Well, i don't know if there's really a negative trend: some days, we have the first page of "Aliens & UFOs" forum with a lot of interesting cases,
as well as it may happen that the first fifteen threads are questionable to say the least: today, for example, is not a "good" one. But this is
value about ATS.
In general, the causes have always been the same: hoax and misinterpretations. This is easy to say, and we can also say that all started after Kenneth
Arnold's sighting (by the media's point of view):
In the weeks that followed Arnold's June, 1947 story, at least several hundred reports of similar sightings flooded in from the U.S. and around the
world — most of which described saucer-shaped objects. A sighting by a United Airlines crew of another nine, disk-like objects over Idaho on July 4
probably garnered more newspaper coverage than Arnold's original sighting, and opened the floodgates of media coverage in the days to follow.
Bloecher collected reports of 853 flying disc sightings that year from 140 newspapers from Canada, Washington D.C, and every U.S. state save
Montana. This was more UFO reports for 1947 than most researchers ever suspected. Some of these stories were poorly documented or fragmentary, but
Bloecher argued that about 250 of the more detailed reports (such as those made by pilots or scientists, multiple eyewitnesses, or backed by photos)
made a persuasive case for a genuine mystery.
CGI at the time didn't exist yet, but of course attention seekers already did. Now, should we assume that it was a wave, that it was a bunch of
hoaxes, that it was a bunch of misintepretations or all three the cases, or some of them or no one of them?
Of course, it was NOT a coincidence.
Presently, we have some really interesting sightings that often are "hidden" somewhere, often "obscured" by something of more "spectacular":
one of the problems is that between CGI artists, it seems that the creation of an UFO sighting is something like a "test": the more is reliable, (or
better, difficult to debunk), the more the artist is "skilled". This is also partially consequence of UFO Haiti (Views: 8,536,295
While many of us "hated" David Nicolas as we "hate" every single hoaxer, many CGI artists or wannabeee ones, took his "feat" as something to
By THIS view yes, there's a strong increase of cases. But at the same time, CGI videos are NOT very relevant for statistic: the authors of such crap,
generally hide behind a nickname on youtube, upload their crap then vanish forever, or in the "best" cases, they provide one line/two lines of
I mean, all this stuff is not relevant statistically, and won't take place in the serious UFO history.
But in the meantime, it's generating some really negative consequences:
- is driving many people to focus on the WRONG direction, and this generates a LOSS of serious debates on serious stuff:
- is getting the media's attention: and this generates a further loss of reliability of the subject matter: see the "nice job" that is being done
by "The Sun". While we know that that newspaper is a crock, many people may base their thoughts on what they see there or on similar publications:
basically, all this affects the public opinion, the vox populi
So the problem is not only in the stuff that comes out, but also in how it is released and in who (and how) takes it in.
All that we can do, the ONLY thing that we can do, in my humble opinion, is to try to do our best to debunk the crap and to focus on the serious
This is what we can do: it's not so much, but is all that we have.
When you see a thread started by some attention seeker, don't stop there just to tell him/here that he's/she's an attention seeker: just carry on.
ATS is an extremely powerful weapon: we have people coming from all around the world.
Now, with the introduction of The UFO-Alien Applied Linguistics Registry
we have a
rough idea what we may do: we have people able (and available) to cover 16 different languages, some of those languages cover five, six MORE
To break the language barrier would be an huge improvement.
I mean, we have many tools to improve the research, and this international community that allows us to share what we have to add.
Serious research can kill the crap: censorship / banning cannot.
Thank you for this thread, skept!cal
[edit on 12/7/2008 by internos]