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.

 

Is the Hard Evidence school of UFO research really 'Faith Based'?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 11 2007 @ 01:52 PM
link   
Exopolitical Comment # 28 - Science and Faith Based Approaches to UFO Research

The above essay paper was researched and written by Dr. Michael Salla. Here's an excerpt on what this paper is about:


Many UFO researchers concede that a political cover up exists, but paradoxically contend that this does not negatively impact on their search for sufficient hard evidence to reach definitive conclusions about UFO/ETH hypotheses. This does not appear to be logical to me, and appears to be more a statement of faith than a rigorous scientific approach to the UFO phenomenon. More precisely, I am proposing that advocates of the hard evidence approach are really engaging in a faith based approach to UFO research.


For those of you on this board who advocate the hard evidence approach, would it be possible for all of us to have a calm, intelligent and attack-free discussion on this very important topic with you so that we may understand more about your viewpoint and perspectives on UfO's and those related topics?

I think we can begin this dialogue by discussing this very well researched and insightful paper written by Dr. Michael Salla on this topic matter.

Tell us those things you agree with him on and then tell us those things you disagree with him on. I think that would be a good start.

thanks









[edit on 11-1-2007 by Palasheea]




posted on Jan, 11 2007 @ 02:55 PM
link   
From my readings so far by those writings by various ufologists, I'm finding that I agree with Dr. Michael Salla's argument that many of these researchers are the first one's to admit that our gov't is engaged in a cover up where if there has been any hard evidence out there, the gov't has retrieved it but will not admit that they have it in their possession.

On the other hand, these same researchers who admit that there's a gov't cover up, also claim that their research and conclusions in this field are based on HARD EVIDENCE.... but this is paradoxical because according to them, only the gov't has that material and information (the Hard Evidence).... this confuses me.

So basically these same researchers who are like this are basing their conclusions about UFO'a and so on only on faith and not on hard evidence because they simply have not had access to that information and material. (the hard evidence).



posted on Jan, 11 2007 @ 03:11 PM
link   
I dont understand what point hes trying to make. Mosts scientists or researchers often start off faith driven when looking into something, then they try to prove that his/her faith/theory is correct by proving with "hard evidence" that something is the way they are. Isnt that the easiest way to coninve others, no matter what the subject is?



posted on Jan, 11 2007 @ 03:43 PM
link   


Many UFO researchers concede that a political cover up exists, but paradoxically contend that this does not negatively impact on their search for sufficient hard evidence to reach definitive conclusions about UFO/ETH hypotheses. This does not appear to be logical to me, and appears to be more a statement of faith than a rigorous scientific approach to the UFO phenomenon. More precisely, I am proposing that advocates of the hard evidence approach are really engaging in a faith based approach to UFO research.


It's a valid point, but a refutable one. Here's why.

In the early days of the alleged coverup, numerous balls were dropped. This is COMPLETELY logical, as "they" were dealing with a completely new issue, and had to develop a system as they went along. This isn't just a "guess", the evidence is there to support it, in the form of numerous documents, some already authenticated, others in the "high confidence" area. We know that certain folks were involved with such subjects, and there is evidence that names the names, etc.

So, there is ample hard evidence, due to things falling through the cracks while they were getting their act together. That's why there is so much on the Roswell case. Though the coverup was solid at the time, it was a first, so it left many tidbits behind that UFOlogists later discovered. In addition, the "defection" of those like Ruppelt and Hyneck (who were part of "they" at one time), helped as well.



If top secret committees set up a parallel infrastructure to deal with a national security 'threat' deemed too sensitive to be disclosed to the general public or congressional officials who exercise budgetary oversight; then the security system would be sure to eliminate, remove or taint hard evidence, and intimidate/discredit witnesses and whistleblowers. That this has happened can be identified in key documents such as JANAP 146 and the work of researchers such as Donald Keyhoe who was one of the first to rigorously explore the political cover up in his "Flying Saucer Conspiracy'. Numerous whistleblowers who have emerged in the Dr Greer's Disclosure Project assert that they indeed were instructed to lie about, and/or remove hard evidence.


This is a total assumption on Salla's part. Instead, "they" opted for establishing an "aura of ridicule" that of its own accord, automatically discredits such witnesses and whistleblowers. There is even documentation that clearly shows this agenda, and former folks involved (like Ruppelt and Hyneck) have also attested to this. The only true hard action would be in the area of physical evidence, much like any other classified project (i.e. such as if you had a piece of a crashed Raptor in your backyard). What Salla and others also forget, is that physical evidence has come in the public eye, but it IS quick to be discredited and/or comes up as "missing", so Salla's own ideas of what "they" woud do seem to be realized, but only in the case of physical evidence.

Removing the few tidbits uncovered, would be basically akin to legitimizing them, so "they" aren't about to do that. The further removal of things not yet found may also alert others. So, it's only logical that they don't go removing those few pieces that did make it into archives or FOIA, etc. In addition, nobody is omniscient, and it's quite possible (gasp!) that even our government can make mistakes!

So no, it's more illogical to assume that the shadowy folks keeping this under wraps are somehow godlike and omniscient or everpresent. They do what they can, and have extensive resources. They concentrate on squashing physical evidence (proof) and leave the witnesses and other non-conclusive evidence be.... Just like any war, you have to pick and choose your battles.

As to the "no evidence of a coverup" argument (by others in this thread, not Salla), they simply haven't done the research. Roswell is a good case in point. No matter what you feel crashed there...it is a FACT a coverup occured. What was covered up may be in dispute, but the coverup is a recognized (and admitted) fact. That's just ONE example of course.



posted on Jan, 11 2007 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok

In the early days of the alleged coverup, numerous balls were dropped. This is COMPLETELY logical, as "they" were dealing with a completely new issue, and had to develop a system as they went along.


i must vehemently disagree here :

the culture of disnformation , obsfucation and deception perpetrated by governments has been long , deep and pervasive

leaving aside conspiracikes and alleged conspiracies ,

factual deceptions abound :

ULTRA and MAJIC intelligence and the cracking of enigama and purple / JN25 codes

the manhattan engineering district .

planning for D-DAY and the deception of FUSAG .

you are claiming that the same militaries which had such A stellar record suddenly an inexplicably " dropped the ball "

appologies , but i do not accept that unsuported " logic"



posted on Jan, 11 2007 @ 04:18 PM
link   
Well this is interesting... thanks Garzok!
So what you are saying is in actuality, many researchers are in fact basing their conclusions and suppositions on hard evidence because that evidence was actually available to them before our gov't became more efficient at confiscating such material on a timely basis before civilians were able to evaluate it themselves... which they did.

But now the gov't instead is not confiscating all of the new hard evidence that's out there because this would be too conspicuous on their part so instead they engage in a dis-information campaign to discredit the hard evidence by diminishing it's importance or authenticity in one way or another.

So basically, Dr. Salla seems to be generalizing too much and leaving out whole chunks of information because apparently, we did have some good hard evidence, at least at the beginning before the gov't became more skilled at covering things up.

This warrants a more in-depth evaluation of the Roswell material and some of that other information you mentioned... so this is what I'm going to research on next.

Thanks for your feedback!

[edit on 11-1-2007 by Palasheea]



posted on Jan, 11 2007 @ 05:47 PM
link   


you are claiming that the same militaries which had such A stellar record suddenly an inexplicably " dropped the ball "

appologies , but i do not accept that unsuported " logic"


Fine, then I'll support it.
Ask yourself. How long after WWII did Russia have the A-Bomb?

Stellar Job?

How long after WWII did it take for Russia to fully penetrate the very uppermost level of the CIA?

Stellar Job?

Where are the WMD's in Iraq? (not that it was about WMDs, but the point remains)

Stellar Job?

These guys have a habit and a track record of "dropping the ball", so yes, I'll stand by my logical assertion.




So basically, Dr. Salla seems to be generalizing too much and leaving out whole chunks of information


Yes, because he's writing a persuasive argument. As I said, it's a valid point, but assuming the infallibility or omniscience of those covering up is really a leap from reality. (imho)



[edit on 11-1-2007 by Gazrok]



posted on Jan, 12 2007 @ 11:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok


you are claiming that the same militaries which had such A stellar record suddenly an inexplicably " dropped the ball "

appologies , but i do not accept that unsuported " logic"


Fine, then I'll support it.
Ask yourself. How long after WWII did Russia have the A-Bomb?

Stellar Job?


no , you are now attempting to compare the active efforts of the entire soviet block inteligence apparatus

which was mostly assisted by the 3 [ the roesenbergs & fuchs ] key traitors in the programs promted by M.I.C.E :

Money , idelogy , Concience , Ego .

which lay at the root of 99% of all expionage / treachery cases

IMHO , in the case of the roswell case and others - there was ZERO external activity to contend with

that sir is why i questioned the logic of your correlations - and the claims that US military inteligence suddently developed " butter fingers "

your examples are comparing apples and oranges .



new topics




 
0

log in

join