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.

 

UFO's over house, son scared to play in the backyard

page: 12
27
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 09:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Badge01
 


Ok, my mistake. I missed the part about him moving to Canada on pg 1 in my haste to read all the pages before I posted my opinion.
I tend to scan the pages as opposed to reading word for word, when I'm in a hurry..

Still though, I dont believe him. Just one of a long line of people trying to "pull one over" on people at ATS.
Of course this is just my opinion and as always there will be some that agree and some that disagree and thats ok.


[edit on 8/20/2007 by Kr0n0s]




posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 09:37 PM
link   
REPLY TO ExquisitExamplE

actually there are many straight portions to his picture, especially looking at the blue line near the end of it, on the top and bottom.



posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 09:37 PM
link   
reply to post by BO XIAN
 


This is not exactly a reply to BOXION, but a comment.

I am not exactly a fan of BO, as may be seen in some of my posts in the past. But an attack on the merits and skills of this person, as I have seen done in this thread, is one of the lowest forms of supporting one's own position.

BO may well be an idiot, that is not yet decided.
But the personal nature of some posts are decidedly less than intellectual.

Is it that hard for some people to remain on topic and not comment on the qualities of other posters?



posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 09:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by carewemust
I've scanned over this thread and my primary question for Texas
Longhorn is this: Why does your 7 year old play outside by himself
when it's dark? .


I don't recall anything indicating one way or the other that the craft were seen exclusively in daylight, after dark; before a certain bedtime or any such.

Assumptions seem to be the foundation for lots of harsh judgments on this and a lot of other threads.

Is there some ATS school where we have to go to learn to make lofty, purified, flawless, always pristinely accurate assumptions?

I think I didn't get that memo. Missed out on that course.



posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 09:50 PM
link   
So i judge by the "*HOAX*" listed on the title this has been confirmed fake? Then I have a question to the OP. What is it that makes you feel the need to post something like this on ATS? What is it the compels you to find such things fun, or funny? or is it because it is a community where people express opinions that most of the mainstream would find "out there?" what is it?



posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 10:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Areal51
You're both right. At the same time the members of this community deserve the benefit of the doubt, too. . . .


I don't have trouble respecting individuals, particularly the fine minds hereon. However, I do reserve some right to be extremely frustrated with and rail at seemingly instantaneously assaultive perspectives and habits that seem quite counter productive to encouraging newcomers to come and share their sensitive, embarrassing family experiences.

I also deplore such tones of instantaneous assault on folks who have given far too little information calling for such. What arrogant cheekiness. Especially in less than 24 hours!!! Sheesh! There's plenty of time to sort the hoax issue out even beyond 48 hours.



Anyway, the OP went to see his company's therapist, he didn't state that he took his child to see the therapist, or a child therapist. It's true that all therapists have to undertake a general study of developmental psychology and child psychology, eventually they choose to specialize. So it's weird that a therapist for a business would suggest a site like ATS as a possible recourse of remedial action for the OP's concern.


Ahhhhh, now we are mind-reading the therapist's mind from 2nd hand information and that rather sparse. Wonderful.

I have no idea if the therapist thought ATS was a wonderful REMEDIAL resource or merely a resource for an abundance of information on what seemed to be the phenomena involved.

I have no information on what else the therapist said or might have said of a remedial sort. Perhaps they had a 3 hour discussion about supportive remedial responses that the OP didn't feel pertinent to the purpose of posting on ATS to get all distracted with on this thread.

PERHAPS, IF, PERHAPS, IF, PERHAPS . . . we have no info. So why, WHY, WHY must we jump to such a long list of conclusions? Is that the only way ATS's know how to get their exercise?



Why wasn't the OP referred to a child therapist?


1. We have no info assuring that he was not so referred.
2. We have no info assuring us that the therapist involved is not particularly trained and gifted regarding 7 year old children regardless of his other formal specialties.
3. We have no information that the therapist involved thought the issues and specifics shared with him and not with us were indicative of an urgent situation requiring a whole panel of experts to get the kid sleeping nights again--or the opposite. We have no information either way.

Therefore, in the grand tradition of ATSers facing such a thorough going LACK of information, it is doctrinally incumbent upon us by direct orders of the theological magicsterical (normally spelled magisterium)

for all true blood true believer true ATSers to instantly and ruthlessly drag out all the brass bands and begin blaring loudly about hoax this and hoax that; stupid therapist this and stukpid therapist that; stukpid father this and stupid father that . . .

At least then, they can feel quite smugly proud to have done their RIGHTEOUS DEBUNKERS DUTY. I'm sure the heavenly gold stars are piling up aplenty. Long live the faithful debunkers.

Sorry--there's just no pity left over for the mangled heap of experiencers who quietly back away from such true believer faithfulness.



According to the OP the therapist only asked a couple of questions,


Really. Was that the first conversation with the therapist or the 4th? Or did that include all the meetings with the therapist? Did that include only a formal meeting or all the lunches as friends?

We don't know. And we don't know NOT, either.



but the therapist apparently has a great deal of interest and has done a great deal of research in, "this type of stuff"? Well, that's vague.


Ahhhhhh, I see.

Evidently we need a different newcomers thread. This one should outline all the requirements for posters of their experiences--especially newcomer posters and experiences of their families.

1. First, they must research all the relevent professional research studies.
2. Mark and underline pertinent sentences in such studies.

3. Learn to paste such into the thread but no more than 3 paragraphs per source. Make sure the footnotes are included as fitting.

4. Insure that doctrinal dissertation level details and specificities are followed faithfully.

5. Insure that CIA level interrogation thoroughness is followed and that all said thorough questions are listed with every word of every answer clearly given with each question.

6. Insure that every possible perspective of every possible debunkder's vantage point is taken into account ahead of time and neutralized skillfully and scientifically ahead of time with layers of hard statistical facts and microscopic level specificity and clarity.

7. Insure that statements are posted which are only and totally scientifically verifiable with at least 4 independent witnesses per fact.

. . .



Child UFO encounters? UFOs in general? Parents with children who've encountered UFOs? Hard to say what the OP meant.


QUITE SO.

However, that must NEVER hinder

The DOCTRINE OF INSTANTANEOUS JUMPING TO CONCLUSIONS

How would the faithful know how to behave without that cardinal doctrine?



Therapists have ethics, they don't reveal about themselves during sessions because they could influence the responses of the patient/client.


One could somewhat reasonably ASSUME that, as stated, the relationship is more friends than therapist/client. And perhaps a reasonable inference might be guessed at--that the consult was much more of a side-walk consult than a formal one.

I do suspect, however, assuming again . . . that the therapist would have made whatever referral suggestions that the information presented to him warranted. And, given the father's attitude, that the father would have left no stone unturned toward helping his son.

I realize that those assumptions will likely be viewed as heretical hereon. So be it.

Who knows, but there is that picture, and it may be what the child originally drew. However, it seems that the OP would have mentioned that the child drew the pictures on a computer. Instead the OP makes it sound like he casually noticed the pictures laying about the house somewhere. He doesn't say that exactly but that's the impression and tone of what he said:


Originally posted by Texas_Longhorn
I went and talked to my son again, and he told me about "shields" flying over the house. I was really confused and he showed me a Captain America comic he had. He said they were like his shield, only they flew over the house.

When he was showing me I noticed some pictures he made, and one made my blood ran cold. I asked him what it was and he said he didn't know he just drew a picture and this is what he made.


Seems a little deceptive to me.

[edit on 20-8-2007 by Areal51]



posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 10:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Tibris
 


This has not yet been proved a hoax. The label seems to be misleading.

I have asked someone on the staff to give some info on the label, but so far have heard nothing. It is my understanding that for a hoax label to be applied, overwhelming evidence for they must come up. Unless staff is withholding such from us, which would be unusual, then there must be an error.



posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 10:13 PM
link   
Just thought it odd that Capt. America was killed off recently in the comics...

"Captain America was killed in Captain America vol. 5, #25 (March 2007), although his series continues publication."-from Wikipedia

Wasn't the original image scan dated April or something...need to go back and check that. Not that this means anything, necessarily...just found it interesting regarding the story from the OP.

If the pic done was in water color, didn't you refer to it as drawn, not painted in the initial post?


Originally posted by Texas_Longhorn
Here is the picture he drew if you all have any questions.




[edit on 20-8-2007 by TheBandit795]

Another anomaly here. OK the original picture scan was done in March. I'm probably splitting hairs, but isn't that the idea? Andy

[edit on 20-8-2007 by drumist69]



posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 10:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Areal51
This is what the OP posted:


Thanks for reposting that. I'd forgotten that he made a more or less formal appointment with the company shrink.



From this the therapist doesn't sound uninformed about UFOs to me. He sounds like the kind of person that would take a scientific approach to the problem instead of directing the OP here.


What an assumption! What's "bad" or even all that "unscientific" about sending someone to ATS--one of the sites on the net with a wealth of quality information about the topic--how many better places are there for the therapist to refer the dad to--to help him get up to speed generally on the topic???

I suppose folks would rather have had the therapist see the dad 3 times a week for 6 months at $175.00 an hour co-pay or whatever to educate the dad formally about UFO's from the therapist's research and experiences with clients?



Also, the comment about the the OP's type of experience being uncommon sounds like reassurance. Wouldn't it have been better to refer the child to a child therapist instead, to get a more credible level of reassurance?


More off the wall assumption based on virtually NO information.

We have NO information that the therapist is not as qualified or more so than the average specialist in child psychology--particularly for this sort of phenomena. Specialization does not always and only equal highest qualifications. I know a number of colleagues who are specialized idiots I wouldn't let a child near.



Some have mentioned that the OP get a second opinion. That sounds like better advice than what the OP's business therapist directed.


A second opinion need not be bad at all. Possibly a worthy suggestion. But it's also NOT a cure all to anything in this situation. Depends tons on the 2nd professional; their perspective; experiences; training etc. and their objectivity vis a vis UFO sorts of stuff.



There are a bunch of maybes, as it stands the OPs story doesn't sit too well.
[edit on 20-8-2007 by Areal51]


Ahhhhhh, but the cardinal doctrine of INSTANTANEOUS JUMPING TO CONCLUSIONS

requires that we NOT let such absence of facts hinder us from blackwashing distant therapists; briefly posting fathers; troubled 7 year olds etc.

Besides, we have to get our exercise flexing our debunker's muscles and show one and all how faithful we are to such obsessive assaultiveness. It's a matter of faithfulness to our religion.



posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 10:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Texas_Longhorn
Anyways thats my story, thanks for reading. Here is the picture he drew if you all have any questions.





Um... WOW!


I cant believe how much attention here goes into some of these so called sightings and this one is no exception.

Or did the mods edit that close encounter drawring in out of satire?



posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 10:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by roadgravel
I was trying to clarify why certain ideas were considered meaningless and not worth investigating


I don't recall saying anything was not worth investigating or even meaningless per se--especially in any final way.

I merely have been trying with great fuitility to suggest waiting longer than 24 hours; getting, if possible, more info from the Dad

BEFORE

sentencing him, therapist, child to the local hoaxer's gulag and dunce cap--judged, sentenced, flushed all in less than 24 hours! Sheesh!



even though there was no mention of information supporting either side.


Ahhhhhhhhhhhh so the 2nd CARDINAL DOCTRINE of the truest true believers is . . .

that in the face of ABSENCE OF INFO

a LONG LIST OF CONCLUSIONS MUST BE JUMPED TO automatically and in less than 24 hours!

I see.



These were not considered possible simple solutions to investigate but a child being buzzed by UFOs and ETs is the simple solution.


I read post after post of what seemed to me extreme stretches--convoluted explanations as to why this HAD TO ABSOLUTELY BE A HOAX TO anyone with an IQ above a chicken's. . . . all based, more or less at most--on A LACK of information and a winding up of teased out tiny microscopic bits of info that were instantly declared HOLY WRIT.

Wellllll excuse me for being an agnostic on such issues until I hear more from the dad.



If it were my child I would investigate many avenues trying to find the truth.


WHERE'S THE EVIDENCE that the dad is not similarly inclined???



Are we to take everything said at face value when beliefs and observations can be misleading or wrong.


Ahhhhh, so the EXTREMELY HASTY, LOFTY, SMUG, INTELLECTUAL PONTIFICATIONS from the priests of the

HOLY ORDER OF JUMPING OFF THE CLIFF JUMPING TO CONCLUSIONS FAITH

ARE AUTOMATICALLY HOLY WRIT

TOTALLY INCAPABLE of being misleading or wrong????

I see.

Sure seems like the attitude reams of debunking statements have been written in--at the dad's expense.

I find that deplorable.



posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 10:34 PM
link   
I have sent a complaint to the staff over 30 minutes ago, asking for an explanation for the "hoax" part being added to the thread tittle when this has not at all been settled.

Now I realize that staff gets busy, but someone wasn't too busy to stick that tag on this thread, so they shouldn't be too busy to notice a request for answers as to why it was done.

Would anyone awake and sober on the staff like to take a crack at this?



posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 10:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by HooHaa
The dog confuses me also. Not sure how a dog would react to a real alien but Id have to say they would be more aggressive. My lil pooch (rip) would go after bears in upper Michigan without hesitation or fear. Seems to me if a predator such as an alien was lurking about the dog would defend his territory. This is purely speculative on my part because Ive never had the good fortune of witnessing anything like what has been told here.


There's tons of narratives in the literature of dogs and other animals being freaked by UFO/ET phenomena.

They are virtually always AVERSE to it. Most run from it; avoid it; cower in the face of it; etc.

SOME of the more aggressive individual dogs have been characterized as going berzerk but staying well away or charging up to a still distant from the ET point and refusing to go further--when always before they were fearless.

A number of dogs have been imobilized similarly to such of the people involved.

A few rare cases have described ET's pointing a wand or some such at the dog and killing the dog or even disintegrating the dog--sometimes in mid jump.

In short--dogs are not friendly toward ET's. They seem to treat them as something to be avoided virtually at all costs. Some dogs go berzerk and bark wildly from a very safe distance--rather uncharacteristically avoidant.



posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 10:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by spliffy

is this problem just your back yard

will your son and dog go around the rest of the outside of the building with out any problem. if they do, why does the problem ONLY happen in the back yard?
[edit on 20-8-2007 by spliffy]


Good questions.

However . . . it may not be so complicated as might be imagined.

Children and many adults are very, very localized in their focus on fear triggering stimuli. All the more so if the stimulus was initially intense and seemingly bounded geographically by clear boundaries such as a 10 foot wall.

If the child has seen or experienced such repeatedly ONLY in the back yard--all the more so.

I think it's kind of like that scene, that setting sort of gets flash imprinted on the memory circuits in a very intense way. Other nearby settings, aspects of nearby scenes are NOT so imprinted.



posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 10:48 PM
link   
Why would the dog not go into the garden if there is 'nothing' there?

Dogs see in a different light spectrum to humans, so I understand, plus their sense of smell in far, far greater than humans. So maybe, just maybe, there might still be an anomoly there.

Hence my question earlier about the house site being built over something (such as a garbage tip) May an Infra-Red or UV photo of the back yard might help. I too think the hoax label maybe a bit premature until further facts become available.
(That is unless ol' Tex 'fessed up to the Mods and case closed - prove me wrong - someone!)




posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 10:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Havalon
 


Well, see, that part about 'fessing up to the Mods is where I have a problem.

There's a hoax label on this thread, though it certainly is still very much in doubt. I personally feel that the OP is being dishonest. BUT my feelings on the matter are not the end all of the discussion.

I have sent a complaint about the label, asking for some proof, but have so far heard nothing in reply. I have asked here on the open thread for some explanation, but have heard nothing.

I need to be up early tomorrow, so I must go to bed. Without any staff member taking the time to answer questions on this matter.

Staff, I must say that I am disappointed in your response to this. I think someone needs to step up and be the one to explain what is your end of this, and why have you ignored a member's request for information.

Just an opinion. (And for all those that say I overly praise staff when they get it right, I believe in one thread the term was "brown nose", this post ought to tell you something.)



[edit on 20-8-2007 by NGC2736]



posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 11:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by spliffy
but i find it hard to believe that the only problem area is the "back yard".

the child and dog must go through the front door, so why do they have no problem with the front of the house..
if aliens are flying "over" the house, why are they only afraid of the back yard...........
edit: add the word "not"

[edit on 20-8-2007 by spliffy]


I don't find that hard to believe at all.

As I've posted above . . . particularly children but actually, to some degree, humans of all ages can be very focused, localized in their responses to fear triggering stimuli--particularly when the first incident of a particular type in a specific location is very intense.

All the more so when the locale is bounded by clear boundaries such as a 10 foot wall.

And, perhaps you haven't noticed but far more UFO ET goings on seem to involve back yards than front yards or other parts of houses.

IF (conjecture) there was some event--close personal contact with a frightful ET or set of ET's in the back yard--that would be sufficient.

Flying over the house is NOT the same thing as stopping over the back yard . . . and far different vis a vis the front yard compared to stopping over the back yard and abducting the son FROM the back yard and returning him TO the back yard.

It mystifies me that this should be the least bit suspicious.



posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 11:19 PM
link   
reply to post by BO XIAN
Are you not doing the same thing you are preaching here.

Your post:

7. The dog and the kid's focus ENTIRELY was on the BACKYARD. Where's the need to go dig up some OTHER not-even-hinted-at concoction to explain the data. The SIMPLEST explanation is the story as told.

You have concluded no other factor can come into play. The simplest explanation is that ufos are harassing the child. The father has stated all meaningful facts. Of course a 7 year old is able to understand an explain all world and natural events. The father worked with the picture in photshop in March 2007 yet it is a recent development. His idea a recent is off, or what else is his not telling.

Maybe it is real but some FACTS not just opinions do not add up.



posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 11:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tibris
So i judge by the "*HOAX*" listed on the title this has been confirmed fake? Then I have a question to the OP. What is it that makes you feel the need to post something like this on ATS? What is it the compels you to find such things fun, or funny? or is it because it is a community where people express opinions that most of the mainstream would find "out there?" what is it?


It is not a hoax. If the picture was altered it was either when I resized, or I may have increased or decrease the colour of the picture.

I was never given the chance to film my dog, take a picture of my holding the original photo or try to photograph one of the shields before being ostracized, and I really doubt that when I do do any of those things I will be sharing them with this fourm. When I do (And I will) I will find another community that doesn't partake in witch hunts.

To the people that are still interested in my story, please leave your emails because I would love to continue to hear your advice.

I will not pretend to understand pictures or how you analyze them, but the pictures does exist and I have it with me now. I don't know how you came to this conclusion, I am just sorry you are very mistaken.

On a final note, here is the picture my son wanted to draw to share with you guys.




posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 11:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Texas_Longhorn

but I really don't need to hear about it because it doesn't help me further my situation towards a more positive ending.

Ask the head guy, forgot what he title is, to check my computer and see what city I am posting from. If you still don't believe me, I'm totally fine with that but I do think the personal attacks against my character are really abrasive and uncalled for.

I will try to be as helpful as possible to those whom are interested though, because I have gotten some really good advice from some really kind people so far.




THANKS TONS for your posts tonight. You came back on about when I expected and said essentially the sorts of things I expected. Much appreciated. It's usually comforting to have my hypotheses confirmed.

I can only encourage you to ignore the folks who seem to get an ego boost from insisting that their debunking . . . merits . . . are longer . . . .than someone else's.

And to repeat that if you want to bounce anything off me or ask any questions via a private U2U message--you can do that via the MEMBER CENTER button at the top of the page. Feel free as and if fitting.

I'm sorry about the abrasive personal attacks. They have really angered me, too. I think it's a deplorable way to treat someone--particularly newcomers who even MIGHT be wrestling with such a situation with a young loved one.

I don't know what's happening with empathy in our world but it seems to have been flushed to hell wholesale all around the world but particularly in "Western" societies.

Anyway--great pluck you have . . . Let me think if I have any more questions for you to pose to Jr. . . .

I think I might walk him around the back yard in broad daylight . . . as soon as he could manage that reasonably tolerably . . . and ask him to let you know if there's a part of the yard that feels more UNCOMFORTABLE than another part of it.

Also, it's not beyond the realm of probability that he does not have articulate specific memories of such. The critters seem quite skilled and gifted at erasing or blocking such memories. And even humans pretending to be ET's doing such things also have such memory blocking capabilities.

But a walking route over the bulk of the back yard could still at least trigger some impressions of fear or discomfort closer to some area than another.

If necessary, you might could carrying him around on your shoulders for his greater feeling of security.

You could also ask him--while with him and facing certain directions standing in one spot . . . did he feel more discomfort facing this direction or that direction; looking at the ground; looking straight ahead; looking up . . .

Did he feel alone or not.

Did he feel someone unpleasant was near or someone pleasant.

Did he feel more than one someone or something was near or only one.

Could he move when he originally felt fearful or not move.

etc.




top topics



 
27
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join