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.

 

Show Me A Sceptic That Does Not Believe In Aliens

page: 6
14
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 09:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Xtraeme
 


Then maybe a new organization is needed. One with sincere commitment to careful, methodical and credible research into the topic.




posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 10:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
reply to post by Xtraeme
 


Then maybe a new organization is needed. One with sincere commitment to careful, methodical and credible research into the topic.


I don't doubt the sincerity of organizations like CUFOS or NARCAP. However their methodology isn't going to convince anyone in scientific circles. If there is going to be a "ufology" there needs to be a software platform that can pull data from every sensory device the world over. Think SETI for UFOs. However designing something like this would require considerable resources.

It's one thing to make a small tool that does automatic identification of airplanes, weather balloons, low magnitude planet / star identification, etc and also notifies other human beings in the area of the sighting.

It's another to hook it up so as it progresses through the on-device automated identification, it not only notifies humans, it distributes observational parameters to remote peripherals. Next would be the in-depth analysis step. With decent image processing software / audio decomposition / overlaying other data you could probably automate ~50-60% of the harder identifications. To decrease CPU load it would be best to break it up in to distributable tasks using BOINC. That still leaves ~40-50% that's manual. This also has to be distributed in an efficient manner. My best solution is mimicking Amazon's Mechanical Turk.

With a fully realized system identifications could probably happen within say 10-20 minutes. Anything outside of that would be a genuine unknown.

I'm only one person and I've tried my damnedest to get people with pockets that are in this field interested in the project, but that's not happening. So I'll make what I can, but while I'm doing that I'm going to advocate heavily that governmental investigation be reopened (fat lot of good that'll do me).

[edit on 13-4-2009 by Xtraeme]



posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 10:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Xtraeme
 


"I don't doubt the sincerity of organizations like CUFOS or NARCAP. However their methodology isn't going to convince anyone in scientific circles. "

Can they be fixed? Do they WANT to be fixed?



posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 11:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
reply to post by Xtraeme
 

Can they be fixed?

I'd be lying if I said I thought they were broken. They continue to serve a function collecting cases, there is more public acceptance of the idea due to their efforts and they also have compiled / archived large bodies of information. Unfortunately all of these functions are custodial and not terribly research oriented.


Do they WANT to be fixed?


First off I think like any organization they want to survive and if they're smart they're suspect of anyone who comes along telling them how to improve. Second, it's not so much that they need to be "fixed" as they should modernize and use technology to the fullest.

I'm sure in their minds the idea of a "SETI for UFOs" probably just makes me the newest Johnny-come-lately.



posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 11:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Xtraeme
 


"I'm sure in their minds the idea of a "SETI for UFOs" probably just makes me the newest Johnny-come-lately. "

If they could develop the same creds as SETI they'd be light years ahead of where they are now. It's all a matter of following research rigors that are accepted by the rest of the scientific community. Just taking everything presented on face value isn't going to help.



posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
reply to post by Xtraeme
 


If they could develop the same creds as SETI they'd be light years ahead of where they are now. It's all a matter of following research rigors that are accepted by the rest of the scientific community. Just taking everything presented on face value isn't going to help.


I agree. Hopefully they'll come around after I release the first rev of the app for the iPhone.



posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 11:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by XtraemeI agree. Hopefully they'll come around after I release the first rev of the app for the iPhone.


In the end, it's going to be up to the "consumers". If you grass-roots people don't insist on good research, nobody's going to bother. If you keep buying kaa-kaa, they'll keep publishing kaa-kaa.

Vote with your feet, or face defeat.



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 06:17 PM
link   
I'm a skeptic (not a septic though) and I don't believe or not believe in anything.

If something can't be found to probably be true, then I have no need to speculate on or against it's validity. Anything else would be welcoming ignorance in.

Deny Ignorance. Do not believe or disbelieve anything. KNOW.



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 06:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheUnCola
I'm a skeptic (not a septic though) and I don't believe or not believe in anything.

If something can't be found to probably be true, then I have no need to speculate on or against it's validity. Anything else would be welcoming ignorance in.

Deny Ignorance. Do not believe or disbelieve anything. KNOW.

Apparently that's too much work. Some people have been complaining when I request proof of their claims. They're insulted that I would dare ask such a rude question.



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 06:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
Apparently that's too much work. Some people have been complaining when I request proof of their claims. They're insulted that I would dare ask such a rude question.


Can I ask for proof that people have been complaining or were insulted when you asked for proof? I wouldn't want you to make baseless proclamations and misrepresent members. This is why I personally feel your comments to be "insulting" - because they are insulting.


[edit on 14-4-2009 by Malcram]



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 06:45 PM
link   
I think you also have to factor in you are visiting the

THE MOST POPULAR WEBSITE FOR ALTERNATIVE TOPICS

around here it is genarally assumed aliens are here, the only discussion is if they are running the NWO or eating us

I try to keep this in mind.

If you sort through the rubbish, there are some brilliant posters here discussing awe-inspiring ideas



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 06:47 PM
link   
reply to post by syrinx high priest
 


"around here it is genarally assumed aliens are here, the only discussion is if they are running the NWO or eating us "

And they really, really don't like the idea that not everybody agrees with them. Which is just plain weird given the theme of the forum. You'd think conformity would be a no-no, not a requirement.

"You can't be a non-conformist if you don't wear the correct uniform."



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 06:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xtraeme
Sadly I don't think ufology is salvageable.


Well, there's nothing that money won't fix, right? The unfortunate thing is that studying UFOs is kind of like studying meteorites, except so far there's never been one staying on the ground that could be kicked around by scientists for while. "Real" UFOs are actually extremely rare. Less than a half dozen a year, if that many. Even meteors are easier to record and document in mid-air. And it's not like SETI, where presumably part of your goal is to catch a stable signal you'll have some time to record and study as needed.

So with few or no traces, the bulk of UFO investigation has to be all second- and third-hand, after the fact. Eyewitness reports are okay, and for all anybody knows could be truthful, but they don't really answer any questions. Except for the contactee reports, maybe, and those never seem to have the verified physical evidence to back them up, either.

Another obvious problem you run into is that the various goverments of the world do test fly odd aircraft. And if you ask them if something some woodsman saw was one of their secret aircraft, they're obviously going to say "no," and that will constantly give you large amounts of false data.

No, unfortunately, the only way to apparently break the study of UFOs and such open is a significant public event, such as an obviously "alien" saucer crashing into the middle of a city. Given the skill these things have at just vanishing into thin air, chances of that happening are extremely slim. And if something like that did happen, it would be handled by more official organizations, and not a bunch of amateurs wandering through the woods looking for angel hair.

No, about the best we can do is keep forums like this open, where we can gather information and sort through all the garbage to see if there's something of value. There's a lot of garbage, and so far the only thing of value is the idea that out of the incredible accumulated volume of reports, not everybody can be completely wrong, lying, or crazy. That's very improbable.

So we wait. And wait.



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 06:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Gawdzilla
 


yeah but if you went into a church and stood up and demanded proof of god you might have a point, but it would be pretty rude and pretty pointless as well



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 07:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
reply to post by Gawdzilla
 


yeah but if you went into a church and stood up and demanded proof of god you might have a point, but it would be pretty rude and pretty pointless as well

Um, you should know that I'm an atheist.



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 07:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nohup
Well, there's nothing that money won't fix, right?


I'm not sure if this is a flippant statement or said in earnest. Sadly, money doesn't solve all problems. However it does help when used appropriately.


The unfortunate thing is that studying UFOs is kind of like studying meteorites, except so far there's never been one staying on the ground that could be kicked around by scientists for while. "Real" UFOs are actually extremely rare. Less than a half dozen a year, if that many. Even meteors are easier to record and document in mid-air. And it's not like SETI, where presumably part of your goal is to catch a stable signal you'll have some time to record and study as needed.


This is an argument for rapid-response, software to aid in rapid-response, and an argument for designing a platform that can utilize all sensory hardware the world-over to pull in more data when unknowns do crop-up.


So with few or no traces, the bulk of UFO investigation has to be all second- and third-hand, after the fact. Eyewitness reports are okay, and for all anybody knows could be truthful, but they don't really answer any questions. Except for the contactee reports, maybe, and those never seem to have the verified physical evidence to back them up, either.


I disagree. If you have a platform that pre-screens for obvious knowns (checking flight paths, low magnitude stars / planets, etc) and you continue to filter at every stage until identification is achieved. You're effectively staging in additional sensory equipment as appropriate.


Another obvious problem you run into is that the various goverments of the world do test fly odd aircraft. And if you ask them if something some woodsman saw was one of their secret aircraft, they're obviously going to say "no," and that will constantly give you large amounts of false data.


Again this is just another thing to filter for.

Think of it this way. Lets say I release the platform I've been describing above and every iPhone user downloads and uses it. Now lets say of those users 100 or so spot and record experimental, top secret military crafts. This information spreads. The government is forced in to an awkward position and produces bogus data to refute the claim. The more the government does this the more it makes the case for a genuine study of UFOs.

The military digs itself a hole in either scenario. Either they genuinely admit when something recorded is a TS craft so an independent organization can research the real unknowns with some reliability or the military lies become so transparently obvious that it becomes a major threat to the secrecy structure, exposing our TS efforts to the enemy, that it behooves the military to simply take on the responsibility of studying the unknowns rather than continue to jeopardize state-secrecy.


No, unfortunately, the only way to apparently break the study of UFOs and such open is a significant public event, such as an obviously "alien" saucer crashing into the middle of a city. Given the skill these things have at just vanishing into thin air, chances of that happening are extremely slim. And if something like that did happen, it would be handled by more official organizations, and not a bunch of amateurs wandering through the woods looking for angel hair.


Consider most of the good UFO cases are military cases. Even the best civilian cases involve quasi-governmental recognition (ie/ JAL-1628). I'm always shocked at how little attention the '80s Hudson Valley sightings received. However it makes sense in that it was almost completely civilian-based observation.


No, about the best we can do is keep forums like this open, where we can gather information and sort through all the garbage to see if there's something of value. There's a lot of garbage, and so far the only thing of value is the idea that out of the incredible accumulated volume of reports, not everybody can be completely wrong, lying, or crazy. That's very improbable.


This forum is just one means of filtering (unstructured in the case of ATS). No different than a software platform.


So we wait. And wait.


We now have the technology to increase our knowledge on this subject. I have no patience and if writing this software causes the government to squirm. So be it. I'm sick of lies. I'm sick of the BS fanciful stories. I want to know if there's a genuine threat and if there is what's being done about it.

[edit on 15-4-2009 by Xtraeme]



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 07:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Xtraeme
 


As a veteran I would be perturbed if we started announcing tests of secret aircraft. "The public has a right to know, even if GIs get killed because of that!" just sticks in my craw.



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 07:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
reply to post by Xtraeme
 


As a veteran I would be perturbed if we started announcing tests of secret aircraft. "The public has a right to know, even if GIs get killed because of that!" just sticks in my craw.


My father was USMC. I have family in the military as well. I consider the good with the bad.



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 07:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xtraeme

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
reply to post by Xtraeme
 


As a veteran I would be perturbed if we started announcing tests of secret aircraft. "The public has a right to know, even if GIs get killed because of that!" just sticks in my craw.


My father was USMC. I have family in the military as well. I consider the good with the bad.

The bad is way bad, the good only so-so, IMNSHO.



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 08:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
The bad is way bad, the good only so-so, IMNSHO.


Now do you understand why I would prefer continued government investigation of this phenomenon? If I go forward with this I fully realize the implications for state secrecy and I don't like that. I would much prefer honest sharing of information between an academic body studying this phenomenon and the military.




top topics



 
14
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join