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.

 

Why is it about debunking???

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 11:54 AM
link   
I have been a happy member of this site for sometime now. One of my more favorite topics is the UFO section. I would like to ask a simple question to everyone on this forum. If there are so many people here that believe in UFO's why then does it seem the main objective is to debunk all new and old information. Shouldn't the believers and non believers be putting the same amount of energy into providing proof?? Now i know and understand that the amount of hoaxes out there are great but shouldn't there be a few genuine encounters.

I believe if people continue to debunk or believe a case to be bunk right from the get go we will never get to disclosure.

Is it easier to prove something false than to prove it real???

Lakewood




posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 12:21 PM
link   
Its called science. You say the word "debunking" as if it were only about attacking the UFO phenomena.

Providing "proof" of something is built up over time. You need to throw out the extraneous, incorrect data. There are tons of folks out there who get their fun from making fun, tricking, or hoaxing people that research UFOs.

In order to prove something is going on, and convince others that may not believe as well, you need to have credibility. Credibility does not come from embracing every light picture, bird picture, or CGI hoax as real bonafide Alien visitation.

Hence why you have folks like myself, that have had a sighting, design engineer with a science/psychology background, that will continously "debunk" the tons of coal out there to find the good diamonds in the rough.

Cheers,

Leibolmai



posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Leibolmai
Its called science. You say the word "debunking" as if it were only about attacking the UFO phenomena.

Providing "proof" of something is built up over time. You need to throw out the extraneous, incorrect data. There are tons of folks out there who get their fun from making fun, tricking, or hoaxing people that research UFOs.




Leibolmai

Yes I do feel that the whole UFO phenomena is being attacked. There are countless threads where people scream CGI or Viral marketing immediately. I also understand the scientific process and that it takes time. I would personally like to see just one report actually be investigated before it is labeled as a hoax. I honestly do not think it will happen here and not now.

My statement is meant to question the process here on ATS of validating or denying events. One day we may have Joe cool from Alabama post actual footage of a UFO. When it does happen we just might miss the boat because it very well could be labeled a HOAX by status quo.


Lakewood



posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 12:46 PM
link   
Some of the debunkers are sorry to say, idiots..someone posted this random explanation for something that it clearly is not

"I think thats just someone holding a cigarette in their hand and the camera is going at really slow motion with lots of exposure. Theres no stars, trees, perspective except for the end and when the sign comes up the video stops before the object goes behind the sign. The object is very small compared to the sign so I'm going to go with the camera guys friend walking on a hill, holding a cigg, at about 15 feet behind the sign."

The sheer ridiculousness of some of the debunks are more outlandish than actually saying its a 'ufo' other explanations range (more commonly) to kites, paragliders (at night no less!!) and the ever robust Chinese Lanterns.
They throw these things out like candy with no less thought or investigation
than people who claim its a UFO too, and it just irritates me to NO END.



posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 12:58 PM
link   
Debunking is a term used for pseudoscience which UFO's falls under. In real science, the term would be proof.

Proving UFO's is just one of those things people either take very seriously or just disregard it as something that only fools or idiots believe in. Very little middle ground is available.

The problem is, there is just so much crap that been posted, viewed, made-up, written about both in fiction and non-fiction forms, movies about UFO's that are documentaries to just plain retarded; that people just don't know what to believe or even where to start.

I won't even go into alien abduction except to say the people who claim the loudest that their sperm/eggs were taken, are usually dateless on weekends and can't even score with the bowling leagues.

This is why it is hard to prove something of this magnitude while using purely scientific analysis for peer review.



posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 01:14 PM
link   
Well, I know we are not alone. I have been seeing UFO's since the early 60's but cannot prove or disprove they where Alien life forms flying or otherwise controlling them lol. I am not even sure we would be even able to contemplate what a visiataion is in my opinion. I am willing to bet however, it has nothing to do with the countless SI-Fi movies and TV programs I have seen.
Now more to the point:
I enjoy and respect the work of people willing to debunk as you say the evidence. I am sometimes too lazy and more times than not, not educated
enough to do annalysys myself.
For instance, that civil war pic of an apparent ufo had be bedazzled for days until I logged in and saw it was a damned farce. That irritates me, not the debunkers. I had my mind going for more than several hours over that crap.
Yes, I appreciate the debunkers as you call them and that is full well knowing we aren't alone and knowing they probably don't want to have a close relationship with our primative self killing selves lol.
I've been waiting for disclosure as some have called it since John Gleen went into space. Now I am alot wiser and know they can't be bothered by disclosing themselves to a species that to them must be comparable to the way we see ants.
Vance



posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 01:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by lakewoodrealtor
If there are so many people here that believe in UFO's why then does it seem the main objective is to debunk all new and old information. Shouldn't the believers and non believers be putting the same amount of energy into providing proof??


The animosity for "debunking" or as I call it "critical examination", is largely due to the public desire for something to be real or not real as it pertains to UFO reality. Thats where the infighting, and so on comes from. It's become for many a very solid belief system, akin to religion. No one is any less venomous when attacked for religious beliefs.

But the issue is getting to the core of the subject and sluffing off garbage. Sure there are alot of sightings and reports...but by in large it's still a rare phenomena. To buy into all the reports and faked photos is not doing the subject any favors. It's too important a subject to relinquish it to the likes of Meier, Greer and Chad, just to name a few.

This also doesnt do it any favors in the sense of getting more true scientific examination of the enigma. Real science (by in large) still sees this as "fringe". You have to do what you can to move away from that. This is a ridiculously complex subject, and might have more then one answer.

But what people fail and fail again to understand is...say for instance a picture of a UFO comes up, and there's just no good answer or signs of hoaxing...it's solid. Then what. Where do you think youre going to go from there. All I can personally do as an analyst and researcher is file it and wait for others to be seen that might be similar, and go from there.

Same for disclosure. I spoke til 4 am with Nick Pope this past saturday night and he's stated that disclosure for the UK has already begun with the release of documents, and over 4 phases it will all be out there to see, and will take around 2 years.

But again, aside from looking at reports..what is there to do after that? What if disclosure is not what you thought it was going to be? What are you going to do with disclosure.

It's a reality. So what, most of us already think we know that (or at least think there's something to it) or else we wouldnt be here.

Until then, we have to be diligent about policing our own. If we continue on the current line...this subject will stagnate more then it already has. And it's bad now. Real bad.

You have to take out the trash, or it'll block your way out the door and we'll never know whats outside.



[edit on 18-9-2007 by jritzmann]



posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 01:54 PM
link   
First of all, I think nearly everyone here, whether they tend to be skeptical or not, would very much like an honest good sighting, would very much like the truth about Disclosure, and would very much like incontrovertible proof of—whatever UFOs represent and really are. I say ‘nearly’ realizing there may be a few people who would prefer not to know, really. I believe the vast majority of all of us DO want to know, especially if we frequent ATS.

To get beyond this is a multi-faceted problem. The first issue, as you mentioned, are the many hoaxes perpetrated upon people who are interested. These are admitted hoaxes acknowledged as such by the perpetrator. At any given time I would guess there is a least one hoax being perpetrated on the members of ATS on these threads. A couple of recent hoaxes that ‘made it’ in terms of volume of posts are the Haiti UFOs and GhostRaven, both of these in the last few months. Everyone, whether a believer or skeptical, now knows these two hoaxes were, indeed, hoaxes. It is no longer a matter of debate. There were actually a few people who held on to the bitter end, suggesting the confessions were faked. That shows you the power of belief right there.

The second problem is that of credulous and gullible people. My favorite is Francine, known as Gottigo on YouTube. She recently removed all her videos, but there is still ample material on her there. Francine regularly takes pictures of airplanes, car headlights, and tower navigation lights and calls them UFOs. In one of the better sightings she took a picture of an airplane in flight. You can see the wings, the fuselage, the wing tips, and even the logo on the side of the plane. It’s a commercial jetliner owned by Continental executing a shallow left-hand turn, but she adamantly insists it is a ‘UFO.’ It isn’t. Most normal people looking at the film can see that it isn’t. Since Gottigo was pretty nasty in her defense (we can’t repeat the words and phrases she uses here) she was treated the same way and has left YouTube in disgrace.

There are gradations of the Francine Phenomenon. People here will frequently put up pictures of space junk and proclaim them to be incontrovertible proof of aliens from space. They see something they don’t understand and proclaim, with little or no evidence that this proves aliens. When people say ‘maybe not’ these same folks will defend their leap of faith by saying it’s all a government cover-up. That’s a neat, tidy package, all a fantasy. But the point is that lights in the sky do not prove aliens from space. That’s simply not good enough.

The third problem is the UFO Religion. These are movements within and outside the UFO community that usually revolve around a charismatic figure and proclaim aliens have contacted them, told them Truths about the Universe, and have a religious belief system about them. There are gradations here as well. Not all of these can be termed ‘cults,’ though some can. Examples are Adamski, Bethurum, the Raellians, Billy Meier, Greer, and Heaven’s Gate. Some of these cultish groups are involved in perpetrating actual hoaxes, and some of them are more of the Gottigo believer type, but all of them will defend their beliefs with rigor. To them the quest for truth is over. They know it. Their issue is to convince everyone else they have already learned the Truth.

The fourth issue is the contactees. Some people claim personal contact with aliens. Some of these develop into UFO Religions, but many are simply personal encounter stories. I don’t think you can discount all these stories. Contactees, at least some, are experiencing something. They do often contradict each other. Though I am loathe to call these people liars, the alien beings they meet might be. These issues certainly deserve further study, but they are by their very nature personal experiences that can’t easily be used as proof of alien visitation.

The fifth issue is disinformation, which is really part of the hoax issue. I believe there is ample evidence that disinformation campaigns have been perpetrated on the UFO community. These may be government programs. They may be private programs. They may be from people with egos and fantasies to match. They are surely disruptive to the study of UFOs and present problems, including diverting our attention away from more promising avenues of research.

The sixth issue is conflicting belief structures. We have people here who believe in reincarnation and tell us all about aliens and Truth. We have people who believe they have an ‘alien soul.’ How they know this is much like a contactee experience. We just are expected to accept. We have people who are fundamentalist Christians, atheists, and everyone in between. As we all no doubt realize, there is no sense in trying to understand religious beliefs. It’s a matter of faith. But—the different faiths conflict on this subject. Still, they are a part of the discussion.

The seventh issue is the monumental crap that’s put forward as real. Just look at the threads: Is Hillary a Reptilian/demon? Is Bush? Is Osama? Is God an alien? Are we aliens? Look, there are hanger bay doors on the moon! You don’t really suggest we take these seriously, do you?

I don’t think one-line debunking, which we see a lot of here, is useful. These people may be correct to say, “Ah, CGI, you dummies.” But without some investigation into the matter, I think these comments can be written off ALONG WITH statements like: “I believe everything about Billy Meier.” Neither are particularly useful. Making up stuff about what something might possibly be is not the same as proving something is not what is claimed.

Having said that, the fact is that if you make an extraordinary claim about reality, it’s up to you to prove it, not up to others to disprove it. Get with the program and answer the questions. Yes, some of them will be hard and even antagonistic, but get over it. You know how much we’ve been burned before. But claiming a government disinformation cover up a cop out. It’s not an answer and you don’t know that for sure anyway. It’s an assumption.

MEANWHILE we’ve got GREAT cases with little information. Cash-Landrum, Rendlesham Forest, and despite all its issues, Roswell. There’s Maury Island, hundreds of pilot sightings, O’Hare, etc. These have never been explained, and never been debunked successfully. These are cases that very well could ‘move the issue forward.’ It’s not debunkers who are preventing forward momentum. It’s the credulous gullible acceptance of every story that leads us in all directions at once and prevents any progress.


[edit on 9/18/2007 by schuyler]



posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by lakewoodrealtor
I have been a happy member of this site for sometime now. One of my more favorite topics is the UFO section. I would like to ask a simple question to everyone on this forum. If there are so many people here that believe in UFO's why then does it seem the main objective is to debunk all new and old information. Shouldn't the believers and non believers be putting the same amount of energy into providing proof?? Now i know and understand that the amount of hoaxes out there are great but shouldn't there be a few genuine encounters.

I believe if people continue to debunk or believe a case to be bunk right from the get go we will never get to disclosure.

Is it easier to prove something false than to prove it real???

Lakewood


Well shall we sit back and let people post the crap they do without saying anything, would you as UFO enthusiast like to be ridiculed anymore than you are allready?

Debunking is important and needs to happen, not only does it sort out the crap from the interesting but it also helps others to learn about this subject.

If people were to freely post there crap such as hot dogs through microwaves and the aliens on the telephone without any debunking then whole scene would become a laughing stock!



posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 03:31 PM
link   
Limitations of Science: It doesn't explain everything. And it will never.



posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 03:45 PM
link   
I think that the biggest problem is that most people give more attention and/or "weight" to the cases that create the most polarised views.

As schuyler said, there are many cases that where not proved or disproved, but for some reason the UFO enthusiasts, apparently, ignore those cases, maybe in the hope of finding the most spectacular case, maybe even the one that proves that their idea of UFOs/Aliens is the real one.

Those cases, here on ATS, usually see their threads slow down until they stop because of lack of more evidence, unlike those recent hotly debated hoaxes that have a sudden "death by hoax".

Having said that, you may have reached the conclusion that I do not believe in UFOs.

But I do, I do believe that there are some things that sometimes appear in our atmosphere (and maybe outside) for which we do not have an explanation, and although I have never seen a UFO I know two people who have seen a UFO, in both cases the same type.

But if you ask me if I believe that they are space ships from other planet(s) then I would say that I seriously doubt it, not because I may doubt that there is life outside Earth (which I do not), but because there is so much life on Earth I think that the most probable explanation is that they are from here. What they are I do not know.


Originally posted by lakewoodrealtor
One day we may have Joe cool from Alabama post actual footage of a UFO. When it does happen we just might miss the boat because it very well could be labeled a HOAX by status quo.
I don't think that will happen, at least judging from some of the cases that have appeared here in the last year or so.

We had the case of the shape shifting worm like tube with strange light..., the Tallahassee UFO and some other cases where the witness provided or at least showed the intention of providing the original videos/photos of the event, the first step in verifying the veracity of any of such cases.



posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by lakewoodrealtor
If there are so many people here that believe in UFO's why then does it seem the main objective is to debunk all new and old information.


I dont consider stringently and critically looking for the truth as debunking. I see it as critical analysis, using common sense and a lot less speculation than I see used here - it has to be done in order to separate the wheat from the chaff and in this field we are up to our eyeballs in chaff.


Shouldn't the believers and non believers be putting the same amount of energy into providing proof??


There shouldnt be a belief system wrapped up in this. Believing in something requires that you be biased and less objective when confronted with an unknown. It ruins good fresh perspective and spoils out of the box thinking - this isnt a religion.


Is it easier to prove something false than to prove it real???


In reality it is wrong to attempt to prove a negative. I dont think that most here want to try an prove anything false perse, they only want what one person claims as the truth to be able to stand up to very high standards of scrutiny and peer review - to be what a common consensus would agree to be the truth. If someone claims something spectacular then the burden of "proof" is on that claimant.

Now if someone walks in and shouts "LIAR!" the burden of proof should shift or be shared between the claimant and the prosecutor. This boils down to a belief system again, the claimant wanting so desperately to be believed but having their claims picked apart by what they percieve as vultures waiting for the next carcass to come along. From my perspective that couldnt be further from the truth. I wold never come here with a claim or testimony expecting to be believed. I dont require anyone elses beliefs to validate what in my head I know I saw/experienced. I'm a big boy, I can figure it out for myself.....



posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 03:51 PM
link   
Men oh Men! Before I got to this site I was a gullible as any other fanatic UFO believer, I have seen things that I was sure to be true being debunked here many years ago, then I realize that I was a blind believer, I have change my ways ever since I got here.

Now that I have seen the fakes, everytime that I go outside and look at the skies I realize how gullible I was, when the real thing shows up and is recorded if it ever happens, we would know for sure that is the real thing.

I still believe that there is the possibility of something being out there, the possibilities are huge.

I think "debunkers" here do a great job in keeping people like me in check and not get us to overexcited, of course at the end if your choice to believe or not, but the facts can not be ignored.



posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by lakewoodrealtor
I have been a happy member of this site for sometime now. One of my more favorite topics is the UFO section. I would like to ask a simple question to everyone on this forum. If there are so many people here that believe in UFO's why then does it seem the main objective is to debunk all new and old information. Shouldn't the believers and non believers be putting the same amount of energy into providing proof?? Now i know and understand that the amount of hoaxes out there are great but shouldn't there be a few genuine encounters.

I believe if people continue to debunk or believe a case to be bunk right from the get go we will never get to disclosure.

Is it easier to prove something false than to prove it real???

Lakewood


You must be a seagull. I can see the vague outline of wings and a beak in your post. Or maybe you're just a pan someone threw in the air.

I completely agree. It's not even rational discussion anymore. People discredit images or videos without any thought. It's obvious they aren't THINKING before posting, because they come up with some of the most ridiculous arguments I have ever seen.



posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 03:56 PM
link   
A few days ago I began searching the archives or old threads at ATS. And I was pleased to find a thread every now and then, in which the UFO picture or video could not be debunked and was not debunked. The latest example was a thread opened by MirthfulMe with a UFO above a streetsign. There was no debunk on that thread and the thread now rests peacefully as further evidence. Take a close look around and you will find your evidence.

As to your opening statement, I agree that too much weight/priorisation/attention is put on disproving rather than proving. Both sides are necessary, but its strange that a UFO-Conspiracy-Forum would have more weight on the other side.



posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by chickeneater
Limitations of Science: It doesn't explain everything. And it will never.

Although this one-liner is irrelevant to the topic here you might want to take it to the science and technology forum and see how it flies there. Should be interesting.



3. Science: The Art of naming, measuring and observing mysterious phenomenons.


Is that what they teach at Harvard?



posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by schuyler

Originally posted by chickeneater
Limitations of Science: It doesn't explain everything. And it will never.

Although this one-liner is irrelevant to the topic here you might want to take it to the science and technology forum and see how it flies there. Should be interesting.



3. Science: The Art of naming, measuring and observing mysterious phenomenons.


Is that what they teach at Harvard?


Can we make peace? I mean, I love starwars too! Maybe not as much as you do


No, they don't "teach" at Harvard, they make you think for yourself, and that my friend, you may never get.

*end hi-jack*

Carry on!



posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by chickeneater
Can we make peace? I mean, I love starwars too! Maybe not as much as you do


No, they don't "teach" at Harvard, they make you think for yourself, and that my friend, you may never get.


I thought you wanted peace. Ok with me. I'm OK with StarWars, but not really a fan. My grandkids make me watch it. It's one of the great movie 'phenomenons' of all time. :-)

But seriously, take your sentiment to the science & technology forum where the philosophy and methods of science are open to question, debated, and on topic. You might have an interesting discussion. Just tell them you think science can't explain all phenomenons and that ought to get you started nicely.

P.S. i think everyone knows who gets it.

[edit on 9/18/2007 by schuyler]



posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 04:59 PM
link   
Something happens to a person when they see not only mass sightings with video reported by city local news stations, but when they have seen with their own eyes multiple times ufo's one at close range, a thousand feet over head. The lack of sound, the chilling feeling of seeing something most extraordinary. I don't know where to begin to how an event like this changes a persons thinking and ability to be open minded to the point of gulliblity. I do not blame the debunkers. I used to be one of them. Over the years after having become very interested in the topic I assimilated as much info as possible and became more opened minded to the possibility of existence from first hand reports from pilots, police, judges, etc.
I just heard last nite on coast a physicist say 'I've never been to Taiwan, but I believe it exists'. It's more of a mindset than anything. I truly wonder why some people rant and rave to the point of insult the complete denial of even the possibility of their existence. I wonder what Dr. Phil would have to say about that. Let me be clear, this is NOT a slam on debunkers, more of a critique on the inability of some's lack of open mindedness.



posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 05:20 PM
link   
reply to post by jpm1602
 



Keeping an open mind, even on things you can't yet explain is not a scientific trait. Scientists NEED to have an answer, and that is it's fault.

Because they can't answer everything. For example, what do scientists and debunkers call those HUNDREDS and THOUSANDS of UFO eyewitnesess?

Liars.




top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join