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.

 

The U.F.O. Party Gatecrashers

page: 1
20
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+17 more 
posted on Oct, 24 2009 @ 05:24 AM
link   
Hi all.

I have noticed something about the Aliens & UFO discussion forum recently that I want to discuss and would be interested to know if this is a recent development or something that has always plagued this forum.

You will note, no doubt, that a great deal of energy is wasted here on the same old, endless conflict, supposedly between "skeptic and believer" (I don't think this is actually true at all, there is no reason for true skeptics to clash with reasonable believers).

These 'discussions' rapidly degrade into polarized name calling and my feeling is that this derails well over 50% of the discussions at ATS and makes this forum a rather toxic and mean spirited place to frequent. I know of many members who have left, or don't bother posting anymore because of the aggressive and negative atmosphere in this forum and the fact that this makes reasoned discussion and debate almost impossible.

Disagreement is always going to occur and sometimes discussions can get heated, but the present situation is, IMO, well beyond the pale and pretty much makes ATS unviable as a forum for mature discussion and the search for truth about ETs and UFOs. I know I've had several breaks away from ATS over the years, often for many months at a time, simply because the atmosphere here was too unpleasant and not conducive to...well...anything positive. It was just a bear pit.

I personally feel that ATS is overrun with 'pseudo-skeptics' (see the links in my signature for clear definitions of this) posing as 'skeptics', who are not at all interested in investigating the concept of ETs and the UFO phenomenon in relation to that, but simply relish the 'sport' of spiteful baiting and mockery of fellow members. This, obviously, contributes absolutely nothing to the discussion of ET's and UFO's, and neither does the backlash which then inevitably comes from 'believers' and the more open-minded but undecided members.

Is there any way to improve this situation? Any suggestions?

I have one.

I have noticed recently an increasing number of members whose posts make it clear that they absolutely DO NOT BELIEVE IN EVEN THE POSSIBILITY of Alien life or of ET piloted craft visiting earth. They are not 'skeptical' of this, but deny the possibility outright. Their posts tend to include bald statements of supposed 'fact' that ETs do not exist and that UFO categorically have nothing to do with Alien life. So why are they here? Their minds are made up and they are here for no purpose of other than to deny outright the very premise of this forum and to heckle.

IMO, participation in the Aliens and UFO forum thread should, at the very least, require openmindedness to the POSSIBILITY that ETs exist and that some UFO's may be ET craft. I'd like to see ATS enforce this requirement and deny participation to those who are completely closed-minded to the possibility and are only here to absolutely deny and to mock and sneer.

To be perfectly honest, I think if a member says something like 'Wake up! ETs do not exist! UFO's are not ET craft! Disclosure will never come because there is nothing to disclose!' etc, that members should be able to alert such posts and mods should remove these members ability to post here. Not as a punishment, but because there is no point such people being here as they contribute absolutely nothing to the the debate and only serve to generate unncecessy conflict.

They act purely as a 'drag factor' and an obstacle, and nothing more. And frankly, this forum has enough problems without that. This would at least be a start and might reduce the unproductive and combative atmosphere in this forum somewhat.

Anyway, I'm posting this before another necessary recovery break from ATS due to it's toxic negative 'sneer levels', LOL, in the vague hope that there may be something we can actually do about it.

(If not, perhaps I'll see you all again next year when I have 'detoxed', once again
)

Any thoughts?


[edit on 24-10-2009 by Malcram]




posted on Oct, 24 2009 @ 05:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Malcram
 


Well considering that the latest "believers vs skeptics" battle has recently subsided, I gotta question the timing of this thread.

With that out of the way, your suggestion of controlling and weeding out anyone who doesn't believe in UFO's is borderline ridiculous.

Like any subject, there are going to be people at both extremities, so you're gonna have to accept this fact, once you do, you won't need to point out your dislike of psuedo-skeptics or whatever.


BTW expect this thread to turn into another one of those threads that you speak of.



posted on Oct, 24 2009 @ 05:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Chadwickus
Well considering that the latest "believers vs skeptics" battle has recently subsided, I gotta question the timing of this thread.


Hi Chadwickus. I was prompted by some posts I had just read and am talking about a trend which affects just about every thread here, not just the threads specifically about 'Skeptics vs Believers'


With that out of the way, your suggestion of controlling and weeding out anyone who doesn't believe in UFO's is borderline ridiculous.


But that's not what I suggested AT ALL. I wish you would read what I said more carefully, because your false statement here is exactly the kind which ignites a conflict unnecessarily.

I'm not saying that belief in ET piloted UFO's should be required, but that absolute DISBELIEF in even the POSSIBILITY of ET life anywhere and of the POSSIBILITY of ET life visiting earth means there is no productive reason for such people being here whatsoever. I'm saying that agnosticism (true skepticism) and an open mind should be the minimum requirement for participation in an Alien and UFO discussion. That's not too much to ask is it?

Imagine forming a research group of 100 people to investigate the possibility of curing cancer and of possible methods to do so, and 50% of them just sit around scoffing: "There is no way we will ever cure cancer! Never going to happen! Wake up! There is no cure, never will be!" and interrupting and stalling every discussion with these statements.

How productive would that be? Would it render the research group useless?

Of course it would.

You take my point?


[edit on 24-10-2009 by Malcram]



posted on Oct, 24 2009 @ 06:03 AM
link   
Thanks for posting your concern, i to have noticed that some poor thread starter, has had to jump in once and a while, to get the thread back on track. Which for me as you say, only slows things down, to noones bennefit, however i don´t think that exclussion, will help one bit. What i do think is that maybe it would help, to openly tell the people, who cannot in anyway be persuadet, to the meere idea that ufo´s and et´s even could exist, that hey we accept your oppinnion, however you are accually interrupting a conversation here, which is rude. Make any sence?



posted on Oct, 24 2009 @ 06:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Malcram
 


How productive would a research group be if everyone agreed with each other and didn't debate against one another?

The scenario I'm visioning is something like a youtube channel, where a person posts videos of satellites and calls them light ships or whatever and anyone who says otherwise get's censored.

Apologies if this isn't the case but it seems this is very much what you're suggesting.



posted on Oct, 24 2009 @ 06:07 AM
link   
I think that part of the problem is that people don't distinguish between UFO's, and the possibility of extraterrestrial visitors. The two are not necessarily connected. The UFO's we see may be completely terrestrial in nature - either man-made craft of some sort, or craft by some unknown, but earth-bound civilization. Among many other possible explanations.

So it is entirely possible to be open-minded about UFO's, while at the same time refusing to consider the possibility of them being of extraterrestrial origin. There are compelling scientific reasons why it is highly unlikely for these UFO's to be extraterrestrial. While those scientific reasons don't *prove* they're not from earth, such a conclusion is entirely reasonable.

What unfortunately happens too often is that people stop respecting those who disagree with them. They seem to get the attitude, "How could anyone believe/NOT believe X?" They assume such a person is stupid or crazy or otherwise deficient, without considering that someone could very well view the same set of facts and come to a different conclusion.

Also unfortunate is the tendency of many people to try to make converts, than to find the truth. They approach the issue as though they already know the truth, and then try to convince others of this "truth". They can become very upset when others fail to see the beauty of their wisdom. The very use of the words "believers" and "skeptics" tells us that this is often a holy war, and not a rational discussion of possibilities.

You might want to consider your own attitude when approaching a discussion. Are you getting into it to learn something, or to show people the errors of their ways? Do you already know the answer? If so, then you are unlikely to be receptive to rational points that don't support your conclusion. That attitude is likely to be reflected in your posts, and people will sense that you're trying to make converts. Most people don't like to be pushed into a conclusion. Unless you enter into a discussion with at least the *possibility* of changing your opinion, you're probably approaching it as a zealot. Zealots wage holy wars. They don't have rational discussions.



posted on Oct, 24 2009 @ 06:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by thealiveone What i do think is that maybe it would help, to openly tell the people, who cannot in anyway be persuadet, to the meere idea that ufo´s and et´s even could exist, that hey we accept your oppinnion, however you are accually interrupting a conversation here, which is rude. Make any sence?


Hi Thealiveone,

Yes that makes good sense. However, I'm not sure that approach would have any real effect. But it's certainly worth a try.


[edit on 24-10-2009 by Malcram]



posted on Oct, 24 2009 @ 06:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Chadwickus
 


Your completely missing his point. Yes, debate is needed to reach a reasonable resolve, but OP is basically saying this forum is overrun with closed minded who don't contribute at all, and start pointless arguments and de-rail topics for the sake of argument.

Nice post OP.



posted on Oct, 24 2009 @ 06:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Chadwickus
How productive would a research group be if everyone agreed with each other and didn't debate against one another?


Debate is fine, but if the very premise of a discussion is undermined by the fixed, closed minded position of some participants then no progress can be made, especially if the number of such participants is significant and they are very vocal.

Chairman - "So, welcome to our first brainstorming session on how we might cure cancer..."

Member - "Ha! You can't! You can't cure cancer." (several other members applaud and shout their agreement)

Chairman - "Well, the purpose of this group is to investigate how we might..."

Member 2 - "Look, wake up! If there was a cure for cancer it would have been found by now. It hasn't because there isn't, you're wasting your time!"

Chairmen - "OK, but the point of this group is to investigate the possibility of curing cancer and to discuss methods of doing so"

Member 3 - "Haha! You'd be better off doing something productive with your time and money rather than playing with this fantasy. Read my lips: N O... C A N C E R... C U R E. Am I getting through to you?" (Snickering from several other members)


Inclusiveness is all very well, but sometimes the very premise of a group or organization - or forum - is totally undermined if a significant number of the membership is not open to the premise being investigated and discussed.


The scenario I'm visioning is something like a youtube channel, where a person posts videos of satellites and calls them light ships or whatever and anyone who says otherwise get's censored. Apologies if this isn't the case but it seems this is very much what you're suggesting.


Well, be assured that's not what I'm proposing at all. I think you are responding to your own (legitimate) concerns rather than anything I actually proposed.


[edit on 24-10-2009 by Malcram]



posted on Oct, 24 2009 @ 06:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Majinboob
 


No I'm not missing the point, there is already a facility to alert the mods of any off topic posts.

I just don't think the problem is as bad as it's been made out to be.

Most who do what you say get dealt with fairly quickly.



posted on Oct, 24 2009 @ 06:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by chiron613
I think that part of the problem is that people don't distinguish between UFO's, and the possibility of extraterrestrial visitors. The two are not necessarily connected. The UFO's we see may be completely terrestrial in nature - either man-made craft of some sort, or craft by some unknown, but earth-bound civilization. Among many other possible explanations.


Hi Chiron, great post. I agree, those are the possibilities. And to have a reasonable discussion we need to be open to all of them. The most hard-core of 'Believers' are definitely open - in my experience - to the idea that some UFO's are not ET in origin. Can the equivalent be said of all self professed 'skeptics' at ATS, that they are open to the idea that SOME UFOs may possibly be of ET origin?

No. And thus, there is no point such members being here and several good reasons why they should not.


So it is entirely possible to be open-minded about UFO's, while at the same time refusing to consider the possibility of them being of extraterrestrial origin.


I disagree here, because there is no real need to be "open-minded about UFO's", in the sense of them occurring. UFO's are an undeniable fact - there are unidentified objects seen in the sky. No one denies that. Open-mindedness is not required to accept that. Being 'open-minded about UFO's" therefore means being open-minded about what they are and who might be responsible for them. So "refusing to consider the possibility of them being of extraterrestrial origin" inevitably means that someone is NOT "open-minded about UFOs"


[edit on 24-10-2009 by Malcram]



posted on Oct, 24 2009 @ 07:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Chadwickus
 


I kinda think you do miss the point.


Originally posted by Malcram

I'm not saying that belief in ET piloted UFO's should be required, but that absolute DISBELIEF in even the POSSIBILITY of ET life anywhere and of the POSSIBILITY of ET life visiting earth means there is no productive reason for such people being here whatsoever. I'm saying that agnosticism (true skepticism) and an open mind should be the minimum requirement for participation in an Alien and UFO discussion. That's not too much to ask is it?


What is he saying that you do not need to believe in UFO, but you should not absolutely believe that it is impossible for ETs to exist. It's a pretty simple point you know.

 

No, I don't think it's too much to ask since this is ATS, people come here for precisely that reason. If they absolutely believe that it's impossible for ETs to exist, they should stay away from ATS and stay with the mainstream forum or at least stop calling people names. Unless their real reason of coming here is to feed their addiction to conflicts.



posted on Oct, 24 2009 @ 07:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jazzyguy
No, I don't think it's too much to ask since this is ATS, people come here for precisely that reason. If they absolutely believe that it's impossible for ETs to exist, they should stay away from ATS and stay with the mainstream forum or at least stop calling people names. Unless their real reason of coming here is to feed their addiction to conflicts.


Thanks Jazzguy. I'm glad you get the point I was making. I'm simply suggesting that the line should be drawn somewhere, and that there be a minimum threshold of open-mindedness for participation in this forum, otherwise productive discussion becomes just about untenable, which is the point I think we are at right now.

ATS is massively handicapped by this problem - which I am sure is exactly what some people intend.

And yes, it's fairly obvious that a number of such members are here to "feed their addiction to conflicts" and to mock and sneer and insult and bring reasonable discussion to an screeching halt at every opportunity and I don't think that this should be tolerated under the excuse of being 'inclusive'.

[edit on 24-10-2009 by Malcram]



posted on Oct, 24 2009 @ 07:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Jazzyguy
 


So where do we draw the line?

Don't believe in the NWO? Sorry you can't post here.

Don't believe in god? Sorry you can't post here.

Again, you will get people who appose your ideas and the few who do it stupidly won't last long.



posted on Oct, 24 2009 @ 07:24 AM
link   
Here's an analogy. If you go to the church and you don't believe in Jesus, don't tell the people there that they're stupid and stuff for believing christ.

Is it a big problem in ATS, not really. But it's certainly a problem, especially since they're insulting in a subtle way, to avoid being discipline by the mods. Usually they do the "your belief is stupid", attacking the "post/belief" instead the poster, although what their real intention is to ridicule the poster for the poster belief in UFO, not even for poster's speculation.



posted on Oct, 24 2009 @ 07:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Chadwickus
So where do we draw the line?

Don't believe in the NWO? Sorry you can't post here.

Don't believe in god? Sorry you can't post here.

Again, you will get people who appose your ideas and the few who do it stupidly won't last long.


This is weird Chadwickus. I know you're an intelligent guy and I have trouble understanding why you would consitently misrepresent what is being proposed here.


I have NEVER suggested that belief be a requirement for posting.

I am saying that open-mindedness to the possibility of ET life and the possibility of ET visitation to earth - the very premise of this forum - should be a requirement. That's all.

Active, unyielding, closed-minded, dismissive, DISBELIEF serves absolutely no purpose here but to cause conflict. It contributes nothing.

Active Disbelief ("X is NOT true, NOT possible") is very different to an agnostic skeptical position ("I don't know if X is true or not, I don't consider it proven as yet")

Please let me know you understand what I'm getting at?


[edit on 24-10-2009 by Malcram]



posted on Oct, 24 2009 @ 07:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Malcram
 


Ok I re-read your OP, my sentiments are the same, maybe I'm not seeing many of these posts from people who are completely closed minded about the subject so I don't get the full picture of what you're saying.


Having said that, I do agree that a certain amount of open mindedness is needed but not so open your brain falls out.



And anyone being argumentative and trolling should and will be dealt with

[edit on 24/10/09 by Chadwickus]



posted on Oct, 24 2009 @ 08:05 AM
link   
If we do not accept people that deny the possibility of extraterrestrial life, how do you expect to make them learn that they are approaching it in the wrong way?

The same thing happens with those people that think that all UFOs are Alien piloted space ships and do not accept any other possibility, how do you make them understand that they may be missing the real truth by accepting only one possibility?

That was one of the reasons I started posting on the Aliens & UFOs forum 5 years ago, to see if I could help other people understand that even if they are right in 99.9% of the cases, there is a 0.1% that is not explained by their preferred theory and they be losing an opportunity of seeing a whole new world of possibilities that they never thought about before. That 0.1% may even be the source of the full explanation of the whole UFO/ET story, and that person can even be the one that will find the missing link between the 99.9% and the 0.1%, but he/she would never do it if he/she is not pointed in the right direction.

That's why I think that we should not limit any forum to a specific type of person and why I think that even some apparently off-topic posts may be left on a thread, sometimes the best way of solving a problem is by diverting out thought to a different thing for some time.


+2 more 
posted on Oct, 24 2009 @ 08:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jazzyguy
Usually they do the "your belief is stupid", attacking the "post/belief" instead the poster, although what their real intention is to ridicule the poster for the poster belief in UFO, not even for poster's speculation.


I have been a member of ATS for some time now, and I think it's important to remember that the attacks and ridicule actually goes both ways. I have seen many, many threads where a group of "believers" gang up on a skeptic or someone who just comes into a thread and asks a quite neutral question about a photo or video.

The "believers" can be just as bad as some of the "skeptics", just as rude, insulting and aggressive. Some of the worst behaviour I have seen on this board has been from "believers". I guess some people simply enjoy the fighting and bashing, no matter which side of the "fence" they belong to.

I also think that the sharp line drawn between "believers" and "skeptics" is a little strange. I am interested in the UFO phenomena, I have presented a couple of old cases here at ATS, Chadwickus has also made some excellent presentations of UFO cases, by the way, and I think it is very unlikely that we humans here on Earth are all alone in the universe. But that does not mean that I will take any grainy photo, blurred YouTube video or tall tale as a proof of UFOs and aliens visiting us. I still have the right to question any material presented, and I also have every right to say so if I think there is a very mundane explanation for a strange light in the sky. Does that make me a skeptic?

As long as both "sides" are able to express their opinion with a minimum of respect and politeness, we should all be fine. And as Chadwickus say, use the alert button if someone is unable to write a post without making it into a personal attack or insult. We don't need that crap. I know I don't.

Peace.


[edit on 24/10/09 by ziggystar60]



posted on Oct, 24 2009 @ 08:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Chadwickus

Ok I re-read your OP, my sentiments are the same, maybe I'm not seeing many of these posts from people who are completely closed minded about the subject so I don't get the full picture of what you're saying.


Cheers Chadwickus, thanks for that. I know my posts can sometimes waffle on a bit and perhaps that makes them unclear. I have trouble editing and being concise LOL.

I think that for the very thick-skinned, battle hardened ATS veterans, this may not be such a problem. But I'm convinced that a high proportion of members do find this a problem and are strongly put off from posting because of it.


Having said that, I do agree that a certain amount of open mindedness is needed but not so open your brain falls out.


Yeah, a degree of balance is needed and should be required, IMO. I 'believe' but not in everything indiscriminately and even I become annoyed by indiscriminate 'belief'. Yet, while this is irritating and needs to be countered (and that's where true open-minded skeptics come in) 'true believers' don't quite stand in the way of investigation and discussions of the ETH and the connection with UFOs in the way that closed minded, hostile, 'debunkers' do, because they are at least not completely opposed to the very premise being investigated and are not constantly derailing it's discussion.

The unreasonableness of 'wild eyed true believers' doesn't contribute to the intelligent and open-minded investigation and discussion of the ETH and UFOs, but it doesn't prevent it.


[edit on 24-10-2009 by Malcram]



new topics

top topics



 
20
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join