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.

 

how to debunk ufos

page: 3
9
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 03:15 AM
link   
I honestly believe that if ET were out there and observed us, they'd see a very very war-like race and they'd probably think that we are hostile and evil. I mean, we kill each other as a race all the damn time. We are constantly at war for this or that over some small things at times.

And who knows - Maybe ET doesnt fully understand the capabilities of us yet. Maybe they fear making themselves known out of fear of us destroying them or something....You may laugh at that point, but fact is, nobody knows for sure and it could be exactly like that.




posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 03:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by CHRLZ
Anyway, I shall continue to look it over, but rather than hijack this thread too much, perhaps any Belgian UFO case experts might like to summarise the key VERIFIABLE points of the case, so that they can be addressed directly and briefly...


I don't consider myself an expert on that case, but SOBEPS published two thick volumes on the Belgian UFO wave so they are experts. And UFO files said that even SOBEPS admits almost all the radar data is bad because it shows the UFOs actually flying below ground level, which is impossible.

There is apparently only one set of radar data they refer to as lock-on #9 which they still hang on to as unexplained, however if all the other radar data is bad, I don't know why they would choose to believe the only one that doesn't show flying below ground level. I would have to say if all the radar data except one set is wrong, the one remaining set that isn't obviously wrong has to at least be suspect since it came from the same radars as the wrong data.

This is one more case where radar data supposedly confirmed visual sightings, when it fact it doesn't, quite the opposite. Not only are the radar data bad, but the pilots didn't even see the UFOs.

The UFO files documentary starts at about 1 minute into this video:



And Haines says the photo isn't a forgery at 7m but then at 7m45s, someone shows how they reproduced the photo, implying that Haines might be wrong.

The revelation about the bad radar data is at 8m20s and continues at the beginning of the next part:




posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 04:52 AM
link   
Wow, thanks Arbitrageur - you're a minefield of information!


I haven't gone over all of it, but that first video was quite interesting to me in the aspect you pointed out - that 'expert' on imaging who claims the photo was not faked in any way... and then he is immediately contradicted by quite a good example.. As a very keen photographer myself, that type of image can indeed be faked with relative ease (yes, down to the grain level on a film neg/transparency). It looks like a very simple double exposure (this was the days of film, of course). There is no reliable way to determine if film has been doubly exposed, and dark backgrounds make such trickery easy. It all goes to show that 'experts' may not be all that they seem (especially on the History Channel..)


There have been a couple of cases now where 'researchers' have made wild claims about radar 'blips' but when the actual data was displayed, it was quite obvious that they had cherrypicked so much, they could make a large vat of jam...

I also note that in this case it seems the rather high number of 'related' reports came in AFTER all the publicity began.. And this was back in the late eighties, when the ufo 'thing' was quite popular.. When the reports were studied properly they are mostly explainable - it was the usual Ma and Pa Kettle seeing the ufo story and running outdoors to look at the sky at night (for the first time in twenty years...), and then seeing 'strange things' - like aircraft, Venus, you name it...

Ok, maybe the Ma and Pa bit is a little unfair, but it is human nature to do this. Every time you get a ufo sighting, there will be those who rush out and scrabble for their fifteen minutes of fame, or are genuinely amazed by what they see in the sky - not because it is amazing, but because it is something they have not seen before..

As an example; if you live near an airport, find out the most typical incoming flight path, and then position yourself ten kilometres or so on the other side of the airport in line with that path. Take a few gullible friends. Then watch the mysterious hovering lights that just hang in the sky, and distract them when they obviously make their final approach and land... Or just video it (stop short of showing the landing of course), and post it to YouTube with appropriate keywords (ufo, ovni, alien..)!

Or get yourself on the telly, and start the next 'wave'...



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 05:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by CHRLZ
Wow, thanks Arbitrageur - you're a minefield of information!


As a very keen photographer myself, that type of image can indeed be faked with relative ease (yes, down to the grain level on a film neg/transparency). It looks like a very simple double exposure (this was the days of film, of course). There is no reliable way to determine if film has been doubly exposed, and dark backgrounds make such trickery easy. It all goes to show that 'experts' may not be all that they seem (especially on the History Channel..)


You're welcome. Dr Haines and Dr Maccabee both collect good data and write a good report but overstep their respective fields of expertise with some bias. I agree it's possible to fake that photo right down to the grain level, and add to that what I seem to recall is a rather dubious history/background of that photo and it becomes even more suspect. So while Dr. Haines would like to believe that photo can't be faked, I tend to agree with you that it can indeed be faked. I may not know everything Dr. Haines knows, but I do know something of photography, enough to know that it's not impossible to fake such a photo.

But SOBEPS cracks me up even more than Haines. According to SOBEPs:
Radar lock-on #1 was bad radar data
Radar lock-on #2 was bad radar data
Radar lock-on #3 was bad radar data
Radar lock-on #4 was bad radar data
Radar lock-on #5 was bad radar data
Radar lock-on #6 was bad radar data
Radar lock-on #7 was bad radar data
Radar lock-on #8 was bad radar data

Do you see a pattern here?


But then they say:
Even though radar lock-ons 1-8 were bad data, Radar lock-on #9 was interesting.

WHAT??? They can say that without being suspicious about #9 after admitting 1-8 are all bad?? They must have the poster "I want to believe" hanging up in their office to get excited about radar lock-on #9 after admitting the first 8 are all bad!



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 05:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by RRokkyy

top ten reasons aliens dont show themselves

1.We will eat them
2.We will steal their technology,go to their home planet and eat them
3. Our dogs will eat them
4.We wont eat them but feed them to our dogs
5.They wont be able to resist the temptation to eat us
6.Their dogs will eat us
7. They wont be able to resist the temptation to feed us to their dogs
8. They are too sexy for the earth
9. Earthlings would want to have sex with them.
10. They would want to have sex with Earthlings
11. They would get $1,000,000 dollars from the Amazing Randi and they are communists.


[edit on 13-4-2010 by RRokkyy]


Were you hungry and horny when you wrote this?



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 07:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
But SOBEPS cracks me up even more than Haines. According to SOBEPs:
Radar lock-on #1 was bad radar data
Radar lock-on #2 was bad radar data
Radar lock-on #3 was bad radar data
Radar lock-on #4 was bad radar data
Radar lock-on #5 was bad radar data
Radar lock-on #6 was bad radar data
Radar lock-on #7 was bad radar data
Radar lock-on #8 was bad radar data

Do you see a pattern here?



Yup. It's like SETI, you just have to keep waiting until the BIG ONE arrives!!!! I don't see any difference...


I'm reminded of the Mexican Air Force UFO/Jaime Maussan/FLIR debacle - where the highly experienced
MAF pilots chased the amazing flying Cantarell oilwell flares... and in doing so proved they not only hadn't a clue about basic object recognition principles, they didn't understand the limitations or interpret their 'FLIR' instrument data to save their lives. You gotta feel safe in Mexico with those guys up there...

I'd like to have a good hard look at the full SOBEPS reports, but I have only so much time left...


[edit on 20-4-2010 by CHRLZ]

[edit on 20-4-2010 by CHRLZ]



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 10:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by nablator

That in a nutshell is the sad state of Ufology today, humans deceiving humans. If there is a real phenomenon, I have yet to see any evidence of it that would stand under scientific scrutiny.

Goodbye Ufology Hello Truth by James Carrion
followthemagicthread.blogspot.com...


Thanks for the link, Carrion has some very good points



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 10:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Insomniac
reply to post by CYRAX
 


Sadly you have a very good point! There are a number of people who seem to think of debunking as sport.


I agree on what your saying, i have also seen this on other forums around the internet, not by debunking UFO's but challenging other people's opinoins, theories etc, just for their own ego and enjoyment.

You can usually tell if there like this by there wording, it can appear snobbery.



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Star for your post, that's one of the best articles I've read from an insider. I think he's referring to all the people selling books on UFOlogy, and I have also found many of those to be biased, and that they don't consider alternative explanations, and are misleading from that perspective.


The same could be said from a debunker also, that they form the opinion, and then don't consider the alternatives.

That's where the difference between a skeptic and a debunker comes in. The skeptic tries to see it from all angles and possibilities, and then goes where the evidence leads.

In most UFO cases, one facet of evidence isn't really enough to make a good case. Just as in a trial, it's corroborating pieces of evidence, supporting the same version of an event, that make for a strong case. While a single photo or video may be neat...multiple photos by multiple witnesses, backed up by multiple witness testimony and fact checking on other possible phenomena that night...now THAT is a much more solid case.

People shouldn't expect a single photo or vid with or without context, to make a believer out of anyone....



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join