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.


Is there any value in amateurs researching UFOs?

page: 2
<< 1    3 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 10:52 AM
I value amateur ufo research as much as that of an expert. I enjoy a good ufo story, whether it's from a book, (if it's a book then the story-teller is an expert), or from a friend or fellow researcher (amateur). That's the only difference I can see.

Well, then there's them folk (can't think of a name for them) who know it all, they see aliens in the wallpaper, they have single pixels on their cameras that have wraparound eyes and a slit for a mouth etc. You know the sort. They annoy me, and amuse me sometimes.

UFOlogy is exciting.. great fun... very scary. Not the same scary as watching a scary movie, 'cos that's not real. It's the same scary as doing something dangerous which is also fun. Like going on a really high/fast roller-coaster. Because you know that even though this is great fun there is probably a REAL danger here.

posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 12:26 PM
reply to post by Mclaneinc

Sorry people but you need to listen and read an entire thread, not skipping posts by people whose name you don't recognise. You know, occasionally us little folk actually do find out stuff and point to them. Do I think amateur investigators have a use? (who cares, no one will read this )

Hey Mclaneinc, I read your posts when I see them and recognise your avatar. My impression of your posts in general is a good one.

When I started on ATS, a couple of 'name' members supported me and paid attention to some posts. I try to follow their example and keep an eye out for some newer members or maybe post something on a profile. The 'little folk,' as you describe them, generate the most posts on ATS. The ATS big-leaguers should remember this and I think quite a few do.

Every thread that passes two pages has a gem in there by a member that gets overlooked. It's a shame. I think it's human nature at play in the same way that being in the Top 10 music charts is no reflection of quality. Likewise, a band or movie that doesn't get the attention needn't mean they're no good.

posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 12:26 PM

Originally posted by LSWONE

Originally posted by Mclaneinc

(who cares, no one will read this

Never let that happen here...

Sorry, don't know what you said. I didn't read your post.

As for the UFOs. You should just look up once in a while. You might see some if you are patient. You might even catch a ship leaving the moon one of these nights.

Now there you go, if you had read my posts you would have known I've seen 2 UFO's

posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 01:16 PM
reply to post by Mclaneinc


I did read your post. I meant that comment for the OP.

posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 01:18 PM
My own view is that researching UFOs is akin to understanding the mysteries of the universe and why we are here. Trying to understand UFOs is part and parcel of solving the mystery of life , the universe and creation.

I first joined ATS in April 2010 and my first thread was about how we will never solve the mystery of the UFOs. The reason I hold this view is because we are approaching the subject of UFOs the wrong way. Just like the OP says, people seem to make an assumption that there are aliens from another planet and then go out to look for the data.

Unless we embrace philosophy, physics, quantum physics, psychology and religion, we will not be any wiser on the subject of UFOs. Yet the answers are probably staring us in the face.

As for 'amateurs' researching UFOs, I would never use that term. It is open for anyone to solve the mystery. For my part it is a matter of tuning in and being in the right place at the right time.

edit on 23-9-2010 by crowdedskies because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-9-2010 by crowdedskies because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 01:48 PM

Originally posted by Phage
I try to look at each case independently to see what can be learned from it, without really trying to prove anything. Just trying to separate facts from perceptions. Is that approach invalid?

Perhaps not 'invalid' per say . But if you only look at one case without fitting that case into the bigger picture as to how that case relates to others, then you stand the chance of missing the big picture.

An example...

An insider tells me about an Aquila cargo transport launch from Kwajalein Atoll in 1969, destination Moon, two months before Apollo 11...

Okay so on that alone..well I am sure how people will react...

But with a little digging I find this...

Hubert P. Davis, Starcraft Boosters, Inc.

Mentions the Aquila cargo transport... and missions to the Moon and Mars using Delta IV heavy lifters, from Boeing Integrated Defense Systems . File is an abstract of a meeting from the Lunar and Planetary Institute on mining space resources..

So I look up "Starcraft Boosters, Inc." who are they?

Well Lo and BEHOLD...

And what do I find there?

The Orbiter is the aging part of the Shuttle system. The rest of the launch vehicle is very capable. And we need a heavy-lift vehicle if we’re going to ever go beyond low Earth orbit. So that’s why my band of brothers, my band of consultants, has been looking at using a Shuttle-derived launch vehicle and an eight-person crew module. We call it Project Aquila.

So here I am full circle... yet each piece without the other is not that exciting, but pieced together it becomes one interesting story...

posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 01:51 PM

Originally posted by LSWONE You might even catch a ship leaving the moon one of these nights.

Hmmm moon is a big place... any thoughts on which section to point scope at?

posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 02:07 PM

Originally posted by rand27
If some day this phenomena reveals itself to us. I wonder what the value is any of the research that has been done? Nobody is going to listen to the amateurs, but everyone will listen the Scientists that will be flocking to this topic.

Here is my view about that.

The whistleblowers and the investigators who have done in fact during the last decades all the hard work to put that phenomena on the map so to speak, to bringing it out in the open, will very soon be forgotten and the Scientists that did ignore the whole phenomenon for decades now and still find it nothing more than pure nonsense and absolutely impossible will be no doubt be flocking as fast as they can to this topic and put themselves in the front seats so to say in order to go striking with all the honor.

As said in the quote from Arthur Schopenhauer in zorgon’s post.

Originally posted by zorgon

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." - Arthur Schopenhauer

Comparable as Arthur C. Clarke explained how there were four stages in the way scientists react to the development of anything of a revolutionary nature like so called "Free energy" technology.

On Sunday, 17 December 1995, viewers in U.K. saw an hour-long T V. program which, at long last, puts across the clear message that "free energy" is on the way. In our New Energy News forum we already know much of the substance of what was covered, but it may be of interest to have this report.

The program was featured in the EQUINOX series which appears periodically on our T.V. Channel 4, its title being "It Runs On Water."

In the opening stages Arthur C. Clarke explained how there were four stages in the way scientists react to the development of anything of a revolutionary nature. "Free energy" was now working its way through these four stages of reaction, which were:

a) "It's nonsense,"
b) "It is not important,"
c) "I always said it was a good idea," and
d) "I thought of it first."

posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 02:27 PM

Originally posted by spacevisitor
In the opening stages Arthur C. Clarke explained how there were four stages in the way scientists react to the development of anything of a revolutionary nature. "Free energy" was now working its way through these four stages of reaction, which were:

a) "It's nonsense,"
b) "It is not important,"
c) "I always said it was a good idea," and
d) "I thought of it first."

Oh I love that! Didn't have that one before...

posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 02:34 PM
Amateurs: meaning "for the love of it". Where do you go for your 'pro' degree in UFOlogy? Cambridge?

Maye one day, somewhere, some amateur will make or break the whole kaboodle. Be objective.

posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 04:18 PM
reply to post by zorgon

Interesting story but of course your insider could very well have been aware of the LRB paper mentioning Aquila before you were or perhaps the nature of your inquiry was enough. You know, leading questions and stuff. I wonder if perhaps someone had a connection to another cargo vessel, USS Aquila (AK-47). Or maybe this one or this one
Or maybe it has something to do with Aquila being Zeus's cargo carrier. Seems to be a commonly applied name for cargo carriers. Evidence to back up your insiders story? Not really.

But the topic is UFOs not secret Moon bases. The trouble with UFO reports is that there is so much variance that there seems to be little to tie them together without making rather large logical leaps and assumptions. Unlike your story of course, which has a word linking them.

edit on 9/23/2010 by Phage because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 04:26 PM
How are you differentiating the amateurs from the professionals? Are there UFO pros? From where did they gain their experience? Did they go to school to learn about UFOs thereby being able to research them?

In this case the so called "amateurs" have it over the so called "pros" because many of them have at least first hand sightings or experience of some kind. Scientists will not study the phenomenon until one lands or crashes in their laps. The other so called "pros" all seem to have agendas.

posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 05:04 PM

Originally posted by davidwaters84
I would have to agree with The All Seeing Eye on how most of the world views the ufo phenomenon, but I do disagree on his view of amateur ufo researchers.We need all the help we can get in this field; because any help is always of value.

You must not expect to make this a job or even to expect any reward other then the experience its self. The only difference between an amateur and a professional is the fact that the professional gets paid.

If you enjoy doing it and it does not prevent you from your daily obligations, then I see noting wrong with researching this subject. I mean you never know, you could be the person who finds the smoking gun we need.

edit on 22-9-2010 by davidwaters84 because: (no reason given)

I didn't say there was anything wrong with doing your own research, I just do not feel it is being compiled in a efficient and timely manner. Where is the organization of independent researchers, other than ats? Where is the support structure to assist in replacing "assumptions" with facts and the reverse, other that ats?

In as far as monetary reward, it never entered my mind because even I know that brilliance is a illusive virtue that can appear and disappear in the blink of a eye, pun intended. You cant truly pay someone to be brilliant, or, divinely inspired.

You might say, you would see the other parts of the picture if you attended lectures, presentations. But I say I did, and all I saw was disinformation, greed, and arrogance. I have tried on numerous occasions to join what I view as the best chance for humanity but "They" view me as untrustworthy with pertinent information. they laugh at me and belittle me because I am not as brilliant as they. They look down at my lack of scholastic abilities abilities as though I am a moron. Rather than take me under their wing and fine tune me, they ignore me as though I was a mushroom in a dark room. They need all the help they can get, you are correct.

With the present format for collecting and analyzing data, the independent researcher has zero effect on the outcome.

There needs to be a presidential group created for the sole purpose of gathering, analyzing, and disseminating the research of the independent researchers, no "experts". As the saying goes, "you can learn a lot, from a dummy".

posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 05:49 PM
Honestly, not really. If you REALLY wanted to research ET and UFOS, you gotta work for the government.

All that mess, unfortunatly, is kept under lock and key from the public. What we are fed is the misinformation spewed by the government, in order to keep up blind to the facts,

posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 06:14 PM

Originally posted by rand27
2. If some day this phenomena reveals itself to us.

This is the same non-scientific approach you're arguing against. Reality never reveals itself to us, we have to make an effort to find out how it works.

edit on 23-9-2010 by cripmeister because: alien implant screwed up my thought process.

posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 06:17 PM

Originally posted by Phage
Unlike your story of course, which has a word linking them.

Well ever since the advent of youtube and cell phone ufo spoof software, I gave up looking at anything new. A total waste of time...

I now have ATS and guys like you to sort them all out, then I can look at the cream of the crop.

So thank you for being such a wonderful FREE research assistant

The problem with all the hoaxing is that it is creating apathy... few care anymore, save the rabid debunker trolls who pounce on every post these days...

Like this thread for example a question on disclosure with a personal opinion... no science yet I see calls to dump it to skunkworks... yet YOU and I are here
I came to ATS to discuss topics like this... yet many of my stuff got flushed to skunkworks too... even stuff that got applauses and was backed with true documents...

So are we to stop discussing this stuff without 'scientific proof/evidence'? Even when you have such... it still gets attacked...

Ah well... as to my 'story' it may well be a whole lot of coincidences... but there is enough to make me interested to look... besides, I don't believe in coincidences

edit on 23-9-2010 by zorgon because: because Phage told me too

posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 06:29 PM
Amateurs... The discovery of Penicillin

A medical student, Ernest Duchesne documented it in an 1897 paper, which was not accepted by the Institut Pasteur because of his youth. But 50+ years later, the re-discovery of penicillin is attributed to Scottish scientist and Nobel laureate Alexander Fleming in 1928

So there you have a young amateur student making a discovery and not for 50 years does it make the books when a 'scientist' claims discovery... now how long before the student got even mentioned?

Some of the best Dinosaur skeletons were found by amateur rock hounds.. but amateurs are not allowed to dig them up... gotta call a 'pro', who then gets all the credit, save maybe 'honorable mention' for the amateur if lucky

Bet I can find more examples

edit on 23-9-2010 by zorgon because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 06:49 PM
reply to post by zorgon

Bet I can too!

Amateur Astronomer Spots Mercury's Tail Via NASA STEREO Observatory:

posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 07:02 PM
reply to post by Chadwickus

Oh yeah I forgot an important one, VERY relevant to this thread,,,

The whereabouts of the X-37B were unknown until May 20th when amateur satellite watchers Greg Roberts of Cape Town, South Africa, and Kevin Fetter of Brockville, Canada, independently spotted it. Another satellite sleuth, Ted Molczan of Toronto, Canada, combined their observations to determine the space plane's orbit. With this information in hand, Fetter was able to find the X-37B again the next night; here it is on May 21st passing the 3rd-magnitude star Sadalsuud in Aquarius.

So here we have AMATEUR astronomers, spotting SECRET SPACE PLANES, and NASA reporting it...

How ironic is that? Funny it never made much noise at ATS though? Odd that

SECRET SPACE PLANE: NASA's space shuttle program may be winding down, but the US Air Force's is just getting started. On April 22nd, the USAF launched an unmanned mini-shuttle from Cape Canaveral on a secret mission widely thought to involve reconnaissance. The X-37B can now be seen gliding through the night sky shining about as brightly as the stars of the Big Dipper. On Sunday night, Gary O. photographed it streaking over the treetops of his home in Fort Davis, Texas:

[[[goes off muttering... no such thing as secret space planes......:shk: ]]]

posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 07:16 PM
A lot of great comments. I dont think it changes the way I feel on the topic, but I certainly appreciate everyones point of view on this.

I was thinking MUFON is in a great position to be the spearhead in moving Ufology in the right direction, but it is obvious they already believe that this phenomenon revolves around aliens from space. I think if they took a more objective approach to their data collection it would go along way to maybe getting some answers. At the very least it would become database that could be used for some real study.

Has anyone looked at the MUFON questionaire? The questionaire on the website does not seem very thorough and it seems to have a lot of bias in it. The other thing that bothered me is that on the event map they show alien faces and presumably spaceships. Even before I have filled out the questionaire they are creating a bias in my head.

I don't mean to pick on MUFON. They do some great work, but they do make a good example of some of the shortcomings in this avenue of study.

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3 >>

log in