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.

 

What does the Internet Age have in store for UFO research?

page: 2
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 12 2011 @ 06:22 AM
link   
reply to post by cripmeister
 


Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by Pimander
The garbage is not there by chance. Do you really think normal people spend hour after hour of their time posting garbage UFO footage and reports on the internet? Is that really likely?


Your right
They are not normal
but they aren't government agents either+. Just look at the average youtube commenter and you have your answer


I will start a thread soon on this rather than go any further off topic. I don't want to ruin this thread as it's a really important topic. Kandinsky and Isaac have really alerted me to the possibility of getting some collaboration between some of you veterans and 'newbies' who aren't just obsessed with getting hits on YouTube or stars on ATS.

A short response would be that yes there are lots of morons perpetrating hoaxes or posting every blurry light in the sky that they have spotted with their camera. However, I am convinced that on the 'hot' topics, there is manipulation happening. I could easily get a huge haul of flags and stars if I post more garbage (although that really is often the zombie sheep). Among other things, I think it extremely unlikely that so much weak evidence is presented well while stronger evidence on the same topic is badly presented. Smells a funny colour to me





edit on 12/2/11 by Pimander because: mentioned the zombie sheep




posted on Feb, 12 2011 @ 08:30 AM
link   
I would agree with those of you who think that the internet has had some negative effects. It has drowned out the really interesting evidence and, if anything, Joe Public is less well informed than ever.

In terms of original research, the standards look to have dropped. I haven't been around for too long and draw this conclusion from reading the older flying saucer review reports etc.


Originally posted by IsaacKoi
At the moment, there seems to me to be fairly wide divide between the search and technological abilities of members of some Internet forums and the use of such tools by the older and more established members of the UFO research community. Perhaps these things simply take quite a while to get adopted by people that are, presumably, on average somewhat older than the members of ATS.

But can't the divide be bridged so that younger, more energetic and technologically savvy work more closely with the older and most experienced researchers?


Hopefully yes, the divide can be bridged.


Originally posted by Kandinsky
I like your idea of more experienced researchers working in tandem with younger people, but where are they? I can’t think of a known researcher any younger than mid-40s. If there’s an absence of young blood, there’s also an absence of new ideas despite the internet. When was the last new idea? It wasn’t Mac Tonnies’ ‘cryptoterrestrials’ as that was a reinvention of an older idea. All I can think of is the '___' explanation or the Interdimensional Hypothesis and they’ve been around since before I was born.



Isaac/Kandinsky, your thoughts on this are music to my ears/eyes. I am based in the UK and would be delighted to consider linking up with veteran researchers. Surely there are more newbies interested in some real research? I'm not especially interested in paying BUFORA my hard earned cash to teach a trained scientist how to do research though!

I haven't published any original UFO research yet other than a few minor speculations on ATS. However I do have a new theory about alleged alien contact subjects that I haven't thrown into the ATS mix yet, as I don't want the idea stealing until I have it written in a journal. If you are interested in hearing it then I could U2U an outline to you? As a clue, my first degree was pharmacology and here is one of my threads. Alien Abduction/Visitation: Induction of Sleep Paralysis

This post is relevant.

Originally posted by Pimander

Originally posted by Ghost of America
I've recently read Graham Hancock's Supernatural and a lot of that fit with what was/is going on with me. Maybe a surplus of '___'? I do feel now that there is a force out there that we can't begin to imagine. It's trying to say hello...or something.

Yes, drugs are one of the examples of tools for induction of certain altered sleep (i.e. altered consciousness) states. Ketamine and '___' are especially interesting examples. Ketamine combined with hallucinogens like '___' can cause out of body experiences and near death experiences. Galantamine has been used to induce lucid dreaming which is one characteristic of the abduction scenario.
edit on 22/1/11 by Pimander because: typo

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Feb, 12 2011 @ 08:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by IsaacKoi
It seems to me (although I wonder if others share my perception) that the rate of turnover of those interested in UFO research has increased and with it the amount of reinvention of the wheel.


That is where you could come in Isaac and other veterans. If we started a new research movement, you could be the head consultants. Before anyone wastes months of their life going over old ground, you could help with reviewing the current state of knowledge. I know that this is an important matter to you and am aware of your work (I'm such a lurker).

To hammer home my point, here is a quote from one of my little jousts with our old friend The Shrike/Skeptical Ed.

" from post by mesee here

Originally posted by The Shrike

Originally posted by Pimander
And you have proven nothing. Therefore I can only conclude that your claim that that abductions are ALL a mental construction is nothing but an assertion and hearsay. Why don't you gather some evidence, as I have, then come back with your proof?
(snip)


You haven't really gathered any evidence, what you have gathered are reports which is another word for hearsay. Besides, I'm not making claims that I have to support. I'm questioning such claims therefore the onus is on the claimant to support such claims with real evidence. And enough scholars have reported that like it was said in "YELLOW SUBMARINE", "It's all in the mind".

What the hell are you on about? Witness reports are evidence (though obviously not conclusive on their own). Articles and reports in journals are also what scientists review when surveying a topic. Every scientist doesn't start from scratch before undertaking a study. It is necessary that you start from where another researcher left off for progress to be made otherwise you just continually repeat the work of others.

"If I have seen further it is only by standing on the shoulders of giants" ~ Isaac Newton

If we do not progress then there is little point in research. This is one of the fundamental problems with fields like UFOlogy.

I did clearly state that I was briefly reviewing the topic to be fair. I then just added an idea to the mix (there are real methods for altering consciousness so it isn't just speculation). For real progress to be made we must sometimes stand on the shoulders of our proverbial giants. Maybe then we might make some breakthroughs and real progress.

I do completely understand your own and other peoples utter frustration with a lot of the rubbish posted on ATS (and at alternative conferences) in this type of field. However we should be allowed to make 'educated' speculations surely?

Finally I offer you this extract from an interview with Larry W. Bryant.

Future of UFOlogy?
UFOlogy's future lies in the extent of its ability to evaluate and capitalize upon its past and current achievements; to pose the right questions on pressing issues; and to organize its eternally limited resources logically and efficiently toward arriving at timely, comprehensive answers.The CUFON Interview

" from post by mesee here

So Isaac, how do you suggest we organise our resources?
edit on 12/2/11 by Pimander because: repair a broken link



posted on Feb, 12 2011 @ 04:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kandinsky
There doesn’t seem to be the same frequency of significant sightings or persuasive evidence appearing. From the ‘40s and into the ‘70s, major cases occurred almost every year with waves and flaps making some years stand out further. As we drifted into the late 80s and the beginnings of the Internet Age, UFO incidents have tailed off in significance even as sightings have apparently increased.


Hi Kandinsky,

I wonder how much this perception is merely the result of the lack of (acknowledged) government investigations in the USA since Project Bluebook was closed. Bluebook was a great source of material and conclusions which could be attacked.

Also, the accumulation of material means that each new sighting can be seen as more of the same.


Also, perhaps researchers are too focused on defending their positions and perspectives on the UFO phenomena?


I doubt many would disagree with that one. The UFO field has always seen a strongly polarised division between skeptics and "believers", plus the friction between numerous "believer" camps.

Communication over the Internet does sometimes seem to be prone to stimulating animosity. Goodness knows how many little vendettas I've seen start online between ufologists that have far more in common than they seem to realise...



I like your idea of more experienced researchers working in tandem with younger people, but where are they? I can’t think of a known researcher any younger than mid-40s.


My perception is that there are lot of people younger than their mid-40s that are highly active on ATS and other Internet discussion forums. Many of them seem to be dynamic and be willing to spend quite a bit of time on UFO research, but (dare I say) some of them seem to lack some focus. Contrast that with some of the older researchers that have many projects that have stalled due to lack of time/energy.

Perhaps I could try and encourage one or two of the older researchers that I respect to come on to ATS and indicate the work they would like to do (or have assistance with doing) and see if members of ATS can help them out?

I don't know if this would be against the recuitment prohibition in the ATS Terms and Conditions.

I had a stab at another for bringing together (over the Internet) researchers and people with particular expertise by starting the thread at the link below, but that has been a damp squib so far:

Registry of experts/consultants prepared to help with UFO research issues



When was the last new idea? It wasn’t Mac Tonnies’ ‘cryptoterrestrials’ as that was a reinvention of an older idea.


I don't think lack of new theories is a problem. Generation of theories has always been about ten steps ahead of gathering/analysing data within ufology...

All the best,

Isaac
edit on 12-2-2011 by IsaacKoi because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 12 2011 @ 04:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pimander
So Isaac, how do you suggest we organise our resources?


Heck Pimander, I struggle with that question as much as anyone.

Basically, I divide the time I spend on UFO related issues between:

(1) Work on how to identify the "best" cases. Basically, where should someone start if they want to look at the issues regarding UFO reports? I have then sought to make available references to resources relating to those cases.

(2) Identifying topics whose continued existence is basically an insult to this field of research and seeking to do what I can to put those topics to rest (e.g. certain photos of "aliens"). Why should scientists and others get involved in considering issues relating to UFO reports when there is (understandably) a view that much of the material surrounding UFOs is nonsense?

(3) Other issues which simply grab my attention for various reasons and/or I find entertaining.

All the best,

Isaac



posted on Feb, 12 2011 @ 06:07 PM
link   
reply to post by IsaacKoi


I have an easier way to do the research...

Can you please link me to your best cases?

Thanks




posted on Feb, 12 2011 @ 06:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Pimander
 



Oh wow...can I post that on GLP? See if we can get ANW to run with it



posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 01:45 PM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 

If you post that on GLP you'll start a fire



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 10:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
reply to post by IsaacKoi

I have an easier way to do the research...

Can you please link me to your best cases?


Hi Zorgon,

I'm intrigued by the prospect of "an easier way to do the research". I'd be wholly in favour of finding one!

I'll U2U you a link to a couple of the lists of best cases that I have in mind. They are on my draft website. I'm still slightly reluctant to post links to material on it on the open forum, because it so incomplete due to lack of time to upload material from my computer to the website.

All the best,

Isaac



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 01:22 AM
link   
reply to post by IsaacKoi
 


I think the integration has done irreparable harm to the UFO community. Before, when these central organizations were the main hub of research, you could filter out the nonsense and the ultra nutty conspiracy theories (Buzz aldrin went to mars? really? haha). Now you can't do that, and it all sort of blends together, discrediting the field as a whole.
And sure, you may say "Not every UFO researcher is a conspiratorial loon!" but when the public looks from outside in, all they see is the mixture, and it doesn't matter how clean your water is, if you throw crap in it it gets dirty.

The organizations you mentioned acted as the crap buffer, as a way for people to make that loon/ researcher distinction. That wall has come down.


Compare it to the scientific peer review process. When a scientist wants to publish a new research paper, its reviewed by his or her peers to see if it holds water. If it does, its published.

If you took away peer review all manner of nonsense could make it in.
edit on 16-2-2011 by NavalFC because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-2-2011 by NavalFC because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 08:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by NavalFC
The organizations you mentioned acted as the crap buffer, as a way for people to make that loon/ researcher distinction. That wall has come down.


Some organizations were better filters than others.

As you may know, one of NICAP's most prominent leaders (Keyhoe) actively sought to prevent certain contactees becoming members of NICAP.

However, I'm not so sure that the current generation of UFO organisations have been so active in acting as filters. For example, MUFON's website displays reports submitted by anyone (including some hoaxes that were posted on the MUFON website and then threads were started on ATS with "MUFON" in the title) and the book “ ‘The World's Best UFO Cases’ by MUFON UFO Journal editor Dwight Connelly contains:

(a) Several chapters on various alien abduction accounts, including at least one relatively lengthy chapter devoted to an accounts involving anonymous witnesses;
(b) Four of the chapters relate to crop circles (one of which is entitled “most crop circles are not hoaxes”);
(c) A chapter on alleged alien implants;
(d) A chapter entitled “A truly mysterious Bigfoot encounter (1973)”;
(e) Material on “animal abduction/mutilation”.

All the best,

Isaac



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join