You're correct about Ufological adolescence.

But things are not quite as dark as you make them. Ive observed your tendency to hang around in threads that offer the worst in UFOlogy and steer clear from some of the best.

Frankly, I think you enjoy ridiculing some of the BS. I certainly enjoy reading some of it. But beyond that, there is also a world of sincere research, testimony and conclusion out there.

[edit on 11-11-2009 by Skyfloating]

I have found no other info, other than the montauk project stuff, to rely on. If you look into this subject and believe anything else, your doomed.

Originally posted by dwiggen

ITF, your profound skepticism is matched only by the "ignorance" that you're ranting against. What's wrong with having some belief in something that we might not have the ability to prove?

Good post, nonetheless!

I feel u may have misunderstood ITF, dwiggen. His main fight is against all the riff-raff that's allowed in here. He wants to be proven wrong about his skepticism. He sincerely does. Thats what readers need to understand in this thread. Deep inside the leathery cynical exterior is a truth seeker that shares the same hopes and values many of us do

I will admit that from time to time I have joined ITF in the Ceremonial bashing of the Orcs. It's a guilty pleasure I indulge in like a fine a wine when the time is right. We don't always agree on the same issue, but I still respect his opinion simply because he standards he sticks to, and refuses to deviate from those standards.

ITF, in my opinion, has really just said out in the open what many would like to but don't. And for that, this thread is starred and flagged.

[edit on 11-11-2009 by NightVision]

I orginally thought that ITF had my sort of mindset regarding UFOs. I think he has some thought processes that mirror my own, but I think he borders on "skeptical for the sake of being skeptical," which I don't agree with. I prefer to let the facts (or lack thereof) of each case to speak for itself.

I do believe there is some sort of UFO activity. I am not sure they are aliens per se, but I don't believe all the sightings are mistaken identity or government black projects. They could be alien life. They could be something else we don't yet understand.

I think though, that some (including ITF) focus too much on the ridiculous cases, and not enough on the pertinent cases. That is where this will actually be proven. Not on the random fuzzy dot threads that litter these sorts of sites. Of course you are going to see a massive influx of the ludicrous. You need to filter that out, focus on the important stuff.

Yes, the loudest people are the ones who get the media attention, and that's unfortunate, but alas, not only the media, but people around here prefer the "researchers" or claimees who have the most outrageous viewpoints or stories. Researchers like Stanton Friedman do not get near enough attention and credit.

It's a futile effort to try and inform those around here who believe wild stories, or try and stem the tide of the ridiculous. Why let it bother you? If the study of UFOs does not get enough serious attention, it's not due to sites like this one. Probably 99.9% of the worlds population will never visit any conspiracy site, let alone this one.

Originally posted by The Shrike

There was no way that I was going to watch 43 minutes of b.s. by Sparks

Originally posted by Nightvision

I ask that you simply view a few seconds of the below

Yeah. you pretty much missed the point of my entire post. I presented Mr. Sparks for the 'way' in which he presented his experience, not the validity of it. If you lack the ability to read posts thoroughly before responding, then your opinion is no more or less valid then theirs. Judging by my criteria and your post, you would fall under the 'Uneducated Newbie' category, and I know u don't want that.

These are the types of people who give UFOlogy the black eye everyone complains about. How about this guy and this gal produce some evidence not for hundreds of mass abductions but fo just one? I will not hold my breath.

I agree that evidence absolutely should be presented, but Ufology has had a black eye since 1942. Lets not even attempt to defend UFOlogy until the mothership arrives. Maybe you should hold your breath for that.




[edit on 11-11-2009 by NightVision]

[edit on 11-11-2009 by NightVision]

Originally posted by IgnoreTheFacts
Here is a point for you. There are no ways to legitimately discuss "pertinent" cases thanks to how clouded they have become due to the nonsense the majority has saddled us with.

This is sheer nonsense in itself.

What "nonsense" has clouded for example the RB-47 case, the Portage County case, or the JAL incident in such a way that there no "ways to legitimately discuss" these sightings?

Enlighten me, for it seems you're now trying to find an excuse not having to deal with the better cases.

That said, to some degree you are obviously right. Lots of nutcases everywhere but this has been with Ufology since the beginning. In the digital age the "flim flam" most definitely grew in numbers, but the serious part of ufology is not to blame here. Are you saying all the blather about reincarnated space brothers, 2012 etc. is preventing you from picking up volumes by Jerry Clark, Brad Sparks, James McDonald, Dick Hall, and others?

ITF, it seems as if you've come to the conclusion that it's utterly impossible to discuss ANY case, and I don't believe that for a minute. There are many cases, especially older ones (i.e. cases where there were less tangible ways to simply dismiss them), where there is an abundance of solid proof and evidence. Ironically, those cases get very little discussion from skeptics. Instead, the skeptics make camp in the threads about fuzzy black dots someone took poor video of during their vacation. Why? Because the true skeptic who is of this mindset, can latch onto this case and prove it wrong. That's the sort of cases they enjoy. Not the ones that require research and study. I'm not saying you are like that, but in general, that's how it goes.

And no, it's not "us" that mold mainstream opinion about UFOs. That's laughable. Where does the majority of Joe Public get their UFO info? From: movies, news bits about sightings, occasional rare newspaper articles, and specials on shows like Discovery. And now (pleasingly so), shows like Larry King. They are not browsing this site, nor visiting the local UFO forum at the event center. What we say here has NO BEARING whatsoever on public opinion.

The only way it's been made laughable is by the militaries clever decision to IGNORE all sightings after Blue Book. They screwed up big time with Roswell, they changed perception with Blue Book, and then are playing dumb since, after they realized any stance was a bad stance. I imagine there were several very real disinformation campaigns by our military (and probably other governments military as well). The media as a result, made it "laughable." The ridiculous antics of someone wearing an alien costume to a press conference when the Arizona governor demanded to know what was going on in her State.. that is what makes it laughable.

We have no bearing on the subject matter to the public, you kid yourself if you really think so. What we discuss here stays in very small circles.

I'm sorry ITF... but for me you lost all credibility as a sceptic a long time ago, and pretty much for the same reasons that so many others of the opposite persuasion also lose credibility... a closed mind... in my opinion anyway. What you basically are is a debunker, NOT a sceptic... and NO, the two are not one and the same.

True scepticism approaches any and all cases with an open mind. It evaluates and considers the evidence (or lack of it) before passing judgement... a judgement that should be tempered by the possibility (however remote) that you may have got it wrong.

True scepticism does not pass judgement, censor viewpoints, dismiss possibilities because they are outlandish or conflict with your world view. It does not worry whether someone is going to find what you are researching, or your results, rdiculous and/or contrary to the mainstream view (hence worthy of ridicule)

True scepticism respects other's viewpoints and experiences, regardless of whether they are contrary or different to yours.

Debunking is a whole different animal.

The debunker approaches any comment/event/sighting/etc with his mind made up and ready to ridicule those involved, shut down debate, and make sure that the next target thinks twice before opening their mouths... or suffer the same unpleasantness.

I've read post after post of your's, in thread after thread... first admonishing the topic, then admonishing the author, then ranting on about how UFOLOGY is going to hell in a handbasket.

Your apparent reason for doing this?...

It seems you think that:
:If people stop posting/discussing 'out there' stuff, and they ignore certain branches/viewpoints/investigators...
:If they start towing your definition of 'scepticism' and start approaching everything with an already made-up, closed mind...
:If they stop daring to think outside the box...

If they behave themselves and do all these things mainstream science/media and the general public will throw a welcome back party. Ufology will then be redeemed, taken seriously and welcomed into the fold.

Personally, I don't really give a damn what the mainstream thinks of Ufology and everyone/everything within it. If Ufology is investigated truthfully it is ALWAYS going to throw up stuff that is completely unbelievable and verging on the ridiculous... Eventually the mass of evidence, sightings, witnesses and experiencers will be so large that only the most pedantic moron will have the attitude towards it that mainstream has today.

It will happen... it might take another 20 years, but it will. Meantime, if you want to close your mind and make your mind up, be my guest... Me, I'd much rather get ALL the info coming in, look at it and THEN make up my mind.

On a final note ... I sincerely hope that your attempts to stifle debate within the UFO section of ATS never bear fruit. I hope we always get to hear about everything that supposedly happens out there. I suspect that the truth (when it finally outs) will be far stranger than any of us could imagine. To censor a particular viewpoint or story, because the mainstream might laugh at us, would not only be wrong, but from an investigative point of view it could amount to throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

I sincerely hope that your attempts to stifle debate within the UFO section of ATS never bear fruit.

Yes, one must not express his opinion against idiots like Hoagland, Greer, Lear, Escamilla........so If I go into one of those threads and dismiss something I am a bad person doing harm to the greater good. Fine, so I shut up and I bet I could come back here 10 years from now and still see folks worshiping at the alter of ignorance by discussing the same fools that keep this subject laughable.

Yes, because we need thread after thread after thread about people confusing dirt and mud with "alien bases on the moon" or space shuttles taking pictures of secret/ufo/alien craft or that one idiotic movie about "interstellar space machines" or....hell, just read the titles on the first page alone in this forum. The more ignorant ones seem to get the most hits. I always make it a point to stop in and speak my mind concerning the topic, and yes sometimes I am short.

And yes, some of these threads are started by people with an agenda to remain ignorant and to convert others, plain and simple. I am not apologizing for being able to clear see through some of the games that go on here.

And I am not a "debunker" or a "skeptic" no matter what I claim or call myself sometimes. I am like everyone here, and that is someone with a strong opinion. Maybe if I was younger and a newbie I would feel like you guys do, like there are worlds of endless possibility to be discovered, and secrets to reveal and good cases to truly debate.......

I am well aware of pretty much every case out there, so you can come in here and through out case after case name and call me blind for not wanting to discus them...the same ones.........over and over and over and over.....

Yeah, there are tiny, tiny diamonds in the rough around here for sure. But there really are no good, solid cases that amount to anything more than a hill of beans anyway. If there were solid cases we would be much closer to the truth, rather than sluggin it out on some internet conspiracy board like a bunch of children.

Now I am off to go be positive and support everything without question. Wouldn't want to stifle that hoagland debate, that guy is great for ufology and will set us all free!!!!

But there really are no good, solid cases that amount to anything more than a hill of beans anyway.

If you believe that, you've hardly done any real UFO research, just saying.

Why don't you just admit you've dismissed ALL cases. That makes you a debunker. Even the Air Force with their disinformation efforts, had SOME cases they listed as "unknown." If you are beyond that, you are in a word, a debunker.

Originally posted by IgnoreTheFacts

I mean, you tell someone that the radiation readings on a certain case are completely misleading due to the type of equipment that was used and the range of detection, and they simply ignore that, or call you some sort of paid debunker then go on to keep screaming that a case is "pertinent" when more and more facts examined properly prove them wrong. Yet cases like that only remain "pertinent" in this subject because a lot of ignorant people keep then in the limelight, disregarding anything that makes them look ignorant. The end result is we all look ignorant. How do you combat that?

You could do what the mainstream of the scientific community has already done, and just ignore Ufology. It's pretty unfortunate that the theory doesn't have legs anymore, but it's very very obvious why.

Originally posted by fleabit

But there really are no good, solid cases that amount to anything more than a hill of beans anyway.

If you believe that, you've hardly done any real UFO research, just saying.

Why don't you just admit you've dismissed ALL cases. That makes you a debunker. Even the Air Force with their disinformation efforts, had SOME cases they listed as "unknown." If you are beyond that, you are in a word, a debunker.

You've used the term "debunker" in the wrong context. Dismissing is not debunking. A debunker sees or hears something that doesn't sound right and he or she thinks he or she can prove the claimant wrong. After some research, the debunker has results that are accepted and the original claim rejected.

I've successfully debunked a couple of claimants and I have a letter from one of them, a "famous" or "infamous" author and the other just a plain ol' bs'er.