UFO Thingies & Stuff. Skeptical? Me too maybe. Pics & Quotes.

reply to post by icecold7


Use the search function and look up "Astronaut UFOs" and "CARET hoax". We have plenty of topic debunking these and other parts of the OP's post.

So ATSers still think Truman spoke the truth?
I don't think so.
The evidence is clear that Truman let in the saucer builders
into this country.

reply to post by Esoteric Teacher


Esoteric Teacher…..

G’day me ol’ mate!

I guess my broad “middle ground” reply to your opening comments is that many people are not lying per se…..it’s just that they’re are seeing something prosaic, but they don’t realise it. So, I don't see it as a case of "lying" or "not lying".

The situation becomes even more complicated because of the vast preponderance of junk ufology that continues to bury us

Now, on the one hand…..

I really enjoy your work on ATS & I really enjoy your creative approach to this post…..bravo & star!

But, on the other hand….. (sorry mate…..)

You really have posted some “dodgy” stuff.

Just a quick run through shows me:

- Well known CGI hoaxes

- Long exposure pictures of aircraft

- Camera reflections

- Hoax astronaut statements

- Quoted hearsay

- Statements taken out of context

- The Caret drone hoax

- A water droplet presented as a “UFO”

- Reflections in a window

- Camera bokeh effect

- Camera auto iris effect

- A Billy Meier hoax

- Clouds

- Film faults

- The Villa hoax from Mexico

- etc….

That is to say…..I think you gotta tighten up on the material!

Otherwise, you’ll get lost in the swamp that is this whole troubled complex & subject of UFOs.

For your interest, here’s a case that keeps me scratching my head…..perhaps you might like to use a couple of pic’s from it, or use it as an example for your discussion of “what’s really going on!”.

Revisiting The 1994 Nellis Air Force Base UFO Video

Cheers as always mate
Maybe…maybe not

reply to post by Maybe...maybe not


as always you intellectual knowledge of the subject matter is more than welcome.

personally, i believe there would not be any attempt at misinformation and disinformation if there was not a percieved need for it, by either individuals or organizations.

i also believe that the disinformation agents (knowingly or not, passively or aggressively participating) may not always be the disinformation agents we think they are. perhaps they are speaking in code, or passing information to one another via encrypted and encoded means.

i agree, looking back and researching some of this, that there are possibly bogus quotes (as pointed out by yourself and Phage) which may not apply to the facts concerning the ufo phenomenon. A few of the astronaut quotes i am still researching. i am also reading through some of the official nasa transmissions from earlier space exploration programs. interesting stuff. i think some if it may be coded, but it is tough to convince people of this if they do not believe language can be more than just left to right.

i regret this, but that is also substantial justification for those who do choose to remain skeptical.

this is a puzzle. a puzzle that may indeed be measured in light years, and does not fit on the table.

even if there were only 2 pieces to the puzzle, that still means that 15 out of 16 times the two pieces of the puzzle do not fit together. but .... once out of 16 times those two sides match up ... and fit.

thanks for weighing in on this. i will continue my own studies, and appreciate it greatly when you share what you find.

thanks Maybe,
et

edited to delete post. disregard this post.

reply to post by Turiddu


i did
it debunked nothing
i agree some astronaus stories my might be made up,good disinfo
the whole caret thing also didnt do it for me
i do agree alot of stuff in the op has been debunked

but i still dont know wat these moving stars are,as said they move all around and they are just weird
thanks for ur input

reply to post by icecold7


i think the fact that any effort whatsoever to create disinfo and misinfo and easily disregarded "evidence" is proof enough that they are doing it for a percieved need.

nowadays we have the technology in the hands of hundreds of millions if not billions across the globe for them to create their own hoaxes in minutes at the touch of their fingers.

reasonable doubt = debunked.

Reasonable Doubt = Debunked

reply to post by Esoteric Teacher


u r absolutely wright minus this litlle detail
u might want to consider the fact these things are so far more advanced then ,blank,that they are only seen when they want to be seen
but im fairly certain it will be soon
that u get ur poof,only wat would u do then?

reply to post by Esoteric Teacher


Question. Was that post subliminal ?

Starred and Flagged. Creative and funny !

It was different and I loved it !

reply to post by SonoftheSun


thank you for the compliment. i did spend a few hours putting that together.

HOWEVER it is important to heed Maybe...maybe not's observations that many of those quotes may be misquotes, taken out of context, or even just plain hoaxers' creations. also, some of those pics may be explainable, and hoaxes themselves.

the point of putting that together was to demonstrate how much information is out there concerning the ufo phenomenon.

but, i think hoaxes would not exist if there were not premises or reasons for the hoaxes to be created in the first place. false flags and such.

i'm glad you like the format, thanks.

-et

Originally posted by Turiddu
OK a bunch of quotes (many of which have been discussed and debunked here already, especially the claims of Astronauts) and many proven hoax photos...

What exactly are you trying to prove with this topic?

does reasonable doubt = debunked?

analogy:

A Fair Analogy? :

Debunkers Are Only Right 15 out of 16 times, when the puzzle only has 2 pieces.

but once out of 16 times two sides of those puzzle pieces do fit together.



the only thing debunkers have on their side is the statistics! and the numbers are in their favor!


debunkers sometimes stop trying to fit a piece of the puzzle into place after a few failures. or attempt skeptics, believers, and those who are sure from attempting to put the pieces of the puzzle together.



maybe they are 4 sides to the puzzle themselves?

......................................absolutley sure........................
..........................................^......................................
debunker/no chance..............skeptical/don't know
..........................................v......................................
.......................................believer/no proof.....................

don't get me wrong, ATS is a better place with the debunkers.

HOWEVER, if you are entering into a discussion with the clear intentions of being only focussed on debunking, then you are less likely to be receptive to the larger discussion.

it has been my observation that there are members who will argue senselessly against the existance of one pixel or what exactly the pixel could be, rather than accepting that the pixel actually is or may be a pixel and it's neighboring pixels exist in order to accept that the whole computer screen makes more sense with the pixels than without the pixels.

those are some thoughts i had, i thought i would share,
et