Originally posted by qonone
Unless its like ID4 where they overtake the whole world & everyone sees it you/i don't have to contact anyone ..but as long as i see something and even have witnesses to back my story up i will be only telling or sharing my story on ATS ,not to any authority as they already prob know & will deny it & waste your time/money..and you be labeled as a loon or paranoid ufo freak by some.

I'm not sure if you're referring to the idea I presented above, but if you are - read my response to Corbin.

The point isn't to convince everyone all at once. The idea is to convince one person at a time. If you see a UFO and you report it through the software I was describing, and there's a skeptic who's a mile away who sees it appear on his phone, he might just pull off to the side of the road, get out of his car and look up to see if there's anything in the sky. If there is ... well you've just given a person reason to think there's something more to UFOs than originally believed!

That's the idea, convince people one at a time.

It gets more complicated when you involve the payout portion. The idea here is if a person reports a UFO and a CNN camera crew picks up the alert, then the news crew may be able to get the location in time to film the sighting. Think about that. If CNN is able to video-tape the report and broadcasts it, this gives tremendous credibility to the story (as well as the software!). This is the sort of thing you want to incentivize.

The more main-stream reports like this, the quicker the country comes around to seeing UFOs as a subject that needs to be seriously studied.

So the idea in its simplest form can be described as a way to convince a single person, at a time, of the existence of UFOs and to make it very easy for reporters to pick up on sightings when they happen.

That's the best that I can describe the concept.

I spent a bunch of time talking about trust, because there needs to be a good way to filter people out who try to abuse the system. So when I said,

have the person take a snapshot of the UFO with their 2.0 megapixel iPhone camera!

I meant that the report would go to everyone in the vicinity of the sighting, and to prove it's not complete BS, the person would have a picture to go along with the report. The idea is to give the user of the software enough information to decide whether or not it's worth their time to go outside and look for the UFO that the other person reported.

Does that make more sense?

[edit on 19-6-2007 by Xtraeme]

qonone, I am thinking that as a matter of course we would always need the type of report you describe. While on the one hand we may try to put in place the idea set forth by xtaeme, we would also not neglect those who just wantes to make a report.

And I feel sure that our basic policy would be to involve no one beyond the level that they felt comfortable with. While any report would naturally look into other recoverable data concerning such an event, just as now happens on the threads in a disjointed manner, we would not want to put anyone in an uncomfortable position with an investigation.

SaucyRossy, Some excellent input on the subject. We would want this to focus on those events that were serious in nature, and do them justice by looking into the facts in an intelligent and serious way. That would be why we would pick only those cases that seemed, from the tone and information in the thread, to have a high probability of being substantiated with proof.

Naturally, whatever evidence we uncovered would be shared here on ATS first, and put into the public eye in a way that preserved the best interests of the whole world in learning the facts.

This thread is all about uncovering the ideas of the membership on methods and means to make a solid contribution in this field. At a later point in the near future a team of people will be established on a volunteer basis to pursue this, using ideas found here.

I would like to stress for late comers to this thread that I am not in any way trying to form some "elitist" group that decides what is real and what is not. I simply want to see if some of us can get together to seek more information on those reports that beg for further investigation. And to have a plan to go about this in an orderly and intelligent way.

I am very pleased by the quality of response from everyone; well, the dude with the guns first attitude was a bit spooky for me , but I hope that in short order we can start on the first steps toward a solid investigative team.

As Johnny5 said, "Input. Must have more input!"

[Edit by NGC for spelling]

[edit on 19-6-2007 by NGC2736]

Originally posted by earth2
The best people to turn it over to would be the members of ATS.

lol. I wish this were true. But for every believer there's a skeptic. They'd just tell you how that's the stupidest thing they ever heard/saw/touched/smelled/tasted and tell you how it was just a midget in an alien suit flying a modified helicopter that didn't require blades.

tyranny, a little skepticism is a good thing. Much like salt, it adds flavor and depth. I really like skeptics, because once they see something they know isn't explainable, they switch into true believers. It's like reformed drunks, theyre never the same again.

Seriously, skeptics keep things honest in this kind of endeavor. And when a skeptic can't come up with a really good reason and has to start hedging his bets, then you can feel pretty good about putting more effort into looking deeper.

And let's be honest, they're right more often than the believers.

Myself, I am not in either camp really. I just know that something doesn't add up, and I keep looking for what it could be. I guess that's the real reason I'm wanting to undertake this quest. Even after all these years, I'm still willing to look, and still willing to doubt.

Originally posted by tyranny22

Originally posted by earth2
The best people to turn it over to would be the members of ATS.

lol. I wish this were true. But for every believer there's a skeptic. They'd just tell you how that's the stupidest thing they ever heard/saw/touched/smelled/tasted and tell you how it was just a midget in an alien suit flying a modified helicopter that didn't require blades.

Dude when they(ET'S)show up there wont be any skeptics, we'll all be believers.

At the end of the day, IF alien life were to be found on a distant planet by seti or any other program, why do you think they would release the information to the world?????


Just look at the crap which is going on in the world, this would be the last this they would want to release as this just might disprove religion as a whole.

I don't believe in the Bible, but those who do, do so on the basis of faith, now if you disprove that then what’s the reason for living!!!!!

rikmono, it seems you're the one just hanging out here and trying to do a bit of flaming. There are some people that come here actually wanting to (gasp) learn a thing or two. I'm one of those type.

maple5211, the basic idea is to just not involve the government, and sort of bypass their whole process. We don't need them. In so many ways, do we not need them.

Originally posted by anbu ops
now you guys are talking my language!
Ok check it out, as for a guideline...

Glad to find the enthusiasm for this. Looking forward to more. As a matter of fact, I wish we had a lot more people wanting to post here and get ideas going on this.

Despite what one poster said, I think there is a lot of potential for such a group to be of service to ATS.

Well really I do think if some thing like this did happen people would step up to the plate...

Originally posted by SaucyRossy
Well really I do think if some thing like this did happen people would step up to the plate...

I am sure that ATS people would meet the challenge. But there is a twofold problem. One is having a "ready plan" that could kick in to ask all the right questions, even if someone else forgot to.

And also to assess reports that for one reason or another failed to get the attention they deserved. If a really flashy hoax was ongoing, holding most of the board's attention, a smaller, yet significant report might slip off unnoticed for many crucial days.

This team could be the ones that have a plan for the "sure thing", so that people would have advice of how to get right onto the facts, and also a safety net to insure that something good, maybe not flashy but still good, didn't wither.

And everyone would have a hand in this because everyone is needed for the ideas on setting this up.

from NGC:
And also to assess reports that for one reason or another failed to get the attention they deserved. If a really flashy hoax was ongoing, holding most of the board's attention, a smaller, yet significant report might slip off unnoticed for many crucial days.

This team could be the ones that have a plan for the "sure thing", so that people would have advice of how to get right onto the facts, and also a safety net to insure that something good, maybe not flashy but still good, didn't wither.

Each and every piece of evidence has to go through a certain process to be a "hoax", a "sure thing", or a "maybe, but we'll never know"!

To just announce a "sure thing" would get the same scrutinisation and skepticism as most other "stories". Even the hardest proof from the most legitimate sources would get ripped apart and analysed here before time would eventually show us what we are really dealing with.

In your quote above, how do we know which is more valid. The large apparent "hoax", or the smaller, yet "significant" report? They must both go through the same processes to be clarified don't you think?

Anything of significance will be discussed here. Take the O'hare case for example, still being talked about but still no conclusion. Something that has the evidence to prove a "sure thing" wouldn't get overlooked.

Slowly slowly catchy monkey!

nerbot, you are so right. That's why we would have to let the threads do their thing. I doubt that we would ever find such a "sure thing" that no one would question it. I mean this is ATS, and somebody here would question the color of the sun.

I envisioned something where we would, in the background, actively seek more information on those reports that sounded very promising. Maybe even to the point of trying to get interviews, or at least e-mail from those involved, or get FOIA documents, or whatever seemed reasonable. All the while the thread debates would go on, and we would naturally watch the progress of those.

And during those times when nothing promising was on the threads, some of us in the group might collaborate on trying to get more info in the "cold cases" that looked like they could be worthwhile.

By doing things in this manner, the reports would be discussed in the normal manner, and go through their normal stages, and we would be more on the order of a second opinion.

The advantage that we would have is that we would try to have certain 'experts' already lined up, and maybe some outside contacts that we could reach that would help. Also, a small group could reach a consensus on when to send for help, and where much easier than a hodgepodge of whoever happened to be on the threads.

And of course, any information that we could uncover would be put into the threads as soon as possible. I would never want us to bypass the threads, there are too many smart people out there, and it would be counter productive to let all that brain power go to wast.

Thanks NGC2736 for calling my attention to this thread. I just read everything and, if I follow, I think there are two main aspects to the discussion: 1) procedures for handling ufo events/evidence and 2) rapid response system.

As for #1, I’ve thought this out previously for myself. If I were to take killer, clear, convincing video or photos of a structured anomalous craft, I’d send raw data to Springer before I posted about it. Before exposing it to the public, it would be useful to have it analyzed first so it can be presented properly, as professionally legitimized evidence. You’d want someone you trust, whose interest is truth and not $, to handle the goods. Since ATS is already set up to analyze evidence and provide results to the public for free, you wouldn’t have to worry about, say, what part of the evidence the newspaper is going to cut out, or the spin their debunker puts out by ignoring the sighting’s narrative. I’m not sure I follow exactly the full intent of much of the other discussion in this vein and I don’t want to derail or muddy the discussion, so I leave it at that.

And #2: I really like Xtraeme’s idea of a rapid response system. I don’t completely understand how iPhone part would work, but the idea is really great because having multiple witnesses adds so much validity to a sighting, especially if they’re independent. I have a lower tech and, perhaps, less complicated variation on Xtraeme’s idea that goes something like this:

ATS puts a button on the front page or wherever that says “Join Rapid Response.” You click it and enter your phone (preferably cell) and city/state. Based on where you are located, your info is U2Ued to 1 of, say, 6 or 8 designated volunteer ATS rapid response operators, each responsible for an area of the country. In return, the number of your regional operator is U2Ued or emailed to you. When someone calls in a sighting in process, the regional operator texts or calls their regional rapid response members. What I like about this is that it doesn’t involve unfamiliar software/technology, and it stays internal to ATS. Inviting the outside public invites abuse and confusion. Really we don’t need hundreds of disinterested people witnessing something—just getting one other person’s independent confirmation of a report would add credibility and perhaps higher quality evidence (e.g., person A has a cell camera, but person B has a digi-cam). I have so many times been reading a juicy, long-duration NUFORC sighting for Los Angeles and gone, "Dang, if only I had known, if only I had been outside then." It would be so cool to get a call and run outside and witness what someone else has just reported. The down-side is the system wouldn't provide rural/small-towners with the same potential as big city dwellers, but still, it might make a connection anywhere.

I think this would be pretty feasible. Also, the rapid response sign-up process might be able to be automated, creating minimal work for ATS staff. Thanks for presenting this idea Xtraeme. I'd sign up for any iteration of such a system immediately.

yuefo, thank you for looking at this. Your perception of what is involved is spot on, and of great value.

I'll admit, I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but I'm not the butter knife either, so I go looking for ideas and suggestions from all the great people here at ATS. There have been a lot of very good posts here, yours included. Thanks to everyone.

And no need to stop sending them along! The more ideas we get, the better this can work. It's always better to have more ideas than can be used than not enough ideas.

Keep on flagging and posting everyone!!!!

OK, with all the buzz on the 'Big Thread' I thought I ought to bump this back out of the bushes. Maybe there will be new understanding of the relevance for such a thread in light of what has/is being talked about.

And thank you SaucyRossy for the plug.

It is of course too late to have this project up and running for this particular thread, but provided the world doesn't go to hell in a handbasket within the next 6 weeks, it might be good for the next time around.

I have U2Ued some people over this, but have had no real commitment. I feel a broad spectrum of positions should be included, but that's just my opinion.

In practice, I think that such a group should have self determination on who is involved at what aspect of the investigation. I have not made long range plans for how things should work within this group because I feel this should be decided by the group, and not by me alone.

I am still monitoring this thread, and all suggestions and ideas will be duly noted.