Competing Hoaxes? Is This an ATS Game?, page 1
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 17 times
Topic started on 7-7-2008 @ 01:51 AM by garyo1954
We currently have two threads dealing with alien encounters on the board.
So the reason for this thread is twofold.

First, I'm wondering if this is an ATS Game?
The second is because one of the OP has placed many people on ignore and prevented any open discussion by refusing to answer questions that would lead to some conclusion.

Now, that may be his right but it certainly doesn't help deny ignorance, nor does it lend itself to member participation when a member is undecided, or disagrees.

It does make for a great deal of congratulations and agreement which itself leaves no discussion on the possibility of the event being true.

And that is a bit appalling. It would seem if a party chose, he could use ATS, by way of these same tactics, to prove anything. He could even claim to others, and on other forums, he opened this for discussion on ATS and nobody could disprove it.

In my thinking, that is not what ATS is about. The two threads are here:

Violent Encounter with an Alien Being
Alien ran out of my bedroom window

Both these threads are based on the premise that an alien being was encountered in a home.

One has significant detail; the other has almost no detail.

In both these threads the alien is injured in some manner.

Both threads have drawings of the alien and picture evidence of a related object.

Both these threads appear to have one main player, and each player has a coach.

So are we playing an ATS game?
And if we are not, is anybody looking at the possibility I've raised?

What is everybody thinking about these competing hoaxes?


reply posted on 7-7-2008 @ 02:33 AM by garyo1954
reply to post by JesterMan


Well thank you Jester. You probably saved my sanity with that response. I agree that everyone has the right to free speech so I certainly agree these individuals have the right to their posts and opinions.

What I don't agree with is using ATS to promote false information. In the long run it harms the integrity that this place has worked so hard to achieve.

And it can foster some alarming ideas.

For example in the Violent Encounter with an Alien Being thread, the OP has denied the idea he acted as mad, a maniac, and even a murderer. Yet, in his own words, he says he stabbed it countless times and then....


It opend both palms, held its hands open palm up, and then just started to wobble and fade in and out. . . .but this thing was getting away so i tried leaping on it again.


Go look at Byrd's avatar for an example of what he is saying here.

This creature is showing his hands, the universal sign of surrender. This creature has given up, he's defenseless, wobbling, in and out. And this guy goes and leaps on it again with the intent of murder?

Yes, I can see why a person would call him a maniac.



[edit on 7/7/2008 by garyo1954]



reply posted on 7-7-2008 @ 03:27 AM by garyo1954
reply to post by Sikmike620


I agree with that. If a person wants to validate their claim, how would you suggest they do it?

A picture of a missing screen validates a missing screen, but nothing else.
A picture of a knife without a blade is evidence of a knife without a blade.

We could go further, but neither of these threads have merit. Forty seven people could do the same thing tomorrow.

Its bad for ATS.


reply posted on 7-7-2008 @ 03:37 AM by garyo1954
reply to post by dunwichwitch


I'm open to the possibilities, but the evidence is lacking. My concern is when someone asks a real question, it gets ignored.

I've asked both valid questions.

I asked one why he sought hypnosis regression from his wife's health care friends but did not seek medical attention. I think that is pertinent.

I asked the other why he described the alien as dark or black, and the skin was yellow or tan (at that time.

These are real issues to validate something.


reply posted on 7-7-2008 @ 03:44 AM by garyo1954
reply to post by Dan Tanna


Dan, I consider you a gentleman and a friend. I DO NOT doubt something occurred. I wish I had an explanation, I'd give it to you gladly.

I try to see things with a open mind. I'll tell you right out when I'm wrong though.

I hope your memory continues to come back and you see everything clearly.


reply posted on 7-7-2008 @ 04:53 AM by nexusmagazine
Originally posted by dunwichwitch
Either they are hoaxes....

or things are heating up.

Out of hundreds of alien encounter threads on this site, would you doubt the sanity or honesty of them ALL?

Keep an open mind is all you can do. Things tend to reveal themselves with time. No proof necessary.

Fear is ripe with proofseekers.

I'll admit, that pic of the piece of skin kinda looks like chicken skin... but I've seen similar colored beings with that head shape. I remember thinking how eerie a resemblence it had to ET (the movie) or one of those creatures in the cantina from star wars. Weird. Memories come in waves.


I'd say things are heating up.

Look, most of the people screaming 'hoax' are just not in a position to know the full extent of the situation. And even the 'true believers' who read their ufo mags are not aware of the full picture.

The truth is that there are hundreds more similar cases just here in Australia that I know of (albeit without the bloodshed) that are simply not reported - even to ufo organisations. How do I know this? Because I have interviewed scores of such cases myself. I would assume that America and the UK have a proportionately larger number.

Significantly, around 95%+ NEVER want their experiences known outside of a few family or friends, if that. Even though I would love to see their experiences known by more people, they simply refuse permission to make them public. At my office I have received plenty of calls over the years, some that were basically counselling sessions from distraught experiencers. Not one of these has ever appeared in my magazine, or in any others, nor on any blogsites etc.

Many of you should realise that the automatic derision and accusations of "hoax", and the spite which is so evident in so many posts, is going to result in fewer people wanting to ever come forward with their own experience. If this happens, we all lose potentially important information.

I appreciate the desire to stop deliberate hoaxers who just want to prove points or cause trouble, and I really wish I could think up a fool-proof way to discern between them to save us all time and eye-strain - but I can't.

So until then, I think an area on ATS where people can post any claimed experience is the only solution - until someone comes up with something better.

Duncan


reply posted on 7-7-2008 @ 11:03 AM by aerialview
reply to post by garyo1954


I agree with you. evidence is important. do words=evidence?? i dont think so.


reply posted on 7-7-2008 @ 11:48 AM by garyo1954
Originally posted by aerialview
reply to post by garyo1954


I agree with you. evidence is important. do words=evidence?? i dont think so.



That is certainly a good point! And something I haven't given much thought to beforehand. I can relate to it from a jury point of view.

No matter what evidence is presented, a jury wants to hear the defendant tell his/her side. They want to decide for themselves if this person is telling the truth or lying. They want to know if his thoughts and actions were reasonable under the given situation.

They want to hear in his own words, his actions, his thoughts, and hear his reactions and emotions before making a decision.

We don't have the opportunity to look a person in the face to see these things. All we have is words. We all agree honest people don't offer disingenuous ideas, but they might open something up for discussion they don't understand, or perhaps misunderstand.

When that happens, we place the burden of proof on them. We must, being honest ourselves, allow them every opportunity to present any evidence in their favor so as not to misjudge them.

I'm all for that. However, words do shape our perception of the overall account.

Consider if someone tells you they saw a floating cube. The immediate thought is a six sided square or rectangular object. But when the depiction of the object is produced it is recognized to be an octagon, which is more spherical.

We could probably spin a dozen reasons why the two differ, but the underlying question remains: How could a reasonable intelligent, well educated person who was mesmerized or totally absorbed by this spinning object not recognized the difference? How can this person who has had this object burned in their brain for all time, and who continues to scribble it not be able to describe it just as it is drawn?

And in fact, describes it differently than they have drawn it?

Where words alone make poor evidence, they lay a foundation and lend credibility to the overall story. They help us decide.


reply posted on 7-7-2008 @ 12:06 PM by garyo1954
reply to post by roadgravel


I haven't touched on this idea of things heating up yet. I'm a fence sitter on that.

Sometimes I ask myself if things are happening at a more rapid pace, or if we only perceive that happening.

We are more aware of events since we have more media which is fed by more advertising which feeds the necessity of more media, etc.

In a simpler way, we have cyclic feeding process where media is always looking for more ways to get advertising dollars and advertisers are looking to be a part of the next giant fad that could be the boon or bust for their product or service.

This is a good thing.

The consumer, inundated with information, is more aware of the world around him and more aware of products and services that may affect his purchasing choices in the future. Everybody wins.

Are we more aware of things that were happening all the time but weren't talked about, or are things really heating up?

I don't know.


reply posted on 7-7-2008 @ 01:04 PM by garyo1954
reply to post by maria_stardust


I believe at one point in the thread you referenced I pointed out that you made a good point. I can't recall where that was but if you look, I'm sure you'll find it.

I don't deny the story is compelling. It is very entertaining, albeit violent. I would be more than willing to have any discussion you want on the merits of evidence. I am open to discussing why you feel it is true, if you feel that way.

I will admit, I read (even contributed as far back as page 1) and began with the thought there was something there.

Sadly as I watched it play out, I found the evidence was less than believable.
I began to see the OP hit the ignore button more frequently when people were asking relevant questions. The thread became a montage of answering the same questions over and over and complaining each time that same question was asked, yet no attempt was made to answer other questions.

I said in that thread all possibilities should be put on the table.

Among the possibilities I listed is that it is a hallucination or someone might be playing a hoax on the OP.
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4  >>    ^^TOP^^




Newest topics getting replies, in real-time:

Anonymous show your face!
  Rant, Posted 14 hours ago, 68 replies