It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Have the "Aviary" poisoned the well for good?

page: 1

log in


posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 12:13 PM
The stigma of ridicule was bad enough before their involvement, and complicit actions by over-eager "researchers" in addition to the many crackpot New-Agers-With-A-Book-Due-Soon have now made paranoia and ridicule a weapon in even the most respected researchers arsenal.

Can UFOlogy honestly ever recover?

Personally I think not.

Or did the field need no help to get to this point, was it on a self-destructive path from the get-go due to a lack of "scientific method"?

My own opinion is that as a field of study it can never recover, the truth may indeed one day come out, and when/if it does it won't be a UFO-related researcher that has the scoop, it'll be the mainstream media.

I guess at that point they'll move fully into hokey-spirituality from hokey-science.

(No, this is *not* a troll post, just a vent at the poor poor POOR state of the field as it has been, is, and as it seems it will be for a long time to come.)

posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 02:31 PM
I'm not so sure you can paint it all with such a broad brush...

True, as far as the public is concerned, the "big scoop" will likely originate from the major media....BUT (and this is an important part), I'd bet dollars to donuts that the basic research and theories behind it would actually be the product of the efforts of UFOlogists (and it will be provable no doubt, by previous articles, books, specials, etc.).

If UFOlogists are correct, and we are being visited by those from offworld, then eventually, if proven to be the case, this will force an immediate re-examination of even the most fanciful cases and theories, especially depending on what we know and don't know about the aliens when they are eventually revealed or reveal themselves publicly.

There are many respected researchers in the field, and even though there are charlatans and less than ethical people in the mix, the work of the respected researcher stands on its own.

In addition, the number of respected researchers, such as degreed scientists, former government officials, even former people involved in the coverup (such as Hyneck or Ruppelt), should certainly give any reasonable person cause for doubt as to the "ridicule factor" of the field.

Still, it's amazing how one crackpot makes for such a better news story, and can somehow override facts and good evidence...and even when reported by formerly respectable anchors (i.e. such as Jennings' fiasco of a special).

posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 11:19 PM
Don't blame the more outrageous opinions that are given this subject as the reason its in the state it currently resides. Government cover up is at fault here. UFO incidents like the declassified information on the 1965 Edwards AFB incident prove that UFOs exist and by that fact show that the governments of the world are withholding information.

There would be no circus atmosphere if those that confiscate this information would release it.

The fact of the matter is, no UFOlogist will be allowed to get closer to the truth than they already are. And its not the Heaven's Gates or the Raelians of the world that are keeping them from it.

[edit on 11-1-2006 by heelstone]

posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 01:35 AM
Welcome anglodragon, compliments for a powerful first post.
Is your user ID a take on one of the books by Anne McCaffrey?

To answer the post title question, no, but it is an indicator of how fast the water table is falling now.

I am far more interested in the other questions you have raised. Since I have recently been accused of
contributing nothing to a topic, and being off topic, I would rather hear you amplify a bit on those
questions you have posed. Also a true no-holds-barred discussion may be viewed as trolling here.
For example, note how both Gaz and heelstone blame a government cover up as if its a truism. Even
as reasonable as they are, they would have trouble considering alternate possibilities which conflict with
their basic belief. I suspect your last statement in parens is the real topic here.


log in