenomena that interferes with human consciousness.



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 02:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Willtell
That tells us that indeed a superior alien race may be holding all the cards.

No, it really doesn't. Nothing gleaned from the last 75 years of UFO study has indicated in any way that "aliens" might be responsible for anything.

Sure, there have been vague suggestions that hypothetical aliens might be involved, mostly resulting from an illogical argument that "we don't know of anything on Earth like that, so it MUST be aliens!" This argument somehow foolishly moves fictional, undiscovered "aliens" up the list of potential explanations ahead of "unknown." As if one unknown is more likely than another unknown.



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 02:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: trueskepticnumberone
a reply to: DelMarvel





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.


I'm calling your bluff. Show me an image of a gray alien that predates the first reported alien encounter with a gray alien.


My bluff?

Before we get into that the starting point is what you're defining as "the first reported alien encounter with a gray [sic] alien" and what it reportedly looked like at that time.



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 05:04 PM
link   
a reply to: DelMarvel





Having said that, if he is writing about "the different types of aliens that make up the vast majority of reports" doesn't that just confirm my comment that started this exchange about "people on the street" describing aliens as Greys because that is the most common image in popular media?


No, it is because the greys are the most commonly encountered alien, by far. And encounters that involve insect, praying mantis, and even reptilian aliens usually involve greys as well.

There are several variants of greys, and at this late stage in the project, several different degrees of mixed aliens and humans.


edit on 10-11-2015 by trueskepticnumberone because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 10:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Blue Shift

And the reason for that is...?
I'd say it's because anyone who wants to seriously study the subject is met with scorn. Government interference, too, if you believe those stories.

Also, your first statement is... Sort of wrong. I'm fairly certain a reasonable number of credible enough institutes or people have drawn the conclusion in some of the cases that the phenomenon display properties congruent with intelligent control. Whether that means "aliens" or our government is hiding some tech that is insanely far beyond what we have access to I think it deserves to be looked into more than it is.

Seriously, this time. And without an agenda (in either direction) or whitewashing.



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 10:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: trueskepticnumberone
a reply to: DelMarvel





Having said that, if he is writing about "the different types of aliens that make up the vast majority of reports" doesn't that just confirm my comment that started this exchange about "people on the street" describing aliens as Greys because that is the most common image in popular media?


No, it is because the greys are the most commonly encountered alien, by far.


What is your basis for this claim? Do you have figures from somewhere?

And even if you do, the most that can actually be said is that greys are the most commonly REPORTED alien. It doesn't mean there aren't encounters not being reported to anyone because what happened doesn't fit the popular narrative.



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 11:25 PM
link   
a reply to: DelMarvel




And even if you do, the most that can actually be said is that greys are the most commonly REPORTED alien. It doesn't mean there aren't encounters not being reported to anyone because what happened doesn't fit the popular narrative.


Over the decades, people have given accounts of scores of different types of aliens. Oddly enough, most of them humanoid. But not all humanoid, some encounters have been with beings extremely strange. They fall far from the average report, but they are out there.

You should worry more about all the encounters that are not being reported because of fear of ridicule, or losing your job, or ruining your career, or losing custody of your children. All of which do happen.




top topics



 
55
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join