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.

 

Divide ATS's UFO Section into "The Factual" and "The Fanciful" - Thoughts?

page: 2
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 14 2007 @ 08:30 AM
link   
I heartily agree with that. I think, while the two subjects overlap, there is a distinct difference between speculating about ET agendas and analyzing photos.




posted on Feb, 14 2007 @ 08:36 AM
link   
That would even be better than the way it is now.

But what I think people really want is a way to put the loony stuff that has no proof or merit of any sort into it's own section. Stuff like "I was abducted and impregnated by a reptilian from beta reticuli" that has no proof more than a person saying so.

Everything else such as aliens and UFOs that many witnesses saw or that there are at least some pics vids of should be in it's own section.

You have to think about new people coming to ATS for the first time, maybe they heard of ATS from the Discovery TV show or from talking to friends about the O'Hare incident. They perhaps are very skeptical on whether UFOs are real or if is just a bunch of psychos wearing Star Trek paraphernalia seeing things in their heads. Then they come to ATS to check us out for the first time and what do they see? "I'm coming clean on extraterrestrials".


I doubt they will be back.



posted on Feb, 14 2007 @ 08:45 AM
link   
Well, i think this is a controversial subject, splitting the UFO section.

But it makes a lot of sense, to have a section for, physical "possible" evidence, picture, video etc, to be debated and analyzed.

And then to have a section for people, who very well might of had a "real" experience, but have nothing more than just words.

ATS as a whole, should never turn its back on members experiences, weather backed up by words or material, it never has done.
But a testimony, is different to "material", so the idea of splitting the topic, under the umbrella of Alien and UFO's makes sense to me.

And ends the demand for proof, as is always asked.

Obviously we will get hoaxes, and just plain inconclusive pictures and video's, as an above poster said, but its like that now, even without splitting anything.

The same intelligent people will sort the wheat form the chaff.

Gets my vote anyways.



posted on Feb, 14 2007 @ 08:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by MiahX
That would even be better than the way it is now.

But what I think people really want is a way to put the loony stuff that has no proof or merit of any sort into it's own section. Stuff like "I was abducted and impregnated by a reptilian from beta reticuli" that has no proof more than a person saying so.

Everything else such as aliens and UFOs that many witnesses saw or that there are at least some pics vids of should be in it's own section.

Unfortunately, that is impossible to enforce and places an unreasonable burden on the moderators that frankly should be on us. Furthermore, it starts to bump against the ideal of giving people the respect that they deserve. I think Majic's idea is the most reasonable of those that have been proposed.

Perhaps, and this is mere speculation and probably fraught with coding problems, there could be a mechanism whereby people could rate each thread to determine how factually accurate it is. They would assess the accuracy of the facts and methods being discussed inside. I am picturing a 1-10 scale akin to Am I Hot or Not. It provides an ordinal, anonymous, and non-offensive opportunity for the community to rate such threads. Perhaps a thread would need to have a certain threshold of posts before the voting becomes available, so that minor posts wouldn't be caught up. Then, by giving people the opportunity to sort by score, people with an interest in factually based threads could make those float to the top.

[edit on 2/14/2007 by Togetic]



posted on Feb, 14 2007 @ 09:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Togetic

Perhaps, and this is mere speculation and probably fraught with coding problems, there could be a mechanism whereby people could rate each thread to determine how factually accurate it is. They would assess the accuracy of the facts and methods being discussed inside. I am picturing a 1-10 scale akin to Am I Hot or Not. It provides an ordinal, anonymous, and non-offensive opportunity for the community to rate such threads. Perhaps a thread would need to have a certain threshold of posts before the voting becomes available, so that minor posts wouldn't be caught up. Then, by giving people the opportunity to sort by score, people with an interest in factually based threads could make those float to the top.

[edit on 2/14/2007 by Togetic]


I was actually thinking of something very similar last night as well. Like how digg.com works maybe.

But let's say it starts in the middle of this scale, and goes to the "factual" side or to the "Fanciful" side by votes. If it goes into the fanciful side, it moves to the "Fanciful" section of the forum.



posted on Feb, 14 2007 @ 09:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by MiahX
But let's say it starts in the middle of this scale, and goes to the "factual" side or to the "Fanciful" side by votes. If it goes into the fanciful side, it moves to the "Fanciful" section of the forum.

I think labeling something fantastical does a disservice to someone who thinks that what they are posting is true. I want to abide by the T&C because I think it's a decent philosophy and I frankly have neither the time nor the inclination to create a forum myself.

I am trying to balance respect to the member and the strong and very real desire of some here to deal only with threads grounded in hard facts and analysis. I would suggest a metric where people rate the thread according to how much hard evidence and confirmed facts are in it. In order to ensure that people who are voting actually have a strong interest in expressing their opinion, voting (each member gets one vote) might be associated with a moderate point cost, such as 50 or 100 points. That way people are less likely to skew the voting.

[edit on 2/14/2007 by Togetic]



posted on Feb, 14 2007 @ 09:38 AM
link   
Although in theory this is a good idea to have separate forums, it would be impossible to draw an acurate dividing line between the two.

If I were being awkward I could say that the whole bloody lot should be filed under 'fanciful' as no one has got anything concrete as evidence. Even people who class themselves as experts on the subject argue over who/what is credible or not.

Y'know, this O'hare thing, you'd imagine this would get filed under factual wouldn't you? Trouble is, would all the pictures except 1 (maybe!) would be in one forum, with the good one in the other? Would it be that precise a division? Or would hoaxes of proven sightings all get lumped in with a 'factual' event?

Too much work involved IMHO.



posted on Feb, 14 2007 @ 09:54 AM
link   
I would also agree that maybe there should be a separate forum for threads that are speculative, but don't we already have one? Isn't that what the Skunk Works forum is for?

If not, I think there is certainly enough material in A&UFO's for another forum and I also like the suggestion from Majic.

Just my 2 cents.



posted on Feb, 14 2007 @ 09:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hal9000
I would also agree that maybe there should be a separate forum for threads that are speculative, but don't we already have one? Isn't that what the Skunk Works forum is for?

I agree with you in a sense, but I think that the other forums attract threads that in and of themselves are not necessarily appropriate in Skunk Works, but are out there enough to warrant some sort of separate treatment for the sake of people who want to try and sift through it.



posted on Feb, 14 2007 @ 10:18 AM
link   
I'll go with Majic on this one as well. The only split truly possible in the Aliens & Ufo's forum would be to seperate "Aliens" from "Ufo's".

As much of the material there is subjective by it's very nature, it would be difficult at best to determine which is truly factual and which is truly only fanciful.



btw, who would make the ultimate determination of fact vs. fancy??



posted on Feb, 14 2007 @ 10:55 AM
link   
It's good to see some practical evaluations of this topic being discussed without dragging individual members into the debate.

But this does not preclude discussion of events.

One of the biggest UFO topics is Roswell.

How are we to deal with the crash itself and the aliens which were supposedly discovered in the wreckage?

Should they be discussed in seperate forums?

Secondly, about the O'Hare incident... we might discuss the pics in the UFO forum, but any topic about what 'they' were doing over the worlds busiest airport would have to go into the Aliens forum.



spelling edit

[edit on 14/2/07 by masqua]



posted on Feb, 14 2007 @ 11:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by masqua
One of the biggest UFO topics is Roswell.

How are we to deal with the crash itself and the aliens which were supposedly discovered in the wreckage?

Should they be discussed in separate forums?


You make a very good point.

What about applying this to only personal experiences from members , ie UFO sighting or abduction?
If they have some sort of "material" something we can dissect, apart from words, then it goes in one area.
And if the opposite posts, with nothing more than a tale, that be put in another area.

Maybe, all of this does come under one forum, and that's just the way it is, but personally id love to have this sort of thing filtered.
This is not a rant, just idea's......



posted on Feb, 14 2007 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by masqua
It's good to see some practical evaluations of this topic being discussed without dragging individual members into the debate.

But this does not preclude discussion of events.

One of the biggest UFO topics is Roswell.

How are we to deal with the crash itself and the aliens which were supposedly discovered in the wreckage?

Should they be discussed in seperate forums?

Secondly, about the O'Hare incident... we might discuss the pics in the UFO forum, but any topic about what 'they' were doing over the worlds busiest airport would have to go into the Aliens forum.



spelling edit

[edit on 14/2/07 by masqua]


Simple, Roswell something most likely DID happen given all of the facts. So this should be in the factual area. This includes the aliens involved.

O'Hare is the same, many facts that something did happen. All discussion on it goes in factual.

Now if a new thread was opened that said "I think Reptilians are abducting people from airports, that's what was going on at O'Hare", that would go into the "No Proof" section, or whatever you want to call it.

The point is a reasonable way to filter out the bizarre stories with no proof from the general public who is interested in the facts that can help prove the UFO phenomenon.



posted on Feb, 14 2007 @ 11:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Denied

Originally posted by masqua
Should they be discussed in separate forums?


You make a very good point.


:bnghd: I'll second that motion.

You know what they say about hindsight....

*Mechanic wanders off, removes foot from mouth *



posted on Feb, 14 2007 @ 11:18 AM
link   
Unidentified Crashing Objects


Originally posted by masqua
How are we to deal with the crash itself and the aliens which were supposedly discovered in the wreckage?

Those would go in the Aliens Forum.

Why? Because something that has crashed is not the same as something that is flying.

The Roswell Crash story isn't actually a UFO story, in my opinion, because it involves allegations of a crashed alien vessel and coverup, not an Unidentified Flying Object.

YMMV.



posted on Feb, 14 2007 @ 01:11 PM
link   
Ah, one of the biggest conspiracies, and we can't even agree where that should go. I guess the point has been made.

UFO - Photo and Video Analysis -


Fact or Fanciful -



posted on Feb, 14 2007 @ 02:23 PM
link   
There's simply not enough feedback on this because of where this thread is now.



posted on Mar, 8 2007 @ 07:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hal9000
I would also agree that maybe there should be a separate forum for threads that are speculative, but don't we already have one? Isn't that what the Skunk Works forum is for?

If not, I think there is certainly enough material in A&UFO's for another forum and I also like the suggestion from Majic.

Just my 2 cents.


I agree, we already have the Skunk Works forum for speculative non-evidential phenomena (at least from some points of view) that are indirectly connected to many topics discussed in the UFO/Alien forum here.

In fact, I recently started up a thread on Remote Viewing in that forum and I'm glad I did because we want to begin experiments in this area without the thread being constantly interrupted and diverted by debate discussions on RV applicability or if it garners valid results or not.

I also plan in the future to continue my discussion on Instrumental Transcommunication (ITC) which includes photographic as well as auditory experimental results in conjunction with a discussion on those tentative theories presented by Jacques Vallee. Many of the results attained via ITC support Vallee's paradigm in regards to the nature of the UFO phenomenon including the nature and origin of UFO related non-terrestrial beings.

Then from this line of thought, we will then begin exploring possible convert governmental collaboration or intervention with these beings and their technology from the Vallee perspective/approach to ufology.

Neither one of these topics has gained acceptance in the "Nuts and Bolts" faction of the UFO community. And so far, to me, it seems that there are quite a few ATS members who subscribe to this ufology perspective so it makes sense to initiate dialogs on UFO/Alien paranormal related topics and techniques in the Skunk Works forum to avoid extraneous discussion as to their existence and validity -- and instead focus on experimental results and their applicabilty and value in UFO research.

This said, in addition to the other 2 topics mentioned above, since most UFO experiencer/contactee/abductee's who log onto ATS' 'UFO and Alien" forum find out very quickly, on casual glance, that a good many ATS members are of the 'Hard Science/Nuts and Bolts' type, it makes sense to steer most (but not all) discussions having to do with the contactee experience to the Skunk Works forum. This may allow for truly productive and dynamic discussions on subject matters related to the abduction phenomenon without it being inundated with anti-contactee/abduction trolls' hostile/attack-mode comments that seek to divert and interrupt such discussions where the topic at hand loses its original train of thought and ultimately its continuity.

We just saw this happen with a new thread started by a member named Cometa where by the time that discussion reached the 3rd or 4th page, he decided to not post anymore because of all of the hostile comments posted by anti-contactee trolls. I've seen this happen a few times in "Experiencer/Contactee threads in that forum and for this reason, it makes sense to simply steer those discussions into another forum that does not interest attention seeking trolls who prefer the 'UFO and Alien' forum because it's the most popular/viewed forum in ATS.

Just giving my .02 worth on all of this


[edit on 8-3-2007 by Palasheea]



posted on Mar, 8 2007 @ 08:17 AM
link   
I agree with a need to deal with some of these more "far out there" stories. My fear is that there might be someone with a genuine experience who comes here, hoping to find out more and maybe get their story out. Someone with evidence, someone with a story so compelling and well documented that we cannot dismiss it. They come here and see 20-100 page threads on alien sex love, time travellers who go to Slayer concerts with Jesus, etc and one of two things happens.

They post their story and it somehow gets unnoticed thanks to the overal deadening of our senses thanks to the outlandish tales or they simply go away, thinking, everybody's going to think I'm as crazy as those guys.

ATS is, apparently, entering a new stage in its life. There's a tv show in the making (what's up with that anyway?) and there's the O'Hare show on Discover (what's going on with that one too?) and threads like the Sleeper thread or the Time Drifter thread are a total joke and can only damage the overall image of this site. Often enough, the more ridiculous claims are dealt with in a swift manner by the members (the leprechaun that attacks dog anyone?) but there are these monster ongoing threads that are far more outlandish and ridiculous and they are populated by a small group of posters who keep the b.s. alive and everyone knows it's a joke and yet it sits there, at the top of the section as it is posted in constantly and the newer threads that might contain actual information or details to something that might actually be important, tend to get lost in the shuffle.

I don't know if it is right for the mods to decide what is b.s. or not but perhaps a put up or shut up clause might be needed to avoid being swept into the sci-fi thread.
Something that the mods do, once a month or so, where they get together, contact the person with the claim and then, via some method (interview, info request, etc) decide if this person is serious about their claims or "having a laff..is he having a laff?"



posted on Mar, 8 2007 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by MiahX
Would you like to see ATS's UFO section divided into 2 categories?

I think many would like to see the UFO section divided into two groups, maybe "The Facts" and the "No Proof".



[edit on 13-2-2007 by MiahX]


I think this is a superb idea. There is a grey area, though (no pun intended) - that is UFO sightings with a single eyewitness and no othehr evidence. Maybe that argues for a third category. There's no proof (almost all my sightings have been in this category), but just maybe someone else saw the same thing. The "fancy" category would include all the UFO conspiracy speculation, ALL abductions (unless you have the first abduction story with real evidence), all the speculation about UFO technology, and all the "I have no evidence at all, but I talked to aliens for the government" sort of thing. I would be happy too have all that filtered for me.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join