originally posted by: cuckooold
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed
Actually, I used to be quite an avid believer in many Ufo tales, but since coming on ATS, I have become a lot more critical and skeptical. The
insightful analysis put forth by certain members, including Jim Oberg, is what has helped me look at the phenomena in a much more objective
Hardly the choir at all.
Yeah, the Choir I meant isn't ATS members, since a majority that I know of here, do believe that ET is around. But that is because many of them have
actually seen them, or seen the ships.
And to Jim, I wasn't trying to be insulting, but that is the problem with dishonesty and outright lying by our government. Lying and dishonesty will
cause great anger from many people when they know someone is lying, or misrepresenting a strange report.
Usually, the Choir I meant are those who have NEVER seen a real flying disk close enough to know it wasn't a trick of the eye, and have seen them
utilize not fully understood physics, like mass cancelling technology, which is the only way G forces can be bypassed so that a pilot inside won't
become squashed when producing 43 G's which is what one case was calculated to have produced, if in fact it was subject to gravity.
Those who demand proof and usually ridicule the most are those who have never seen one, and so naturally, they are skeptical. Anyone would be. I have
also learned a great deal about the subject from many here because of that skepticism, it is a good trainer for how to eliminate the mundane from a
case before latching on to something more exotic.
People speak about Menzel, who was a very respected teacher, professor, and who was a great debunker. What people didn't know at the time was that he
also was a CIA hired dis-info agent charged with debunking UFO cases.
And government has a pattern of using front men like that who people respect and believe to be very credible, so when they lower the boom on some
case, people believe them not only because of their standing in the community, but also because they are very educated and are real smart in figuring
out believable ways to make people see a report as bunk. rather than something truly unknown. The best way is usually the most simplistic, like saying
the pilot who disappeared over lake Michigan was only chasing Venus, instead of some object like a flying saucer. His wife was given 3 different
reasons by three different military representatives, who didn't compare notes before making the claim of what happened.
I can always tell when someone is misrepresenting a UFO case by how they integrate dishonesty into their explanation for what it was that was seen.
This is because they have a critical task of making the strange become the mundane, and so they are putting forth an effort to do that, but they are
not representing the truth, and so because of that, their explanations have great big holes in them when they don't allow for the facts of what is
already known about a UFO report.
And the harder they try to explain a case away, the bigger the flaws become in their reasoning they want everyone else to see and understand.
A good rule of thumb before believing a known UFO skeptic, is if he/she has ever seen a flying disk, or something like that, and how good was the
sighting, and if any so called impossible feats were done by the unknown object. I think it is fair to say that usually, the professional debunker
will have not seen one before, and so becomes fully subject to a history of social conditioning.
That social conditioning can usually only be broken or shattered when a person sees a very good display by a saucer or object they have never believed
There was a case with an airlines pilot who wrote an article in some paper or mag, On November 14th 1956, a major UFO incident occurred over the state
of Alabama. Capt. W.J. Hull, veteran Capital Airlines pilot was a UFO skeptic. He had written an article entitled, "The Obituary of The Flying
And then he saw something while in flight. They thought it was a meteor, which lots of pilots have seen, but this one suddenly stopped in place in
front of their plane. It soon zipped to and fro doing impossible to believe maneuvers. After a good show it took off and was gone.
This just to point out that some of the most outspoken and credible people in the past have been hard nosed debunkers, but this was because they had
never before seen one, and before seeing one personally, it is easy to believe what the debunker says about them simply because it sounds crazy to
believe in something that can do the things that these things can do. And to publicly speak about them still today is and can be career ending and
So before believing a debunker, it is helpful to learn about the normal things that are a part of reports like elementary or better knowledge of
physics and astronomy and whatever else helps one to understand the mundane first, then the exotic second. And things in science history are only
impossible until they are not. That part helps with understanding a credible enough case of the impossible, when it is believed to be a true unknown,
then knowing something about theoretical physics helps to put the so called impossible, into the realm of the possible.
And more important, has the debunker or outspoken skeptic ever seen a real UFO that performed insane maneuvers far surpassing all known man made
Usually the answer will be NO. If yes, then they usually won't be spending all their free time rubbishing every report of the impossible. Just like
the pilot above who thought the very idea of a flying saucer was the subject of insane people, until one performed a special show of the impossible
right before his eyes.
edit on 9-12-2015 by NoCorruptionAllowed because: extra added material