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.

 

Good UFO Research Sources?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 28 2005 @ 10:16 AM
link   
First off, I'm hoping this is where to post this, but if I'm at all mistaken, please let me know. It may not deal directly with Aliens or UFOs per se, but it seems to make more sense to me to post it here than in any of the other topics.

I have to do a paper for a class, and I'm planning on doing it on some angle of the UFO gov't conspiracy issue. I haven't decided exactly which stance I want to take, or what in particular I want to focus on--the whole picture is much too big for this small of a paper. But I have a really hard time figuring out what is reliable on my own. I'm fairly new to the scene, and I try to keep an open mind. Unfortunately I have a habit of opening it too much and believing just about anything that's out there. And doing a web search for "UFO conspiracy" returns more sites than I'll ever have time to go through.

I would really appreciate it if someone would be nice enough to point me at a handful of other sites or researchers that are reasonably credible. Either side of the spectrum, either believer or skeptic, would be perfectly fine. I know that one of the underlying themes here in the boards is "if I give you a fish I feed you for a day, if I teach you to fish..." and keeping that in mind, if someone would give some suggestions on seperating the "wheat from the chaff" as Gaz stated in his Roswell articles, I would appreciate it. I am planning on trying to find multiple sources for any given event if possible, but other than that I really don't trust my own judgement too much on reliability--I'm able to logically prove and disprove to myself just about anything I read, regardless of the context.

Also, and if I were posting this on its own I wouldn't put it here, I was thinking that it might be nice for ATS to have a links section, maybe for each of the forum topics. Have it setup just like the news postings; a member submits it and others vote on whether its worthy or not. I include that because something like that would be really helpful to people like me, who have a hard time distinguishing plausible accounts from straight out hoaxes, or those of us who haven't been in the scene long enough to know where to look.

I really appreciate any help you guys could give me, even if it's just suggestions on search terms for Google or something.




posted on Apr, 28 2005 @ 11:10 AM
link   
search around the ats site, like in the ufo and area 51 section perhaps. also go through previous posts in the alien section. There are many good ideas that people post, so checking porevious posts would be a good idea. idk if u can u2u with other members or not, but if u can, u2u with those ppl... then u can always u2u moderators that have a good understanding

boolean search

i really dont use any other sites, so if i were to write a paper I would use this site and the ats discussion, aliens/ufos section as a source to get ideas. once u get the ideas, u can also just google them to get more info on them

[edit on 28-4-2005 by tondo]



posted on Apr, 28 2005 @ 11:17 AM
link   
NICAP
MUFON
CUFON

Are just a few such organizations. Their sites are easy to find with a google search. CUFON also has done some of the sifting work for you with FOIA docs, and has some such docs not yet put up on FOIA's site. (as they were direct request from CUFON members)

Also, the FOIA site, Electronic Reading Rooms, for the CIA, FBI, NSA, NASA, etc. for official documents.

If looking for alleged documents that haven't been authenticated, majesticdocuments.com

wikipedia.com is a great source for just about anything under the sun.



posted on Apr, 28 2005 @ 11:32 AM
link   
just kidnap Gazrok and drain his mind.


he probably knows more than all the sites combined



posted on Apr, 28 2005 @ 11:32 AM
link   
I also am looking forward to some answers here from the veterans. I am also learning how to do research, but already I have learned to check the sources of sites. If you come across a site making claims that your interested in. Check for sources, and look them up. Then that source may have it's own sources. The closer you get to the original source the better. If a site doesn't have sources listed, probably should stay away from that one.

One site I like is ufoevidence.

edit: yeah this is easier.




just kidnap Gazrok and drain his mind.


[edit on 4/28/2005 by Hal9000]



posted on Apr, 28 2005 @ 11:38 AM
link   


One site I like is ufoevidence.


That is an excellent one.




just kidnap Gazrok and drain his mind.


Or use the ATS search feature to see his posts, no?


Then again, maybe kidnapping WOULD be easier....



posted on Apr, 28 2005 @ 02:04 PM
link   
Thanks everyone; I really appreciate the help. I'm not too big on the idea of kidnap right now, although I'm sure people from both sides would pay some decent money for you Gaz...


In reading some of the posts on Dulce that are popping back up, I've come across www.exopolitics.org. I know that a lot of people around here have mixed opinions on Dulce, and mainly leaning towards it being a hoax. However, from what I'm seeing on the site, Sallas seems to be quite accomplished as a scholar and as a researcher in general. The documents he has on his site seem to be very well thought out, and at the very least are some of the most academic looking papers I've ever seen on the topics. I'd like to use this as an example for my post. Could he be considered reliable--not based on any prestanding bias towards the content of the story or not, but based on the extent of the research he has appeared to have done. The sources he cites seem credible for the most part. How could I go about further determining his credibility? I really appreciate everyone's assistance with this, even with just what's been posted so far it's been a good help.



posted on Apr, 28 2005 @ 02:27 PM
link   
I was under the impression that Salla's source was primarily the ravings of Bill Cooper??? And of course, a dash of Burisch, etc.



posted on Apr, 28 2005 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok
I was under the impression that Salla's source was primarily the ravings of Bill Cooper??? And of course, a dash of Burisch, etc.


www.exopolitics.org...

In this particular document that I was reading, he cites Cooper once, no Burisch. He discusses a lot of the political stuff in association with secrecy (that may not be the best phrasing, but its the best I can do) and cites quite a few government documents in regards to those. There is a lot of Branton cited, as well as Bennewitz (not directly cited I believe, but documents regarding his stories.) Roy Lawhon and Phil Schneider are also seeming vital parts of his research. And Salla also does reference other papers he wrote himself that are also on the site. Self-reference is something I've always frowned on a little bit for an "academic" paper, but it may have it's place. Regardless, in the above document he has over a hundred references with links for checking out. I've checked a couple out so far--not exactly something I personally would base the future of my reputation on, but I haven't delved too deeply--I'm avoiding work right now but I can only goof off so much...



posted on Apr, 28 2005 @ 07:42 PM
link   
Check into those names you mentioned....I mean REALLY check, and you'll be frowning even more...

Hence my stance on Dulce...


Cooper - considered a loon by even the "out there" UFOlogists
Lear - Denounced his own claims right here on ATS, but at least had the guts to say it was speculation, not state it as fact.
Bennewitz - see Cooper
Branton - phony alias for one (Bruce Alan Walton)
Schneider - almost Cooper verbatim, lied about pop, and severe mental illness
Lazar - we've been down that road, a lot of baggage...

About as solid as soup....



posted on Apr, 28 2005 @ 08:15 PM
link   
You're right--I did check into them a little bit, even before you posted this, and Schneider and Bennewitz were almost instantly knocked out of the water. Which is such a shame--the Dulce story is something that would be so great if it weren't for the sources... Well, it's a great read at least.

One thing I'm curious about, is at what point does UFO research become trustworthy and not a collection of logical (well, not always logical) assumptions? Don't get me wrong, I do consider myself a believer, but it seems that most everything out there is essentially just a police report. It's only as reliable as what one perceives the witness to be, and that's entirely subjective. One person can look at someone who has a documented mental illness and take that as reason to not trust them. Someone else can look at the same witness and think the illness has no bearing. Occaissionally phsyical evidence of some kind is left behind, scorch marks, etc., but even that isn't proof that an interplanetary craft landed. All that is really proof of is that something burnt the ground.

The research for UFOs inevitably centers around the government and the possibility of a coverup. Again, I'd like to restate I do consider myself a believer, but just playing devil's advocate, what if there is no UFO coverup? What if the Air Force's report (www.af.mil...) on the Roswell incident is true? Could anyone believe that it may be just like they say? I mean, how could you "prove" that something didn't happen? I mean think about it like this: have you ever been in a relationship with someone and suspected them of cheating on you? It takes a lot of trust to believe it if they say they didn't, whether they did or not. The only way you'll believe them is either to take them for their word or come up with some type of outside proof they didn't, and a lot of times its hard to believe even indisputible proof once you've got your mind set on it. (Note: Gaz, don't take my example to heart against your work; it was just the first example I could find.)

I know one great way of sorting the truth from the lies is looking for discrepancies. I can't speak for anyone else, but I know that there's been plenty of times I've told someone something that happened and I get my facts mixed up a little for one reason or another. Especially if it was something that got me excited or scared; my mind distorts things, and thinking about the event afterwards I get lost in it myself, even though I was there. I start to doubt myself, then make assumptions or I solidify things in my mind that didn't really happen because I feel I need to connect the dots somehow.

I hope this little ramble makes more sense to you guys than it does to me
It just seems that there's always two contradictory explanations for everything in this field, and most of the time one side can be argued just as soundly as the other. It all depends on perspective and preconceived beliefs. Am I completely wrong in thinking this?

EDIT: Minor grammatical fix, nothing major...

[edit on 4/28/2005 by MCory1]



posted on Apr, 29 2005 @ 09:21 AM
link   
It makes quite a bit of sense, and it's a valid point. That's why I'm more of a paper trail UFOlogist...




The research for UFOs inevitably centers around the government and the possibility of a coverup. Again, I'd like to restate I do consider myself a believer, but just playing devil's advocate, what if there is no UFO coverup? What if the Air Force's report (www.af.mil...) on the Roswell incident is true? Could anyone believe that it may be just like they say? I mean, how could you "prove" that something didn't happen?


This particular issue CAN be proven for example....logically proven. The tests that the Air Force claim were responsible for the descriptions of "bodies" didn't happen in 1947. That is an irrefutable fact. Indeed, the dummies themselves didn't even exist until 1949 and the project until the early 50's, another irrefutable fact. Therefore, barring time travel, there is simply no way that any witness saw a 6' clearly human-looking dummy in a flight suit from the tests claimed by the Air Force, and mistook it for a 4' alien in 1947. It is simply impossible.

Likewise, the Mogul explanation fails as well. There were NUMEROUS Mogul flights, and numerous such balloons eventually landed in various places. Nor was the flight claimed for Roswell (which doesn't match datewise to the events, or Brazel's initial and latter testimony). Why weren't the other previous Mogul recoveries done asap, with top secret flights to Wright Field, or Fort Worth, etc.??? Because of course, those previous recoveries were simply balloon radar targets, no big deal...unlike what crashed at Roswell.


What about scientists like Ed Ruppelt, or J. Allen Hynek? Both were heavily at the top of Project Bluebook. Both have stated it was a PR scam, and not a true investigation at all. Both stated that the most valuable footage, reports, etc. went somewhere else other than Bluebook.

There is a clear paper trail of FOIA released documents that PROVE that the government's interest and indeed even projects of study, did NOT end with the closing of Bluebook.

The information above isn't just evidence of the coverup, in many cases, it's right from the horse's mouth....


[edit on 29-4-2005 by Gazrok]



posted on Apr, 29 2005 @ 09:35 AM
link   
Okay, Roswell was a bad example
I should've realized that as I posted. But for argument's sake lets look at the story for Dulce. The sources have been discredited, so from that standpoint its a hoax, and I think that for the most part we can all agree on that. What if the sources were reliable though? What if they had their fabricated story down to the letter and everything clicked perfectly fine. How could the government disprove the existance of the base? Everything the government said would be considered part of a coverup, even if it was the truth. I hope that works as a better example for what I'm trying to say.

So from what I'm seeing, the best way to do research into UFO conspiracies is to try and use the government's own documents against them. I think I could even go so far as to say that using eyewitness accounts is a bad idea in most cases, even police reports or sworn testimony, because there's always a "logical explanation." Is that too far from the truth?



posted on Apr, 29 2005 @ 09:46 AM
link   


I think I could even go so far as to say that using eyewitness accounts is a bad idea in most cases, even police reports or sworn testimony, because there's always a "logical explanation." Is that too far from the truth?


Eyewitness testimony is fine, imho, as long as it's just another piece of the evidence, and not the sole evidence for it. When the eyewitness testimony is also bolstered by other evidence, it's far more compelling as an argument for truth. Our very justice system is founded on this. For me, what makes a good UFO case, is when you've taken everything into account, and you run out of "logical explanations" to explain it, other than a non-terrestrial craft. It's why I'm a "skeptical believer". Though I believe, I also recognize that it is incredibly easy for even a trained observer to see an object they can't identify....and easy to make honest mistakes. In such cases, one should look to the ordinary before leaping to the extraordinary.

An example of this was an initial UFO sighting at Disney, while on my Honeymoon. There was a high flying object seen by many around me, all craning their necks to see it and identify it. (this was while waiting for a stage show in EPCOT, some light/water show with Mickey, can't recall the name of it) Anyhow, we were all intrigued, and even growing up around aircraft, I couldn't make heads or tails of it. But, I had binoculars to watch the show, and I looked through them, and eventually could make out tail fins, though hard to tell the exact type of plane. So, it was a plane, but many likely left that day wondering what they saw....



But for argument's sake lets look at the story for Dulce. The sources have been discredited, so from that standpoint its a hoax, and I think that for the most part we can all agree on that. What if the sources were reliable though?


What if? Without any more to go on, even with reliable witnesses, you're still at he said/she said. Take Area 51 for example. Satellite photos, viewable from the public lands, yet denying existance won't exactly work with it, hehe....as you have this other evidence to stand on. When witness testimony is the ONLY thing you have to stand on, your case is built as a house of cards. Remove one of those cards (by discrediting even one witness), and it all falls down.

[edit on 29-4-2005 by Gazrok]



posted on Apr, 29 2005 @ 09:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by MCory1How could the government disprove the existance of the base? Everything the government said would be considered part of a coverup, even if it was the truth.

This is the argument of skeptics against a coverup by the government. How do you prove a negative? But let's use area 51 as an example, although the government has now acknowledged the existance of it, before all they had to do would be allow some civilians to enter the area to show it didn't exist. But of course they did not. Why? Because it did exist. Dulce is a different matter, and I don't know anything about it, but there are ways to prove this.

IMO, I think if there were more oversight with regard to military secrets, even if they could not be made public would go a long way to regain the public trust.



posted on Apr, 29 2005 @ 10:18 AM
link   
Unfortunately, the very structure of compartmentalized intelligence, and black budget funding, while great for keeping secrets, is also what allowed such entities to evolve into mini organizations all their own.

Since their establishment and under continued secrecy, they further supplement their budget allocations through both legal and illegal activities, etc., invoking that secrecy when compromised in such actions.

We even see this with large covert agencies, such as the CIA and NSA, in scandals like the Vietnam drug trade, Iran Contra, and current Afghanistan drug ops.

For such oversight to work, you'd have to bring these mini organizations "back into the fold", and in doing so, you acknowledge their existence, and thus, lose some effectiveness. I'm not so sure the powers that be are willing to make that sacrifice yet, for public opinion, especially after successfully electing a president that half of the country didn't want...a pretty bold statement of public opinion not mattering to them much.



posted on Apr, 29 2005 @ 04:10 PM
link   
Here is the biggest ufo and paranormal search engine on the net : www.ufoseek.com...

There are probably some treasures to discover in it. Hope you find it useful.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join