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: 15
27
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 21 2007 @ 10:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Kurokage
 


I agree wholeheartedly with this. The process of determining the truth or untruth of any particular event or object SHOULD be a plodding, snails pace, methodological undertaking, not a stupid drag race to see who can be the first to use the HOAX label.

I, too, would never bring any "evidence" here for peer review, not because I fear it would be labeled HOAX, but simply because of the maniacal intent with which this overt type of skepticism is applied. Skepticism is heathly, very healthy, but it is a tool, not a weapon.

And the immense amount of energy and time it takes to defend arguments about items of microbial minutiae can be at minimun a tad overwhelming to those who dont have that much time or energy available to them. Yes, issues of inconsistency should be taken to task but there is a more tactful manner in which it can be done.

Hoax or not, this poster never had a snowballs chance in hell here. He was labeled and shipped out the door before he was even given the common courtesy of being able to defend his own lynching. Could this be a HOAX? Sure, most of these types of threads are, in the end. I just think we as a community should have enough self control to process things like this better than was done here.

If this has been determined a HOAX by staff, that determination MUST be laid out in all its glory somewhere on this thread ,otherwise this labeling seems very premature or even unwarranted at this point....




posted on Aug, 21 2007 @ 10:05 AM
link   
Sorry for the confusion, one of our senior staff labeled this a HOAX last night based on proof the "drawing" was done in MS Paint which can be seen in a post about half way down this page, www.abovetopsecret.com...

I'll add this information to the original post and remind the staff to ALWAYS explain why the HOAX tag has been added.



Springer...



posted on Aug, 21 2007 @ 10:10 AM
link   
I guess I did temporarily forget the GhostRaven thread, and with the end of August coming real soon I guess that was all BS.
But the drone situation has not been resolved and when I think of the drone I think of PokeyOats who was banned for life from ATS because he claimed to have seen it. Even after his friend explained why he had no camera the first time and after his friend said that Pokey and his companion to the sighting would not back down on their claims and both swore to have seen it, still nothing was ever done to reverse the ban, thus giving PokeyOats a chance to defend himself and explain further.
I have seen strange things in my life and if I stepped outside tomorrow and saw a UFO but did not have the chance to get a photo, I would like to think I could come here and share the experience. But could I?
No matter how well I told the story, I would only have a story and thus be called a liar and a hoaxer, have my thread labeled HOAX and possibly be banned. Is that what ATS is all about? A bunch of unbelieving debunker's shooting holes in people and mocking them? Or is it a place to discuss the unknown and share experiences? I don't know anymore.



posted on Aug, 21 2007 @ 10:11 AM
link   
Thanks Springer for clearing things up about the labeling of this thread.
I do think blaine91555 makes a good argument against this being a hoax. If we hadn't scared off the OP we might have had more evidence to prove this either way.


[edit on 21-8-2007 by Kurokage]



posted on Aug, 21 2007 @ 10:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Springer
 


Well I'm still confused. The only thing about halfway down that page pertinent to the image is Blaine91555's post which seems to be in support of the OP's assertion that the picture wasn't done in Paint or similar computer program.

Either there's a gross misunderstanding, or that isn't the debunking evidence. Or both.

I think the story has some significant holes in it, but I'm not so sure we've "proven" the hoaxiness (apologies to Mr. Colbert) of the picture.

And I'm using the royal "we" since I don't have the expertise to render an opinion on that particular document.



[Edit for typo]

[edit on 8/21/2007 by yeahright]



posted on Aug, 21 2007 @ 10:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by yeahright
reply to post by Springer
 


Well I'm still confused. The only thing about halfway down that page pertinent to the image is Blaine91555's post which seems to be in support of the OP's assertion that the picture wasn't done in Paint or similar computer program.


I also think that Blaines assessment and conclusions about the OP's image is a very well constructed counter to the MS Paint argument. I've not seen anyone rebuke what is in his post as of yet with the same depth of analysis. It will take more than "It was done in MS Paint, and thats all there is to that" to counter that, IMHO.

I mean, dont just say It was done using "X" and leave it at that. Educate me! Give me and the others still questioning this the "whys" about where the MS Paint came from. What evidence constructs the definitive proof that this was done in paint.

I tell ya what, if you let me and others in on the info, maybe we wont be so ready to set on the fence when the next comedian comes in here to try everyones patience.....

[edit on 21-8-2007 by Lost_Mind]



posted on Aug, 21 2007 @ 10:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lost_Mind
It will take more than "It was done in MS Paint, and thats all there is to that" to counter that, IMHO.


I'd accept that from an authoritative source, but at this point, I'm not seeing that referenced. Just a post that would appear to me to confirm the OP's statements about the picture.

Just further clarifying.



posted on Aug, 21 2007 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by BO XIAN

Originally posted by Areal51
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???


Bo Xian, do you consider what has taken place here in this thread constructive therapy suggestions for someone that may have a child with serious issues, possibly even mental ones? If the OP's claims were true then that would be an actual possibility. I think he should leave the forum alone and go back to the therapist, possibly a different one though.

Even if the therapist is a "believer" I'd hope he'd be professional enough to approach the issue in more mature manner (maybe even using his own belief to relate to the problem) instead of pushing the troubled client out the door and onto a web forum for alternate therapy/answers. How long did he see this guy? How did this therapist conclude that the UFO's are real? If it was a in a few simple sessions then the therapist was being extremely premature. The child in question could have serious issues that have nothing to do with "aliens".

This is after all a forum. A forum mostly made up of the general public of the world and a majority of which may not have the time to dedicate, aren't fully trained, or even equipped to address any real psychological issues this members child could actually have.

That's why those who seem to have REAL serious problems on the forum are usually told to "seek professional help". That alone is very good advice. A person playing armchair shrink online could be liable if something goes horribly wrong.

Seems like the therapist may not have even spent much personal time with the child in question...and certainly that would be a BIG step.

One we really can't adequately provide here.



posted on Aug, 21 2007 @ 10:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Kurokage
 



The coffee had not kicked in yet when I read Blaine's post, I COMPLETELY misunderstood his post to prove it was drawn on a computer, I am human and prone to errors like anyone else...

OK here's the deal, after reviewing this thread and the Membership interest in it I have removed the HOAX tag.

If someone can irrefutably PROVE this image was produced on a computer the tag goes back up. While the bit about the Therapist referring ATS certainly sounds "out there"
, we have no way of knowing if it's true or not so that isn't enough to label this a hoax.

Unless someone provides the proof this image was generated on a computer the Members who are interested WILL have their discussion in PEACE.

Springer...



posted on Aug, 21 2007 @ 10:57 AM
link   
reply to post by yeahright
 


Springer is referring to this post by Trappedsoul.

I have also provided a counter-response to Blaine's argument here.

I think many of you are giving this guy to much benefit of the doubt. One of the things that always grabs my attention is the registration date of users. If a user joins ATS only to post a fantastic story, their probability of being disingenuous is generally very high. They still deserve the benefit of the doubt, but they also deserve much closer scrutiny than say, a member who has been with the community since '05.

For me, there is one major and one minor piece of evidence that proves this is a hoax. The major issue is the fact that his son's "watercolor" was made using a computer. The second is the fact that Longhorn made a linguistic faux-paux by using the British spelling of the word colour, rather than the American version he should use, having been (allegedly) born in Odessa, Texas.



posted on Aug, 21 2007 @ 10:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Springer
Sorry for the confusion, one of our senior staff labeled this a HOAX last night based on proof the "drawing" was done in MS Paint which can be seen in a post about half way down this page, www.abovetopsecret.com...

Springer...


Apparently this "proof" isn't as clear to some of the members as it is to you.

Can you please site the specific post which "proves" the drawing was done in MS Paint?

You would think that as the owner of htis site you would be a little bit into customer service and address the concern of many of your subscribers.



posted on Aug, 21 2007 @ 11:00 AM
link   
Your a true Gentleman Springer!!! I 'm not sure either way whether this is a hoax or not but I do believe we need more than just a "painted" pic to get to that answer.
Sometimes that coffee kick can take a few minutes, I always wait till the second cup before doing anything even remotely intelligent lol!!


[edit on 21-8-2007 by Kurokage]



posted on Aug, 21 2007 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Megadeth
I have seen strange things in my life and if I stepped outside tomorrow and saw a UFO but did not have the chance to get a photo, I would like to think I could come here and share the experience. But could I?
No matter how well I told the story, I would only have a story and thus be called a liar and a hoaxer, have my thread labeled HOAX and possibly be banned.


I hope I didn't come across as overly hostile in my skepticism and if I did then I certainly apologize. I never called for anyone to be banned thank goodness, I just have doubts about the story here.

You have a good point though Mega, if you saw a UFO and posted about it you would face skepticism and disbelief and thats because some people are mistake in what they believe they saw...but also...some people don't want to face the possibility of a broader, stranger, and possibly dangerous universe.

I've made stranger claims, though and I'm still here.



posted on Aug, 21 2007 @ 11:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by craig732

Apparently this "proof" isn't as clear to some of the members as it is to you.

Can you please site the specific post which "proves" the drawing was done in MS Paint?

You would think that as the owner of htis site you would be a little bit into customer service and address the concern of many of your subscribers.


ummm, scroll up...


[edit on 8-21-2007 by Springer]



posted on Aug, 21 2007 @ 11:10 AM
link   
IF the OP is being truthful about what he and his child are going through together, he should seek more professional help in dealing with this than his @ work therapist and a pack of hounds here, without a doubt.

Edit to redact a bunch of nonsense....and to say thanks to Springer.


[edit on 21-8-2007 by Lost_Mind]



posted on Aug, 21 2007 @ 11:30 AM
link   
I'm very late to this thread, only just coming across it this afternoon, but would like to add a couple of thoughts to it. I will admit to not personally having had the chance so far to read through the whole thread myself, but was struck by a couple of things in the story in the opening post that I would have liked to have pulled Texas_Longhorn up on earlier in the thread.
First off I think it seems quite odd that having actually seen these objects himself , the whole sum of his own personal experience is in his first post simply


Originally posted by Texas_Longhorn


So the next few nights I went outside by myself for a few hours, and I'll be damned if I didn't see one of this shield things he was talking about. It looked like one of those flying saucers from a cartoon or something.





Now if I'd seen this with my own eyes I think I might have a bit more to say about it, but instead the focus is very much on his son's behaviour and the picture. I'm sorry but in my personal opinion this just seems a bit odd to me.

Also another point. His son is 7 years old, and refusing to venture outside during the day which is when he was previously spending his time in the backyard. presumably at 7 years old he didn't play out in the yard in the dark, but Texas_Longhorn is looking for and spotting the UFOs at night.

like I said, just a couple of things that seem a bit odd to me, and I thought worth a mention. I'll catch up with the rest of the thread now and see if these points have already been addressed.



posted on Aug, 21 2007 @ 11:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by elevatedone
Hoax / Smox... we need to address the more important issue...

In that picutre of Captain America... why does he have a KKK member running on his chest, instead of a star


Cus umm see err hes umm...

KKKaptain Amerika?

Or umm...anti-KKK Captain America which is why a scared Klan member is shown on it...

...

Got me...



posted on Aug, 21 2007 @ 11:40 AM
link   
Man, if it turns out that this guy was telling the truth, then this is really sad IMHO. If you can't come to a UFO/Alien discussion board to share an experience without being ridiculed and lambasted, then where can a person go?



posted on Aug, 21 2007 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Megadeth
Sigh.......

Does the drone situation really have us all so jaded that we give nothing and nobody a chance to prove themselves anymore? So many here have become 'professional debunker's' that many remind me of that guy from Skeptic Magazine who was on Larry King Live who I would love to punch in the mouth for being such a know it all arrogant prick.


I sure had a similar response to that fellow (though on C2C). And the absolute BLOOD LUST hereon toward even remotely probable FRESH BLOOD is . . . deeply saddening to outrageously infuriating.

I know part of it is the era and cultural gestalt that has arisen--meanness seems to be a new heralded value.

But this thread's examples are very troubling.



No chance was given to TL to show us anything else, and here comes the HOAX tag.


Indeed. As I recall, the OP's post was less than 12 hours old when the knives and assaults began to come out of the woodwork in great forceful personal assault. There's something wrong with that picture.

And even now, such activities are being defended. Sheesh.



You know, it really bothers me that the HOAX / BAN hammer comes down so hard these days but someone who post blurry, 30+ year old photos of the moon ( cough JOHN LEAR cough ) gets no such HOAX tag, but is PRAISED and given his own forum.


YEAH, there does seem to be some very deplorable double standard stuff rather chronically entrenched in certain corners of the forum. Some is probably unavoidable amidst humans. But sometimes it seems like a sacred rite, a sacred doctrine; a sacred red badge of length . . .

Sigh.



posted on Aug, 21 2007 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dae
HOAX = 90% sure, Hoax = 65%... I dont know but something needs to be done. HOAX should be a done and dusted thing, something where we can all see the why, in this thread there is none. The 'Texas in Canada' guy hasnt been given much time to come up with the goods.


It's fascinating . . .

The RANK OUTRAGEOUS HYPOCRISY . . . .

Folks ruthlessly with great gleeful blood-lust jump on every microscopic shred of POTENTIAL problem with a story . . .

blow every microscopic shred up into some Federal level case of incongruency

smugly pat themselves and each other on the back for their great "scientific" sleuthing . . . and rush along to the next microscopic shred of anything useful to the gaping maw of

the SUPREME ORTHODOX SACRED TREE SHREDDER OF HOAXERS

That is . . . supposedly the analysis is very scientific, rigorous etc.

when actually . . . it's a very bloody, raucus free-for-all dog-pile on any faint hint or whiff of any justification to flaunt supposedly magnificent, lofty, supremely critical; supremely sacred . . . CGI, PHOTOSHOP etc. skills.

And, as some folks who have a decade or two work experience with such skills have said on this thread--owning software doesn't an expert make. At least a full time worker in such fields has thrown cold water on some of the screeching screaming HOAX flingers . . . and their wise experienced comments have been lost in the rising volume of blood on the floor.



new topics

top topics



 
27
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join