It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Ten Alien Encounters Debunked!

page: 2
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 09:02 AM

Originally posted by Oouthere
Belief does not have three people recount similar stories of seeing each other on the same night while being told they are going to be placed in an enclosed chamber with a jelly like substance for three days. Nor does it explain the blood on the pillow.

Belief is completely different from experiencing and knowing.


Ummm. What?

It sounds like something happened to you. The question really becomes whether this was otherworldly or simply worldly.

posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 09:16 AM
reply to post by traditionaldrummer

Yes, something has happened to me as well as most of my family. That is why I get so upset about these type threads and closed mindedness.

I was 10 years Air Force, offered a commision by three different people if I would go back into the Army Guard, have my degree in avionics technologies, and have four offices as an electronics tech for the worlds largest communications company.....I am not a fruit loop.

I had written an e-book about my experiences but pulled it due to a divorce, it will be coming out again after a few more revisions on amazon and should have an endorsement of a psychologist. I Talked with this psychologist for over 8 hours about my experiences plus he has read my book. He intends on writing a book on my group's experiences. There is also a lady in CA that is waiting for my book's paper edition to come out so she can pursue making a documentary or movie.

But anyway, these experiences are real and I have found about 13 people of which I loosely refer to as my group. many of us have seen each other during the experiences.


posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 09:24 AM

Originally posted by Oouthere
I am not a fruit loop.

I never suspected you were. I'd be interested in reading your account of your experiences some time. Good luck with your publishing. Let's us know when it's released!

posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 01:16 PM
Was the point of this thread to start a flame war?

As many have said YOU have debunked nothing, you have used others opinions (2nd hand opinions without any thought from yourself??) without even checking if their opinions were factual.

For most of these we simply don't know the honest truth so it's IMPOSSIBLE to debunk them or prove them. There's certainly nothing natural about some of the cattle mutilations, were they done by man well it's in some cases hard to prove even that's likely.

Implants, well my daughter and I have had the exact same tiny 'thing' appear in places you don't normally come into contact with the ground etc. I even did a thread on here asking if anyone could provide a logical answer to how these came to be in us and nothing came from it.

Are people prone to making up stories, too bloody right they are but to tar everyone with the same brush is illogical for obvious reasons.

Your poorest debunked choice was Roswell, there have been so many different explanations from them as to what it was, so many that no one believes any of them, to be honest if they said it was an alien craft I doubt I'd believe that but I tend to believe that's been the whole point of the multiple explanations.

Like my sig says, I do believe, but not at any cost, I'll look at whats on offer, poke it a lot, listen to expert opinion either way and then make my choice as to what I think it is. At the end the decision to believe or not has to come from my head, I can't just be carried along with the wave. If things are 'don't knows' then that's how they are, I'm not going to force my head to craft a daft reason to make them UFO's.

I do know I've seen two UFO's, these things were not craft I've ever seen classed as test craft but I have no clue as to who owns them, I'd love to know but until then they are UFO's.

[edit on 10-6-2010 by Mclaneinc]

posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 01:43 PM
Some of them true, others, just speculation. And some, oh man... I just thought "Who wrote this piece of #?" Honestly...

posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 01:49 PM

Originally posted by Uniceft17
Sorry, but your copy and paste marathon didn't prove anything. I didn't see any evidence put forward, all I saw was opinionated statements, You lost me on the cattle mutilation part anyways, if you've ever looked at some cattle mutilation pictures I would hardly call that naturual unless someone these cows have laser cutting equipment hidden somewhere in there pasture.

Lol I agree! I just had a hilarious picture of some cows, shoving some wierd sort of laser equipment behind some bushes when the farmer showed up! But seriously, seeing cattle mutilation, the day after the cow was lasered up, is not part of the "decomposition process". A cow does not have internal organs lasered out a day after it is seen alive as part of the "decomposition process". That is a ludicrous suggestion.

posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 02:05 PM
reply to post by OrionHunterX

Man o man...what a pant load this is!

Your copy and paste skills are top notch. But to blow these off one-by-one with mainstream explanations is just plain arrogant. You waltz in here claiming that you have solved all these cases, so there is nothing more to discuss.

"Move along ATS'ers, nothing else to see here, move along."

I will admit the face on Mars is just a rock formation. Everything thing else is still a mystery.

You're welcome.

-EDIT- I also think the alien autopsy is bullocks.

[edit on 10-6-2010 by Jimmy Jingles]

posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 02:22 PM
reply to post by traditionaldrummer

I'm just saying we know it can be done
well except for the moon flight debunkers

what is tough
is when a person has had an experience with some corroboration
it is then difficult AFTERWARDS to figure WT flying F is going on.
not jut what happened
but what happened to me?
skeptics are fine till it becomes ad hominem
then there are all the people who insist their version which now,
cause you have the t-shirt,
can't be right, insist that it is
and they wanna pound you to preseve their beliefs

there is a difference between BELIEVING and KNOWING
dunno how to prove it to someone who hasn't been there
thats the RUB

posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 03:19 PM
"The UFO forum is becoming fail".....

You've proven nothing, much of which is laughable...

posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 04:14 PM

Originally posted by Danbones
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
ever since we first set foot on the moon there have been aliens
and they are us

Actually there is one scientific theory that the pyramids could have been built by aliens, and we are the aliens, so that was way before the moon landing. Compare the size of Mars, and distance of Mars from the sun, to the Earth. Mars is both smaller and further away. The greater distance means it's receiving less heat from the sun, and the smaller size would have allowed it to begin to solidify and form oceans and atmospheres while the Earth was still molten and too hot for life as we know it.

So life could have evolved on Mars first, then a rock like ALH84001 could have brought some single celled extremophile martians to earth who could be our great-great-....great grandparents. So if our ancestors were Martian, in a sense you could say we are too even if we eventually evolved on Earth.

So if we are really descendants of Martians, and we built the pyramids, then couldn't you say Martians (aka aliens) built the pyramids, and those aliens are us?

OK want me to debunk the rest?

reply to post by OrionHunterX

BTW the picture in #8 is broken.

posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 04:23 PM

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Someone above said "you either believe or you don't". That could not be more correct. All of these "alien" stories are simply a matter of belief and once you have this belief confirmation bias consumes your perception.

Actually I learned something about confirmation bias that shows that's not quite true. I assumed as you did that either believers or skeptics were equally subject to confirmation bias, but a scientific study has proven me wrong. I still suspect both are subject to confirmation bias, but it's apparently not equal:

Confirmation bias

One study showed how selective memory can maintain belief in extrasensory perception (ESP).[29] Believers and disbelievers were each shown descriptions of ESP experiments. Half of each group were told that the experimental results supported the existence of ESP, while the others were told they did not. In a subsequent test, subjects recalled the material accurately, apart from believers who had read the non-supportive evidence. This group remembered significantly less information and some of them incorrectly remembered the results as supporting ESP.

-from Russell, Dan; Warren H. Jones (1980), "When superstition fails: Reactions to disconfirmation of paranormal beliefs", Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin (Society for Personality and Social Psychology)

So basically what that says is that skeptics can look at evidence for or against paranormal phenomenon (In that case ESP but probably not a stretch to extrapolate to other paranormal beliefs like ghosts, leprechauns, and perhaps aliens, etc) and recall the information more or less correctly.

Believers on the other hand, tended to show a much larger degree of confirmation bias, by disregarding studies that contradict their beliefs, or sometimes recalling even the OPPOSITE of what the study actually said, to support their beliefs.

So you see, it's not really a fair debate at all when confirmation bias is so one-sided like that.

BTW I believe in aliens (most likely) but I've yet to see evidence of them on Earth unless that is in ALH84001 and the jury is still out on that evidence.

posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 04:28 PM
reply to post by OrionHunterX

1. Great Pyramids: These wondrous marvels have many mysteries about them. I am one to not say aliens built them, but do wonder how the Egyptians were able to do it. Christopher Dunn has written many books on the wonders of the pyramids. He looks at them from his 50 years experience as an engineer.

2. Cattle Mutilations: I agree that there is probably a natural explanation for most of them. However, the lack of blood and some of the cuts made on the animals are too precise to be made by scavengers and predators.

3. Area 51: This is a highly classified test facility. While I do believe the military has crashed parts of extraterrestrial craft and probes, they are not stored at Area 51.

4. Crop Circles: There are a few videos showing how they are made. Simple tools are used for the most complex designs. Too many researchers are now making claims they are messages from space of which I think is not true.

5. Face On Mars: If it is a natural formation, it is a fascinating one. We need to land there and take a good look at it once and for all. How was it formed? I won't make a call one way or another until it is explored.

6. The Alien Autopsy Hoax: This has been proven a hoax many time over, and some still bring it up. Let it go to die peacefully.

7. Kenneth Arnold and flying saucers: The term flying saucers was used before Mr Arnold. One description of the objects is that they skipped like saucers. I don't know why this is on the list, unless you want to use the explanation of birds (or swamp gas). The term is a semantic one, as anyone familiar with this case knows he saw crescents.

8. Alien Implants: Most have turned out to be foreign items like tool bits. But some do remain a mystery. I am not going to lump them all into one category until more information is learned. I do think the majority have natural explanations, but that leads the rest unsolved.

9. Abductions: I do agree that many are from sleep paralysis, but it is silly to lump them all into this one. I tend to follow the abduction/encounter cases that happen when people are awake and fully aware (Betty and Barney Hill, Reverand Gill, etc).

10. Rosewell: Project Mogul? Really? This is so far the lamest excuse the USAF has used. First of all, the project itself was not classified. They used regular balloons with instruments that were not classified either. Why did they need to ship all the debris to Ft Worth and then to Wright Patterson AFB? Why did they have many flag officers flying to the area over the Fourth of July break if it was just a balloon? I have many, many questions being a former military person myself. Debunkers have been hard at work over trying to shake this one, but too many good eyewitness accounts and actual documents show there was something VERY UNUSUAL that happened that day. Not a crash of a souped up weather balloon.

posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 04:32 PM
I am rather skeptical in my approach to UFO analysis and all, but as many have mentioned this thread proves absolutely nothing.

I see opinions, not facts.

If this topic were made in favor of alien involvement for the cases you've presented, you'd get the same response.

Where's the proof?

Saying "Area 51 has never been involved with any alien craft" is no different from stating "Area 51 has always been involved with alien craft."

Either way, it's an opinion pulled out of your butt.

These topics irk me as much as the people talking about the extra dimensional aliens haunting their nightmares.

Speculation is the basis for this entire site. Sometimes things are debunked with facts (see the Australian spiral), other times, people just spout their opinions off as fact, or claim the opinions of others somehow transform into facts, as TC did.

Meh, meh, meh.

[edit on 10-6-2010 by SaosinEngaged]

posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 04:38 PM
I have to say the point about the flying crescents is very well put. However I disagree with everything else.

posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 05:36 PM

Originally posted by kidflash2008
10. Rosewell: Project Mogul? Really? This is so far the lamest excuse the USAF has used. First of all, the project itself was not classified.

You made a lot of good points in that post. But what's your source that Mogul wasn't classified? I can post several sources stating that it was.

At the time of the Roswell crash, project MOGUL was a highly classified U.S. effort to determine the state of Soviet nuclear weapons research using balloons that carried radar reflectors and acoustic sensors.

Maybe you mean the fact that there was a launch of a giant balloon wasn't classified, but the purpose of it was classified?

And as Marcel said, it wasn't a weather balloon, it was far too big for that. So the OP is a little off on calling it a weather balloon. Technically it was many weather balloons connected together:

According to Charles Moore, Flight 4 consisted of 28 neoprene, meteorological-sounding (i.e., weather) balloons attached to a 600-foot-long master line of braided nylon cord, three ML-307B rawin radar targets, possibly one or more silk-canopy parachutes, and a variety of test equipment such as a sonobuoy microphone, radio transmitter, dry cells, and plastic containers holding solid and liquid ballast. All components and systems were ordinary off-the-shelf items; only the Mogul program objective was classified.

So it was maybe more like 28 weather balloons, not "a" weather balloon. And due to compartmentation, the locals may not have known much about it which is why they flew remnants to other bases:

From The Roswell Report:

To attempt to limit unauthorized disclosure, the Air Force employed a security mechanism known as compartmentation. Compartmentation controlled access to classified information by dispersing portions of the research among several facilities and institutions. Each participating entity received only enough information necessary to accomplish its assigned
tasks. In the case of MOGUL, only a small circle of Air Force officers received the intimate details that linked together these unrelated research projects. The use of cbmpartmentation along with strict enforcement of the need to know enabled MOGUL to remain a secret-despite its obvious security difficulties-and to remain unevaluated for many years as the cause of the Roswell Incident.

The issue of compartmentation was significant because some UFO researchers assert that the persons who recovered the MOGUL equipment, members of the 509th Bombardment Group stationed at Roswell Army Airfield, should have been able to recognize the debris collected at the crash site as that of a research balloon. Although members of the 509th
possessed high-level clearances, they were not privy to the existence of MOGUL; their job was to deliver nuclear weapons, not to detect them. The unusual combination of experimental equipment did not encourage easy identification that undoubtedly left some members of the 509th with unanswered questions. Some UFO enthusiasts have manipulated these unanswered questions to support their flying-saucer recovery scenario, while eagerly supplying unfounded explanations of extraterrestrial visitation and cosmic conspiracy. Additionally, many claims of a flying saucer crash at Roswell rest on the description of debris collected at the Foster ranch site. UFO researchers, including those who are said to have known ail about MOGUL, apparently did not compare the descriptions of the suspect debris with that of the components of a Project MOGUL balloon train. MOGUL reports and documents that contain descriptions, illustrations, and photographs have been publicly available for at least twenty years. Had the researchers completed even a cursory comparison, they would have found that the materials were suspiciously similar: detailed examination would have shown them to be one and the same.

The foil that Jesse Marcel describes where he can hit it with a sledgehammer and nothing happens to it sounds just like my foil, nothing happens when I hit my foil with a sledgehammer either. After a few decades some of the material properties may have been confabulated a bit but Marcel, Brazel, and everyone else except for Brazels son who described the sticks as I-beams, basically describe what sound like foil, sticks, and rubber bits of balloon to me. In fact the claims that what the witnesses saw was not foil, sticks and tape sounds really desparate to me, that's exactly what it sounds like:

Brazel related that on June 14 he and 8-year old son Vernon were about 7 or 8 miles from the ranch house of the J.B. Foster ranch, which he operates, when they came upon a large area of bright wreckage made up of rubber strips, tinfoil, a rather tough paper and sticks.

The next day he first heard about the flying disks, and he wondered if what he had found might be the remnants of one of these.

When the debris was gathered up the tinfoil, paper, tape, and sticks made a bundle about 18 or 20 inches long and about 5 inches thick. In all, he estimated, the entire lot would have weighed maybe five pounds

Considerable scotch tape and some tape with flowers printed upon it had been used in the construction.

That article was written before people had a chance to confabulate magical properties of the foil, sticks etc, but even the confabulated stories still sound like foil and sticks to me.

Tinfoil, paper, tape, and sticks? Sounds like remnants of Mogul to me. But too much to be an ordinary weather balloon. So why not fly it to another base for identification? And also to make sure it's from the US and not a spy device from the USSR?

posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 06:27 PM

Originally posted by OrionHunterX

Originally posted by Smiler74
as said before you havent really debunked anything, even if some of it isnt true you didnt debunk it, someone else did and you are just reapeating what they have said

Someone else did? So? I concur with with what that 'someone else' did! In fact it's not just one person. Billions believe these are nothing but hoaxes and yarns spun by the 'believers' and conspiracy theorists. If anything is unexplainable, then it must have something to do with them aliens! Right?

The problem is that it's not really much of a "debunk" of anything. It's the debate equivalent of a text consisting of "No ur rong!"

Take crop circles, for example. Yes, many are man-made. However, the ones that raise the real questions come from fields where there is no sign of mechanical wear on the stalks and the presence of expulsion cavities (indicating some form of heating). Some even have micronized ferrite deposits with a magnetic polarity (IE - magnetized iron particles) present in the region of disturbed crop, but not in the regions surrounding the 'crop circle'.

Of course - that does not prove alien involvement, but it certainly perks a few eyebrows.

Now, some will cite the MIT goons who attempted to build a machine to hoax this type of crop-circle. After they woke up everyone within a three-county radius using their portable generator to power a mutilated microwave, they proceeded to tear up the surrounding field and make their little crop-circle before using some freakish iron-supplemented flamethrower to try and replicate the iron particles.

Because, if I wanted to hoax a crop-circle and make people think it was alien involvement, I'd go so far as to microwave the field and stomp around in a farmer's field with a flamethrower. Why go that extra step, when I don't need to do that in order to make people think it's aliens?

Anyway - the students failed to even remotely match the results of a 'real' crop-circle. The iron particles did not fall within the correct dimensions (or even have consistent dimensions), the stalks were bruised and broken with a lack of consistent expulsion cavities, and they were running around with a semi-truck full of equipment, and these types of crop-circles have been found only a few dozen yards from farm-houses where people were dwelling.

Ultimately - it doesn't prove or debunk anything. All it does is solidify the reality that not all crop-circles are pranks, hoaxes, artistic expression by humans, or what-have-you. Some fall into a category that simply cannot be satisfied by "conventional" explanations and logic.

That won't stop people from ignoring them - or from blowing them out of proportion and citing them as alien. The fact is, though, that many things currently cannot be satisfied by explanation of a purely human origin.

Even saying: "someone confessed to being the hoaxer of this film!" is not really all that amazing. Hundreds of people claimed to be the guy in the gorilla suit in the Wright-Patterson footage. At the bare minimum, all but one was lying, but not one could produce the suit. Dozens of terrorist groups claimed responsibility for 9/11 - obviously, the vast majority of them had to be lying through their teeth.

Logic and proof work both ways. Can you prove the video is not a hoax? Can you prove the video is a hoax? Can you prove you are the person who hoaxed this video?

It's like out of the horror-movies - a loud noise is made in the basement and someone goes down to check, they see the cat jump down off of a table and sigh in relief.

The cat is a convenient rationalization of the noise that does not require the soon-to-be-eaten character to deal with the inconvenient presence of an adversary, monster, etc.

Blaming everything on hoaxes, mass-hallucinations, swamp gas reflecting the light of Venus, etc is the same rational process.

Again - that is not saying everything that shows up on YouTube is an alien, bigfoot, ghost, etc. But there is that 1% or so that really perks an eyebrow.

[edit on 10-6-2010 by Aim64C]

posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 06:59 PM

Originally posted by Aim64C
Take crop circles, for example. Yes, many are man-made. However, the ones that raise the real questions come from fields where there is no sign of mechanical wear on the stalks and the presence of expulsion cavities (indicating some form of heating).
you mean like using a plank on a rope, and heating from sunlight?

Some even have micronized ferrite deposits with a magnetic polarity (IE - magnetized iron particles) present in the region of disturbed crop, but not in the regions surrounding the 'crop circle'.

Yes I found something like that in the circlemaker's guide:

A formation will be deemed genuine if:

1. you are not caught making it.

2. the pattern represents a shape which leading cerealogists could regard as of symbolic importance, and, therefore, useful on the proselyting lecture circuit, e.g. mandalas, Atlantean script, etc.

Any particular formation might develop its own individual folklore if:
4. mysterious substances are found in it - particularly if these substances are subjected to scientific analysis and found to be, 'not of this earth'. ...Particularly popular are strange substances, usually found in the centre of the circles - white goo, for instance, or dew-rusted iron filings (meteoric dust)... or anything glowing or luminous - will quickly attract a flurry of interest.

So rub some iron filings against a magnet and scatter them in the circle? That doesn't sound too hard.

Nobody can tell "manmade" circles from "genuine" circles....some cerealogists have tried, only to learn later that the circles they deemed "genuine" in fact turned out to be manmade after all. You have to do better than iron filings and sunlight heating the stalks to show anything more than hoaxing is going on, especially when the circlemakers guide makes a point of how to fool people with iron filings. While you have a valid point about people taking credit for things they didn't do, all that proves is lots of people are liars, which should make us MORE suspect of the circles being manmade, not less.

posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 07:26 PM
reply to post by OrionHunterX


My thoughts, in order:

1. Pyramids

I believe there is still conjecture as to the exact processes involved with building the pyramids. I don’t see much circumstantial evidence that indicates alien involvement.

2. Cattle Mutilations

I don’t believe all human & cattle mutilations are easily explained. It appears to me that some of the lesions have been produced by surgical equipment including endoscopic equipment & lasers. I have posted about this previously. I think it is more likely there has been human intervention is some instances & less likely there was alien involvement.

3. Area 51

I don’t believe we can totally exclude the option that aliens have visited Earth. Therefore by definition, I don’t believe we can totally exclude the option that Area 51 could be involved with the storage of alien-related objects.

4. Crop Circles

I agree that crop circles are hoaxes produced by humans.

5. Cyclonia Face On Mars

I agree the face on Mars is a natural geographical feature.

6. Alien Autopsy

I agree the alien autopsy is a hoax.

7. Initial “Flying Saucer” Description

I agree with your summary of the commentary pertaining to Arnold & the journalist. I do not agree that indicates all subsequent reports of “flying saucers” are in error.

8. Alien Implants

I agree there does not appear to be significant compelling evidence of alien implants.

9. Alien Abductions

I don’t believe we can totally exclude the option that aliens have visited Earth. Therefore by definition, I don’t believe we can totally exclude the option that aliens could have abducted humans.

10. Roswell

I don’t believe we can totally exclude the option that aliens have visited Earth. Therefore by definition, I don’t believe we can totally exclude the option that something alien crashed at Roswell.

Kind regards
Maybe…maybe not

posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 08:19 PM

Originally posted by Maybe...maybe not
4. Crop Circles

I agree that crop circles are hoaxes produced by humans.

Very few may not be manmade. This one doesn't seem to have the characteristics of the plank on a rope technique:

The nature of the stalk bending might suggest a possible cause like this:

And the circles like the Firefox circle aren't hoaxes:

That was a student project but other non-hoax circles are commercial ventures.

But no indications aliens are involved that I can see.

posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 08:46 PM

Originally posted by OrionHunterX

7. On June 24, 1947, Kenneth Arnold saw nine “flying saucers” moving at high speed near Mount Rainer, Washington. Soon others began reporting seeing similar UFOs – Flying Saucers.”

The phrase "flying saucer," is the result of a reporter’s error.

Well according to Jacques Vallee in "Passport to Magonia"...

It is common belief that the term "flying saucer" was "made in
America." Was it not coined by an American businessman in
1947? Was not the first official investigation of the mystery by
military authorities started in the United States a few weeks later?

Well, yes. But a farmer from Texas described a dark flying
object as a "large saucer" as early as January, 1878, and ancient
Japanese records inform us that on October 27, 1180, an unusual
luminous object described as an "earthenware vessel" flew from a mountain in the Kii Province beyond the northeast mountain
of Fukuhara at midnight. After a while, the object changed its
course and was lost to sight at the southern horizon, leaving a
luminous trail.

"In view of the time which has elapsed since the sighting"—as
U.S. Air Force investigators like to say—it would be difficult to
obtain additional data today. It is interesting, however, to find a
medieval Japanese chronicler speaking of flying earthenware.

Passport to Magonia - On UFOs, Folklore, and Parallel Worlds (pdf)

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3  4 >>

log in