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.

 

Top 10 Alien Encounters Debuked

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 09:54 AM
link   
www.space.com...

Looks like an interesting Read.......




posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 10:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by ferretman2
www.space.com...

Looks like an interesting Read.......

Wow, what great dubunking. It is what we say it is, and if you buy the book listed at the bottom of the page, we'll prove it to you!

I'm convinced!



posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 11:05 AM
link   
I finally RTFA.........................yes it was awaste of time............I did not expect something like this from space.com.



posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 12:05 PM
link   
Trash from the Sceptics again I'm afraid.

Let me explain...




The story:
On June 24, 1947, the modern UFO era began when a man named Kenneth Arnold saw nine “flying saucers” moving at high speed near Mount Rainer, Washington. Soon others began reporting seeing similar UFOs, spawning a “flap.”


The real story:
The phrase "flying saucer," so familiar to Americans and UFO buffs, is the result of a reporter’s error. After interviewing Arnold about his sighting, a reporter from the Eastern Oregonian newspaper reported that Arnold saw round, aerial objects (in fact he said they were "crescent shaped"). Arnold stated that the objects "flew erratic, like a saucer if you skip it across the water"—not that what he saw resembled an actual saucer. Yet that "saucer" interpretation stuck, prompting many eyewitnesses to repeat (and hoaxers to duplicate) Arnold’s nonexistent description. This strongly shows the role of suggestion in UFO sightings; as skeptic Marty Kottmeyer asks, "Why would extraterrestrials redesign their craft to conform to [the reporter’s] mistake?"

Further reading:

Robert Carroll. The Skeptic’s Dictionary. Available at www.skepdic.com...



While this account is actually true, what the Sceptics neglect to tell you is that the U.S. Military had been well aware of UFO's for some time before Kenneth Arnolds sighting and the Military used the term "Disc" or "Flying Disc" for quite some time prior to the media coining the terms "Flying Saucer".


L3X

posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 12:17 PM
link   
Usual stuff from skepitcs
why: they didn't talk about Corso in their first case "debunked" ?
Skeptics usually see 2-5 events exposed and then put their # everywhere

[edit on 22-6-2006 by L3X]



posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 12:46 PM
link   
Sceptics really hate Roswell. ( Probably why they try to spin the story in order to attempt a de-bunk, because when the truth is told the Roswell incident isn't so easily dismissed.)






The Story
The most famous UFO crash in history occurred in 1947, on a ranch just outside of Roswell, a dusty New Mexican town. Mysterious debris and alien bodies (see number 5) were recovered, spirited away in a government cover-up.


The real story:
There was indeed a cover-up of what crashed outside Roswell, but authorities were hiding not a crashed alien saucer but a weather balloon from a secret spy program called Project Mogul. The debris described by the original eyewitnesses exactly matches the balloons used in the program; the fanciful stories of alien bodies did not appear until much later. The Roswell Incident was in fact only one of many similar (and clearly folkloric) stories of crashed vessels containing alien bodies and debris—some dating back nearly 100 years earlier.

Further reading:

Philip J. Klass. The Real Roswell Crashed-Saucer Coverup.

Robert Bartholomew and Benjamin Radford. Hoaxes, Myths, and Manias: Why We Need Critical Thinking.


What the Sceptics fail to mention right off the bat , is that the MOGUL Story comes straight from the Air Force ( the Same Authorities that would be hiding the Saucer/Disc ).


The debris described by the original eyewitnesses exactly matches the balloons used in the program


This is an utter fabrication or just plain lie. None of the Roswell Witness' described a MOGUL Balloon Train.


the fanciful stories of alien bodies did not appear until much later.


There are FOIA documents that date Rumors of the Air Force recovering a "Disc" with "Bodies" in New Mexico as early as 1948-49.


The Roswell Incident was in fact only one of many similar (and clearly folkloric) stories of crashed vessels containing alien bodies and debris—some dating back nearly 100 years earlier.


That's right people despite the FACT that the Air Force sent out a Press Release to the world that the 509th at Roswell had come into possession of a Downed "Disc", if we're still talking about it it's clearly "FOLKLORIC" if your a blind Sceptic.

[edit on 22-6-2006 by lost_shaman]



posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 12:52 PM
link   
I still don't understand why there are debunkers. If you have such a great grasp of reality and proving things, why not go work on legitimate science instead of sitting around trying to disprove something (logically impossible) and arguing over sketchy photos and evidence that doesn't conclusively prove something any way?

While a strong believer in the scientific method, I don't trust scientist who waste time debunking. Debunking is as illogical as most of the UFO "theories" out there.



posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 07:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Quest
I still don't understand why there are debunkers.

Debunking is as illogical as most of the UFO "theories" out there.



Quest ,

It probably has something to do with the 65 + years of Modern UFO History , that unlike "UFO Theories" is undeniable.



Originally posted by Quest

If you have such a great grasp of reality and proving things


See I don't think too many "Blind" Sceptics or "debunkers" have much of a grasp on reality , that's why they need to try their best to debunk things that threaten their idea of "Reality".



posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 07:51 PM
link   
Those aren't the top 10 alien encounters...those are phenomenon some say are related to aliens. Notice they pick on easy targets rather than going for the real hard to explain cases. Why don't they try to debunk the really good cases like the Beligum Triangle Flap, Rendlesham Forest, Shag Harbor, the incident where the nuclear missiles were turned off, the 1970s Iran encounter, the 1950s buzzing of Washington DC, and various other high profile military encounters? They don't bother to make articles debunking those because they CAN'T.

All it takes is one of the many good cases out there to be geniuine to completely destroy their arguments. Even 99.9999 percent of all UFO encounters are hoaxes or misidentifications, if one of those is actually an alien spaceship then UFOs are real and the debunker assertions that alien contact is impossible break down.



posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 08:00 PM
link   
That's their prime modis operandi. They do very little research and never fully investigate. They just fall all over themselves swallowing the official party line.
Lost_shaman your example of the Mogul was spot on. The witness descriptions have nothing in common with a balloon train. How anyone who actually read them and then a description of the Mogul Project and then came to the conclusion they were the same,well, must have been sniffing paint.
Right on lost_shaman.



posted on Jun, 23 2006 @ 10:08 AM
link   
I only read the first couple of sentences in number 1 and I can say that they didn't do much research.



posted on Jun, 23 2006 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Access Denied

The reason the debunkers chose Roswell and the other 9 is because they are so easily debunked. The point I think you missed about Roswell is the original witness accounts were consistent with a weather balloon. It wasn't until Stanton resurrected the case 30 years later that the witnesses started describing things differently.



Well you must be swallowing the Sceptical party line hook line and sinker.

If it really was only Stanton Friedman's doing 30 years later , then how would you explain the facts that Frank Scully wrote a book ( Behind the Flying Saucers 1950 )detailing the recovery of a Disc with Bodies by the Air Force in New Mexico 1947?

Or the Fact that this is also brought up in several FOIA released documents from the late 1940's also suggesting that the Military recovered a downed Disc with Bodies in New Mexico 1947?

How do you explain that whatever fell on the J.B. Foster Ranch was not a Weather Balloon and Mack Brazel had found several weather Balloons on the Ranch before?

Don't forget that the only MOGUL Balloon that could have landed on the J.B. Foster Ranch is one that was conjured up from Charles B. Moore's memory 45 years later in the early '90's just before the Air Force Released "Roswell: Case Closed".

Or that the Air Force explained Roswell with other MOGUL Balloon Flights until one by one they were excluded , until they settled on Charles Moore's "remembered" MOGUL Balloon Flight # 4.





[edit on 23-6-2006 by lost_shaman]



posted on Jun, 23 2006 @ 07:59 PM
link   
Accessdenied- I fail to see the connection between those two quotes.BTW I follow noone.
It's quite simple- Roswell has never been debunked. There simply isn't any reasonable explanation for all the witness testimony. They did not describe a Mogul Balloon train.
And just to make myself clear.........I am still puzzled by the fact of the little pieces of ET material that couldn't be cut or bent or whatever. If they had properties that we couldn't overcome then how did they come to be so small? If they're indestructible then how did they come to be so much shrapnel?
Class dismissed.



posted on Jun, 23 2006 @ 08:06 PM
link   
Waste of time. Waste of money. If Skeptics had real stuff to debunk things it might work, but they don't, just "You would have to be stupid to believe this."



posted on Jun, 23 2006 @ 08:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Flinx
Those aren't the top 10 alien encounters...those are phenomenon some say are related to aliens. Notice they pick on easy targets rather than going for the real hard to explain cases. Why don't they try to debunk the really good cases like the Beligum Triangle Flap, Rendlesham Forest, Shag Harbor, the incident where the nuclear missiles were turned off, the 1970s Iran encounter, the 1950s buzzing of Washington DC, and various other high profile military encounters? They don't bother to make articles debunking those because they CAN'T.

right on! Whatever they can't debunk; they just won't believe because they can't accept the fact that its actully true.



posted on Jun, 23 2006 @ 08:37 PM
link   
Not to mention Moore's Mogul launch ocurred ten years after the Roswell incident.
Back to the Future indeed.

edit:Sorry Access Denied.
Thanks for the compliment. There we even now? Can I get a WATS?

[edit on 6/23/06 by longhaircowboy]



posted on Jun, 23 2006 @ 08:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by longhaircowboy
Not to mention Moore's Mogul launch ocurred ten years after the Roswell incident.
Back to the Future indeed.


Huh? You lost me.

I'm pretty sure MOGUL Launches were talking place in the Spring and Summer of 1947 , just that they do not explain what happened at Roswell and the J. B. Foster Ranch.



posted on Jun, 23 2006 @ 08:59 PM
link   
Yeah the Moguls were launched then but the one Moore referred to actually took place in the future. And the reference to bodies somehow corralates to them testing the full size crash test dummies.
I can see where someone would be confused-
John: looks like them there aliens.
Bob: Nah just some discarded garbage.
John: But it could be aliens.
Bob: nah just a Margarita.
How do 3' tall big headed grey bodies equal the crash test dummie?
When you suspend belief and go with the flow.



posted on Jun, 23 2006 @ 09:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gigram
Waste of time. Waste of money. If Skeptics had real stuff to debunk things it might work, but they don't, just "You would have to be stupid to believe this."


Actually there is PLENTY "out there" that statement fits.
The "problem" is there is also much it does NOT...

The genuine Critical Thinkers NEVER accept nor reject anything out of hand. They also NEVER "marry" a theory they may have.

My personal M.O. is to think about something, research it, and make a decision about it. Once I have made my "decision" on something I set out to prove MY DECISION WRONG. That's the intellectually honest way to go about this in my mind.

The scientific method requires a hypothesis, it then requires the researcher to disprove the hypothesis via controlled test groups, double blind tests, mathematics, etc... depending on the hypothesis. Failing to disprove the hypothesis leads one toward writing a PROOF. Assuming the hypothesis survived the attempts and tests of disproving it the data for the proof should be in hand.

The BIG ISSUE in the UFOLOGY "field" is so many people are utterly unwilling to let a theory/hypothesis go once it is proven false. Heck, some refuse to even acknowledge their hypothesis/theory IS hypothesis/theory! Some go straight from thought to proof without doing the due diligence in between!


That is what has besmirched the UFO "Field" escutcheon over the years IMHO... The "True Believers" who scoff at reason and never let FACTS get in the way of an emotionally attached theory/hypothesis.


Springer...



posted on Jun, 23 2006 @ 09:58 PM
link   
Here is what I find interesting, and raises Giant Flags for me.




Scully's list of captured or landed flying saucers is subject to the credibility of anonymous scientific and government sources who fed him the information, yet he is remembered for having described in his book a flying saucer crash site at Aztec. What nobody figured out at the time was that the lecturer spoke of a crash 500 miles south of Denver, and Scully was led to the Aztec location after hearing of the Farmington flap at a time when New Mexico was a popular tourist location for saucers. What nobody considered at the time was that the area north of Roswell, N.M., fit the anonymous lecturer's directions almost exactly.








Here are two documents.


ufologie.net...

209.132.68.98...



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join