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.
originally posted by: MissSmartypants
a reply to: EnigmaChaser
When I read your thread title my first thought was that it must refer to disclosure making ufology obsolete.
originally posted by: EnigmaChaser
What do you all think?
originally posted by: Blue Shift
originally posted by: EnigmaChaser
What do you all think?
A lot of us here have been saying that ""ufology" has been dead ever since the Internet started flooding us with bad videos and disinformation.
The funny thing is, people still see UFOs and interact with them in strange ways. The phenomenon continues, but the study of it is being reevaluated. Skeptics are welcome to help build that better study, if they can manage to stop themselves from the easy, lazy dismissals they're known for.
originally posted by: EnigmaChaser
Interest article today posted on RealClearScience:
skepticalinquirer.org...
The author raises a good point - many of us have been interested in this subject for a very long time but have little to nothing new for many decades to show for it.
My only critique is what I view to be a tired argument - “everyone has cameras now but we don’t get clear pictures” and basically argues the best evidence was captured years ago.
While I see his point I do think that’s a bit of a simplistic argument.
What do you all think?
originally posted by: MissSmartypants
a reply to: EnigmaChaser
When I read your thread title my first thought was that it must refer to disclosure making ufology obsolete.
originally posted by: EnigmaChaser
Interest article today posted on RealClearScience:
skepticalinquirer.org...
The author raises a good point - many of us have been interested in this subject for a very long time but have little to nothing new for many decades to show for it.
My only critique is what I view to be a tired argument - “everyone has cameras now but we don’t get clear pictures” and basically argues the best evidence was captured years ago.
While I see his point I do think that’s a bit of a simplistic argument.
What do you all think?
The Thoughtful Conduit
The End Of Ufology? The Information Age Is The Best And Worst Thing For Believers
Russ Dobler
September 18, 2019
Gulf Breeze, Florida UFO
HISTORY.COM EDITORSTV-PG5:05
In this UFO Files video, brought to you by the History Channel, learn about the UFO sightings in Gulf Breeze, Florida in the 1980s. Ed Walters took several photographs of UFOs in 1987 and took several more with tamper proof cameras years later. Years later, authorities found similar UFO models in Walters' attic and theorized that he could have faked his photos with double exposures.
MUFON stuck to their guns and provided Walters with special photographic equipment in the hope of ruling out any type of camera trickery. One of the items was a camera with four lens, which was sealed with wax to eliminate film tampering. Also a stereo Polaroid was provided which would provide investigators with a distance of the object from the camera
--------
Smith also claimed that Walters had created the blue beam effect by peeling back the photo paper and exposing a small streak to light. Photographic experts disputed this claim by stating that it was impossible to produce such a fine line utilizing the method described by Smith. The same experts had also tried, without success, to double expose a shot using an identical camera to Walters', a Sun 600 Polaroid.
originally posted by: Blue Shift
originally posted by: EnigmaChaser
What do you all think?
A lot of us here have been saying that ""ufology" has been dead ever since the Internet started flooding us with bad videos and disinformation.
The funny thing is, people still see UFOs and interact with them in strange ways. The phenomenon continues, but the study of it is being reevaluated. Skeptics are welcome to help build that better study, if they can manage to stop themselves from the easy, lazy dismissals they're known for.
originally posted by: vethumanbeing
a reply to: EnigmaChaser
If there are MORE cameras everywhere than were in past decades one would think those violating airspace would be more careful regarding potencial detection?
originally posted by: Hunkadinka
I'm a skeptic and I find your blanket comments less than desirable. What do you know about skepticism? Obviously nothing because you sound like an obvious believer and accept claims willy nilly.
originally posted by: EnigmaChaser
originally posted by: vethumanbeing
a reply to: EnigmaChaser
If there are MORE cameras everywhere than were in past decades one would think those violating airspace would be more careful regarding potencial detection?
See this is another good point that I don’t see “non-believers” take into consideration.
As one party advances, so must the other. It’s entirely plausible they realized that we largely couldn’t detect them or document their existence via the masses 40 years ago. Today they understand that. So, countermeasures are deployed. In my mind - that’s not kooky thinking in the least - we did the same with stealth.
originally posted by: Blue Shift
originally posted by: Hunkadinka
I'm a skeptic and I find your blanket comments less than desirable. What do you know about skepticism? Obviously nothing because you sound like an obvious believer and accept claims willy nilly.
I guess it's true that if you don't pick a "side," everybody thinks you're against them.
originally posted by: Hunkadinka
originally posted by: EnigmaChaser
originally posted by: vethumanbeing
a reply to: EnigmaChaser
If there are MORE cameras everywhere than were in past decades one would think those violating airspace would be more careful regarding potencial detection?
See this is another good point that I don’t see “non-believers” take into consideration.
As one party advances, so must the other. It’s entirely plausible they realized that we largely couldn’t detect them or document their existence via the masses 40 years ago. Today they understand that. So, countermeasures are deployed. In my mind - that’s not kooky thinking in the least - we did the same with stealth.
It is not another good point, it's silly. Cameras have never been a factor in UFOlogy aside from recording what humans see. UAOs don't give a damn about your pointing a camera at them. Potential detection, you gotta be kidding.
originally posted by: Blue Shift
originally posted by: Hunkadinka
I'm a skeptic and I find your blanket comments less than desirable. What do you know about skepticism? Obviously nothing because you sound like an obvious believer and accept claims willy nilly.
I guess it's true that if you don't pick a "side," everybody thinks you're against them.
originally posted by: Hunkadinka
originally posted by: Blue Shift
originally posted by: Hunkadinka
I'm a skeptic and I find your blanket comments less than desirable. What do you know about skepticism? Obviously nothing because you sound like an obvious believer and accept claims willy nilly.
I guess it's true that if you don't pick a "side," everybody thinks you're against them.
It's always been that way. When you are mentally conditioned which automatically robs you of thinking for yourself and allows your thinking to be controlled, you are going to rail about clear thinkers, skeptics, etc. We are not easily fooled. Believers are. We keep things on the straight and narrow. Believers resent being told that their thinking is less than desirable. Believers don't contribute because they don't rely on irrefutable evidence, their belief system cannot be overridden. They're happy being ignorant. We have some swell, clear thinkers that tell it like it is and we are always being attacked by mentally challenged members. Nothing changes here. I'm glad Armap checks in once in a while and he helps by calling violators on the carpet and removing stupid and insulting posts, not all of them but some is better than nothing.