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 End of UFOlogy?

page: 1
5
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 19 2019 @ 07:59 PM
link   
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?




posted on Sep, 19 2019 @ 08:12 PM
link   
a reply to: EnigmaChaser

The most interesting ones I have encountered were in the Polaroid era at night, the one where there were a dozen of us at an intersection trying to take cellphone video all turned out like crap.

I don't think that before I die I will ever get the answer "Is it us or them?" And if it is them, then who is them?

Doesn't make me less interested in it...

It's just not something that keeps me up at night.



edit on 19-9-2019 by Lumenari because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 19 2019 @ 08:43 PM
link   
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?



posted on Sep, 19 2019 @ 08:53 PM
link   
a reply to: EnigmaChaser

When I read your thread title my first thought was that it must refer to disclosure making ufology obsolete.



posted on Sep, 19 2019 @ 08:59 PM
link   

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.


Hey I wish!

Dropping disclosure on ATS would be a major accomplishment!




posted on Sep, 19 2019 @ 09:09 PM
link   

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.



posted on Sep, 19 2019 @ 10:10 PM
link   

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.


That’s a solid point from my perspective.

I have no problem with someone saying they are skeptical or a “non-believer” at all. While I’d personally argue there’s piles of circumstantial evidence on this subject that takes it out of the “belief” realm for me, as well as high statistical probabilities we’re not alone - there really is an element of “belief” to it.

But, if I’m going to call something bunk... I’d better have a set of good reasons to state that claim. Most “non-believers” drop a few cliche statements and then try to troll “believers” as nut jobs.

If a non-believer has a better way forward to get evidence that would satisfy them - I’m all ears!



posted on Sep, 19 2019 @ 10:25 PM
link   

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?


OMG! This is great thread. But I have spent the last 2 hours making my argument. I will post it another thread tomorrow.

Anyway, great thread! Great topic!



posted on Sep, 19 2019 @ 10:26 PM
link   

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.


I like the way you think!



posted on Sep, 19 2019 @ 10:46 PM
link   
a reply to: EnigmaChaser

In the MSM, yeah ufology is in palliative care.

There are enough books about Roswell and area 51 to fill a library, no new revelations, just rehashing.

We still have the likes of Micah Hanks, Nick Redfern and co, the problem is the clowns trying to profit from bogus crap *cough cough alienstock* so many folk are dismissive of the field, so the public are hesitant to dig deeper.

People see UFO's all over the world everyday, and I was one of them. They are real, I'm some random dude on the internet so you can trust what I say.



posted on Sep, 19 2019 @ 11:18 PM
link   

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


To an old UFOlogist fart like me, this young author is venting his ignorance. Being in Skeptical Inquirer gives the author cachet, undeservedly.

Actually, Russ came to this forum and read my replies! Almost word for word. Go ahead and read his article and come back and read my threads/replies. Been there, done that.

The author said "Gulf Breeze turned out to be a clumsy hoax (Shaeffer 2007)", bs! It was one of the better cases 'cause it had plenty of support from many experiencers, some supported with photos and videos. Here is my connection to it.

I don't have the hard copy of Ed Walters' book "THE GULF BREEZE SIGHTINGS" so I can't show you or quote from it but the book featured a color photo section. Some of the photos were in 3-D but not placed side-by-side for proper stereo viewing. American optical physicist Dr Bruce Maccabee (formerly employed by the U.S. Navy, and a leading ufologist) had given Ed Walters a 3-D camera to help convince critics that Ed had not hoaxed his photos. I was successful at seeing side-by-side 3-D photos without the aid of a 3 -D viewer. I learned the methods to do so: cross and parallel. I ripped out the photos and put them side-by-side and the photos were in true 3-D with great depth. The UFO was back there. I wrote to Bruce and told him that I could see there was no hoaxing and I chided him for not having Ed put the photos side-by-side. Critics such as hard-line arch-skeptic Sheaffer are wrong. Additionally, you can research this case and find testimony that the alleged model found in Ed's home had been planted.


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.


I forgot to list the now lost source for the following quotes.

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.


edit on 19-9-2019 by Hunkadinka because: To correct format.



posted on Sep, 19 2019 @ 11:51 PM
link   

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.


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. As a skeptic, just because you or anyone makes a claim, I'm not going to just accept without irrefutable evidence. Religion exists because its adherents believe without question. But UFOs don't need evidence they are the evidence!

Being a mortal, sometimes I get fooled but as soon as someone points it out to me I backtrack and if I'm wrong I admit it. You'll never find a believer changing his/her mind. So until you become a skeptic, and I doubt that'll ever happen, criticize with knowledge not emotion.

Sure, some skeptics like super-duper, arch skeptic Robert Sheaffer deny everything such as the reality of UAP but being a skeptic myself I understand him. He wants evidence, period, and he doesn't consider circumstantial evidence enough. No photos, films, videotapes are enough for him. However, the difference between his brand of skepticism and mine has one difference, I am an open-minded skeptic, an experiencer. Sheaffer obviously has never seen a UAP, I've had 5 or 6 solid sightings. So I could never be a UAP skeptic, I have the proof at least with one video. He can't be blamed but you don't want to lay a claim on him that you can't support.

edit on 19-9-2019 by Hunkadinka because: To correct grammar.

edit on 20-9-2019 by Hunkadinka because: Add material.



posted on Sep, 20 2019 @ 11:57 AM
link   

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.



posted on Sep, 20 2019 @ 12:11 PM
link   
a reply to: EnigmaChaser

So camera are the argument here? poor argument... assuming most of what we dont see happens in space.... why would we rely on camera to spot anything?



posted on Sep, 20 2019 @ 03:42 PM
link   

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.



posted on Sep, 20 2019 @ 04:17 PM
link   

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.



posted on Sep, 20 2019 @ 04:29 PM
link   

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.



posted on Sep, 20 2019 @ 06:19 PM
link   

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.


How do you know they don’t care? What’s the concrete evidence to the contrary?



posted on Sep, 20 2019 @ 11:58 PM
link   

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.


Not "everybody" as I enjoy the company of other members who also tell it like it is and you're not a spokesperson so speak for yourself. And if you feel the way you do about me don't torture yourself, don't read what I post. Surely, there are many more here that would rather have your replies.



posted on Sep, 21 2019 @ 12:10 AM
link   

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.


I’m still waiting for irrefutable proof/an answer to my question... lay it on us.




top topics



 
5
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join