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

originally posted by: draknoir2

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: draknoir2

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: draknoir2

originally posted by: Annee

Proof? What exactly would someone accept as proof - - other then an actual ET holding a news conference?

Physical evidence that withstands the scrutiny of the scientific community.

A repeatable and verifiable detection of an artificially generated signal.

Stuff like that.

And what physical evidence would that be?

Everything in the universe is made up of the same thing.

Proving something exists - - does not actually prove where it came from.

No, but it's the first step.

Find an "Alien Hubcap", look for the rest of the vehicle, determine who the drivers were, where they came from... etc..

As of right now we don't even have the hubcap.

Are you sure?

"We have something unusual, but we can't explain what it is".

Or

"What you saw is an experimental aircraft".

I used to hold high hopes for the Bob White artifact until I saw it thoroughly debunked here.

There's still "Art's Parts".

Debunking is easy.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: draknoir2

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: draknoir2

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: draknoir2

originally posted by: Annee

Proof? What exactly would someone accept as proof - - other then an actual ET holding a news conference?

Physical evidence that withstands the scrutiny of the scientific community.

A repeatable and verifiable detection of an artificially generated signal.

Stuff like that.

And what physical evidence would that be?

Everything in the universe is made up of the same thing.

Proving something exists - - does not actually prove where it came from.

No, but it's the first step.

Find an "Alien Hubcap", look for the rest of the vehicle, determine who the drivers were, where they came from... etc..

As of right now we don't even have the hubcap.

Are you sure?

"We have something unusual, but we can't explain what it is".

Or

"What you saw is an experimental aircraft".

I used to hold high hopes for the Bob White artifact until I saw it thoroughly debunked here.

There's still "Art's Parts".

Debunking is easy.

Sometimes it is... when the bunk is lame enough.

Throwaway debunking is easy because it's effortless.

Solving an actual mystery is something else entirely.

originally posted by: Dr X

Look up at night, a lot. Know the difference between planes, satellites, planets and orbs that move really fast and not in straight lines!

I saw mine in broad daylight, about 4:30 in the afternoon.

It glowed, as if self illuminated - - in a yellow/white color. Cigar/saucer shape. Could not actually see structure because of the glow.

It seemed to travel a ways in a horizontal half circle - - then returned to original spot. Sat there for a few minutes, then went straight up until I could no longer see it.

Made no noise that I could hear.

Can I prove it? NO.

Many scientists who have put an effort in studying the data agree that the extra-terrestrial hypothesis is the most logical fit for the most puzzling cases. They do not claim we have the absolute proof, but also realize how hard it is to acquire irrefutable proof for such an extra-ordinary claim.

We shouldn’t forget the tremendous scientific challenge imposed on us if we are really being visited sporadically by an evasive alien intelligence. Science is not used to studying these kind of topics; it wants to study stuff that sits still and is accessible at will.

So I would like to add Fascinating Fun to the equation... And as long as people remain curious whether we are alone or not, ufology will remain a hobby to many of them.

originally posted by: Guest101
Many scientists who have put an effort in studying the data agree that the extra-terrestrial hypothesis is the most logical fit for the most puzzling cases. They do not claim we have the absolute proof, but also realize how hard it is to acquire irrefutable proof for such an extra-ordinary claim.

I've asked this question before, perhaps of you, but exactly how is pure speculation about hypothetical aliens the "most logical fit" for the most puzzling cases? It's "hard" to find evidence, so jumping the shark is an acceptable approach?

a reply to: draknoir2

It's a bit more than just 'pure speculation', as explained by these scientists, at 1:04 in the first video and at 3:29 in the second.

originally posted by: Guest101
a reply to: draknoir2

It's a bit more than just 'pure speculation', as explained by these scientists, at 1:04 in the first video and at 3:29 in the second.

I'm hearing things like "I wouldn't go that far".

Yes, this is pure speculation. Kaku has been making a career of such speculation lately. Nothing wrong with speculation, so long as you know when to say "I wouldn't go that far".

And you still haven't answered my question.

How would that be any different than saying "It's too hard to prove, so magic is the most logical fit"?

a reply to: Hecate666

Could it be that we are closer than before to have evidence and that with every possible 'bombshell', a certain amount of total crap is being released so that people who used to be really interested lose interest and believe everything is always fake .....

That's an interesting hypothesis. Perhaps an "ET event" did happen just once. Maybe we did find something that wasn't ours back in time and we have never found the origin nor the reason for the 'event. That may explain why there is still interest in the topic by the military and the intelligence boys.

It could also explain why any cover up has remained so tight that the real truth is never be known by more than a handful of people. Meanwhile faked photos, videos, whistleblower stories are all put out to make sure the public can never get at the truth with many people unwittingly being part of this cover up being fed false information.

Why do my posts in the thread keep getting removed

WHY AM I NOT ALLOWED TO DISAGREE

What kind of discussion is this

a reply to: mirageman

Hiya, I've written half a dozen replies of varying lengths and with/without a bunch of links. Scrapped them one after the other too. I just can't seem to get my ideas together in a short post.

The scene has become torpid and various groups are blaming others. It's the skeptics' fault for debunking or it's the crazy folk for undermining credibility. Yada yada. Others argue that the CIA are responsible for ridiculing the phenomena whilst others might say the CIA created it all from the beginning. Major figureheads get blamed for making careers out of ufology and the conference circuit for not exercising more discretion in who they choose as speakers. Division all the way and it's always been that way.

The biggest, most important factor is that the stimulus for the interesting UFO and encounter reports has left the stage leaving nothing substantial to focus on. With the most intriguing old reports being so inconclusive, and nothing happening any more, what's to talk about?

ETA - somehow hit reply and lost half the post

originally posted by: Dr X
a reply to: mirageman

What is a 'genuine' sighting?

A sighting of an alien space ship.

What is it we should we all know so we know what we are looking for?

A genuine flying saucer, triangle or "orb"

How does one gain first hand experience to help us?

Look up at night, a lot. Know the difference between planes, satellites, planets and orbs that move really fast and not in straight lines!

OK so what does a genuine alien spaceship look like?

Bearing in mind that a flying saucer, triangle or orb does not mean it comes from outer space even if we look up at night.

originally posted by: IsPopeTaken
Why do my posts in the thread keep getting removed

WHY AM I NOT ALLOWED TO DISAGREE

What kind of discussion is this

Well, your one post was apparently removed for a manner's violation.

originally posted by: mirageman
What is a 'genuine' sighting?

I'm a skeptic. I thought all the UFO stuff was akin to ghost chasing in our collective psychology. The Phoenix Lights changed my mind.

Meh, God forbid if these frauds or con-artists ever get to see one, because if they did, no one would believe them, even if they swore on their own mother.

Although would like to thank them for doing one thing and one thing only, making the public more incline to accept the possible reality of UFO's. But it not like they have any hard core data on them, so there attempts arent fruitful at all for them, to gain any actual recognition.

originally posted by: Kandinsky

The biggest, most important factor is that the stimulus for the interesting UFO and encounter reports has left the stage leaving nothing substantial to focus on. With the most intriguing old reports being so inconclusive, and nothing happening any more, what's to talk about?

We know have a huge and increasing percentage of the world carrying cell phone cameras/video cameras at all time and yet no convincing images are being produced. (at least none I've seen.)

The last time I thought about it I came to the conclusion that we really aren't any further along than Jung's book from the fifties. Maybe there is something about the phenomenon that cannot be photographed after all. Maybe there is something about our new technology of instantaneous and widespread transfer of information that is inhibiting the group psychology/spirituality/etc. needed to generate flaps? I'm not saying it's all mass hysteria but if there's some sort of psychological, spiritual or psychic component the bright light of the information age could be inhibiting things.

a reply to: IsPopeTaken

Why do my posts in the thread keep getting removed WHY AM I NOT ALLOWED TO DISAGREE What kind of discussion is this

You are quite entitled to say what you wish as long as you have a salient point to make in regards to this thread and stick to the T&Cs

Tell us why you think Ufology is a success, why there is no fraud in the subject and also why it doesn't frustrate you if you want to disagree.

There's going to be fraud in any revelationary subject that is based on hearsay. It's too easy.

seeing that ATS started over a decade ago, i have a feeling another decade from now, another similar thread will crop up outlining deceitful 'UFO proponents' and believers will still be voraciously defending with their proof (or lack of ) of blurry images, faked artifacts, shaky edited videos, 'personal' testimony, and emotional attachment.

I dont know any other scientific field or court of law, or any logic where the above would constitute as any sort of proof .