Do UFO

Most of the threads in ATS dealing with UFOs seem to be populated by "true believers" who have left any pretense of scientific evidence far behind and are now concerned with Grays vs. Reptilians, Grays vs. Nordics, etc. It's nice that there is a forum for this (I guess), but is anybody interested in the science of trying to actually prove any of this UFO stuff, or are we just making a religion of alien existence?
In a popular thread recently, few seemed to know the difference between a skeptic and a debunker. That should have told me something. If you aren't skeptical, then how do you ever expect to convince "main-stream science" that the UFO field is worth research money? If you don't care about that, I guess you're just another cult member.

The field of ufology is not very easy as you think. In case it is promoted as a main stream research field and evidence starts of come regarding the existence of extraterrestrial life, though the goal would be achieved, there would be a lot of problems which might crop up. That is why it is not promoted as expected.

One of the problems is that the people of a country might coax the government to contact the aliens and have a healthy relationship between them. And for doomsdayers, they would go on a rampage that, alien life is real and they are soon going to attack us. And some might even try to attack the alien space ships and down them. And as you know, this would create lots of problems.

reply to post by Office 4256


I would agree that there are a lot of threads that are hard for me to believe. That's not the OP's fault, or the contents fault...it's usually MY fault.

I really want to believe that there are ETs out there, waiting to communicate via the 'speak and spell' and following my trail of reese's pieces to fix my dead houseplants.

I usually notice the exact opposite of you, I suppose, OP. Usually, I'm a little dissappointed that everything gets slammed if it has to do with a pic, a video or a personal account of a weird experience. There just doesn't seem to be any real proof out there. If there is, I haven't seen some of the more hard core skeptics around here get behind it.

I think there is a good mix here. People that are wide open to anything, and people that are so close minded that it just sort of balances itself out. The trouble with that, IMO, is that we never make any real progress one way or the other.

I've said this elsewhere but it's worth repeating.

We are not likely to ever see a post here that proves anything. There's plenty of evidence going back over 50 years, professional sightings, with radar backup, and they aren't taken seriously. We're not going to beat that.

So expecting ATS to "convince mainstream science" of anything is a falacy.

It is nice, though, to be able to look at such things, and judge for yourself.

reply to post by Clickfoot

Just like the difference between skeptic and debunker, there is a real difference between "proof" and evidence - at least there is if you've been trained in a science. There is plenty of evidence that some UFOs may be non-earthly vehicles, or at least non-human vehicles, and it is disappointing that more "conventional" scientists don't study this evidence (some actually do). There is no proof of this, however. This fact is no reason to put on the tin-foil hat and embrace Lear and Greer. If reading about sightings, encounters and "abductions" is entertaining, go for it. I guess that makes you a UFO hobbyist. After thirty years of being a field investigator/armchair investigator/hobbyist, I'll have to agree with Jacques Vallee: sixty years of "sightings" have told us little or nothing, and the idea that what we are dealing with is simply alien visitation is beginning to sound ridiculous. If we're serous about finding out what UFOs are, at least some of us need to shelve our middle-school notions of "aliens from Planet X" and start thinking outside the box. "Passport to Magonia" anyone?