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.

 

Aliens & UFOs - Contactee Forum

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 13 2007 @ 12:05 PM
link   
In the Aliens & UFOs forum there has been an influx of threads that are of an anecdotal nature involving posters that claim to be in contact with alien intelligences. Such threads usually get bogged down with contributors asking for evidence of contact and rarely if ever is such evidence provided other than more conjecture and anecdotal tellings.

While these threads do serve a purpose in the UFO community by allowing us to speak out about our own experiences, the analytical community values them less than the contactee community. One approach, which is to my understanding the current status quo, is to require evidence of your experiences or be labeled as a possible hoax or delusion, which to be fair is also how cases with evidence are also judged and discussed.. Another approach, which is the topic of this proposal is a separate place where those that believe they are in contact with aliens, and for those that believe the more well known contactee stories can discuss their beliefs and stories in an inviting environment suspended from the evidentiary eye of the analytical ufology community.

The Aliens & UFOs forum would benefit from the split by allowing for faster access to material of interest to the individual by separating the usual approach (such as photos and video analysis, scientifically testable theories, scientific discovery impacting theory on the subject matter, and other topics that are sure to arise with a scientific backbone) and the contactee forum (which would serve to discuss abductions, possible theological discourses involving intentions of aliens as relayed by the aliens themselves, books and videos by those that claim first hand knowledge of aliens, and other unimaginable topics that could be placed under the umbrella of alien contact).

Various members of the community have stated publicly that with the current situation of the UFO and Aliens forum that they do not feel comfortable discussing their stories with ATS, and a separate forum away from a burden of proof will entice them to come forward and share their experiences. Many feel that a large majority of the stories would be of interest to ATS, and their inclusion would trigger more debate and exchange of ideas.

Moderation of this proposed new Contactee Forum would be generally easy to moderate with regards to what would be acceptable to post if following a basic rule of thumb. Is the information in the original post asking for or passing on information given directly from an alien contact on a personal level or from media inspired by actual alien contact on a personal level.

A humble request for consideration of the above proposal with my thanks,

Hank




posted on Jan, 13 2007 @ 12:08 PM
link   
"ATS, BTS, What would you like to see in the future?"

www.abovetopsecret.com...






posted on Jan, 13 2007 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok
The three amigos make the decision on new forums (with some input from the mods), so I'd suggest pitching it in the Board Business forum, if you think it's a worthwhile idea....

source

EDIT:

If this was Gazrok's intention, I apologize, as I misunderstood.


[edit on 13-1-2007 by HankMcCoy]



posted on Jan, 13 2007 @ 12:53 PM
link   
I strongly support this idea, Hank... It's becoming very frustrating to sift through mountains of banter between some contactees and those conducting bona fide inquiry to their posts.

Apparently there is no avoiding the infuriating evasiveness, tedious schema and, often, hidden agendas of some original posters, and while this can be applied to any number of topics, the contactee segment seems to attract a large share of it.

This is unfortunate. Since the fundamental quintessence of ATS is to seek and establish the truth to the extent we are able, the behaviors displayed by such OPs negatively impact our 'prime objective'.

Giving contactees their own area to discuss their real (or imagined) experiences and beliefs would be one way to mitigate the dilemma.

My only concern (perhaps easily rectified) is that we would perhaps miss the occasional instance of a contactee that has actual evidence or a compelling, verifiable story to tell.

With some vigilance, forethought, and careful deliberation your idea can (and should IMO) be implemented somehow.

As it is, there is a danger of ATS losing some thoughtful, prudent UFO/Alien researchers to other sites if the flak continues to fly and spread as it has. The symptoms are infectious.

Good luck, Sir...



posted on Jan, 13 2007 @ 01:15 PM
link   
There is no reason to create a separate forum so some members can avoid threads. That's what it boils down to. The coding and overhead for a new forum is not worth it when all you have to do is AVOID CLICKING THE THREADS you don't want to read.


It's simple really, if you see a subject title that indicates "contactee", or "personal communication" DON'T CLICK IT and simply move on to the next thread that does interest you.

We have more fora now than we should and adding more for the purpose of avoiding threads is, IMHO, counterintuitive and just silly.

Regarding the "flak flying" I guess I'll just have to put the UFO/Aliens forum on STRICT TAC Enforcement again, it's time anyway (usually have to do it about every quarter
)...

From this moment forward and until further notice no warns for off topic/personality focus posts, instant 3 day post ban.

Springer...

[edit on 1-13-2007 by Springer]



posted on Jan, 13 2007 @ 02:11 PM
link   
Springer could you please check out my solution located on sleeper's newest thread? I believe this is a valid solution, and will make the A&U forum much more organized. Please let me know what you think.



posted on Jan, 13 2007 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Springer
There is no reason to create a separate forum so some members can avoid threads. That's what it boils down to. The coding and overhead for a new forum is not worth it when all you have to do is AVOID CLICKING THE THREADS you don't want to read.


I don't think it's about avoiding threads Springer. It's about attracting new membership to BOTH subjects.

The "Contactee" forum would have somewhat relaxed requirements regarding proof and skeptics being overly demanding could be encouraged by the participants to go elsewhere if they have a problem with it because ATS has "officially" given them a place to express themselves. This I would think would be relatively easy to moderate because the community itself would be "empowered" in a sense and it would grow from there.

The current forum would remain as is with the only difference being that the mods may have to step in from time to move threads over if encouragement from the community itself isn't persuasive enough. This I think might have the desirable side effect of attracting more serious discussion in a forum where the signal to noise ratio is already unacceptably high IMO.

At the very least, it seems like a more altruistic approach then banishing them to Skunk Works or from ATS altogether.

Anyway, just a suggestion and I don’t think anyone’s trying to tell you how to run your site so whatever you think is best.

Later…



posted on Jan, 13 2007 @ 03:52 PM
link   
I absolutely agree. ATS is going to expand, grow, and gain notiriety and this is the solution for A&U:

Three subcategories...

1) Solid proof/video/picture/document evidence/whistleblowers (I.E. a John Lear).

2) Personal experiences/stories/Contacts/Sightings

3) Theory/Ideas/Speculation/ChitChat


and a possible fourth...

4) "StarBattle"
for extensive arguments and discussion that otherwise would be counterproductive to the agenda.

Skeptics vs. CT vs. All


Springer and moderators, I hope you take this into careful concideration- this is a great solution that will be fun, productive, and most importantly- organized.

[edit on 13-1-2007 by jaguarmike]



posted on Jan, 13 2007 @ 04:11 PM
link   
You don't want a million separte things though. Then you'd spend half and hour finding the right thing to post in. It's fine how it is.



posted on Jan, 13 2007 @ 05:38 PM
link   
Edit: due to just now seeing the rules for the A & U forum posted by Springer and also seeing Hank & Co. agreeing to the rules which I have to say that if enforced there is no need for another forum for the contactees, I'll give it a go, hope y'all do to!


STM



[edit on 13-1-2007 by seentoomuch]



posted on Jan, 14 2007 @ 06:43 AM
link   
I still support this idea in lieu of the simple fact that people are different. While it would be preferable for people to limit the expressions of their natures and outlooks as scientists or theologians (or both at once) to the extent that they do not interfere with productive discussion, too often threads are buried in the conflict between the two before they can even begin.

Granted, the TOS provide guidelines for avoiding such quagmires, however the practicality of coping with a thread being brought to a grinding halt (and the subjectivity of whether members were justified in doing so, particularly when they were simply following their nature and, in many cases, doing so politely and respectfully,) seem daunting compared to simply closing threads. This may be why, unfortunately, many discussions are closed or become untenable before they can produce much beyond their initial post.

Ideally, the scientific process and speculative (or personal) theology should be capable of coexisting together in threads. Unfortunately, there is a practical consideration in the form of people's differing approaches, no matter how respectful or polite they are. When one person's logic allows them to question the scientific process itself on principle, but the other's requires that the scientific process be followed to the letter, no amount of respect or patience will yield productive dialogue or discussion in some cases. Because I feel both have equal (but different) merit, and both deserve to be discussed without these practicality challenges, I find myself inclined to support this proposal or something like it.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join