With so many frauds, who can I trust?

Ive been keeping up with the recent thread regarding the apparent ousting of Philip Imbrogno, www.abovetopsecret.com..., and along with this revelation there were many mentions of other people that have also apparently lied or really stretched the truth. While granted the subject of UFOlogy is at best murky in facts and hard evidence, the circumstantial evidence as well as the testimony of concrete and solid witnesses can not be ignored. So I ask a question.... Who can I trust as a non lying, earnest and trustworthy source of recent information and theory? I WAS impressed my Imbrognos ideas and theories, however the linked thread has really thrown water on the flame. I know theres no real way to for sure be certain some one is 100% honest and sincere, but good lord is there ANY WAY one can feel certain that the information being shared is the best and truest knowledge that can be gleaned? Im just feeling frustrated about the whole fraud allegations of late, I really do find the field of UFOlogy to be very interesting and something that we cant, as a race of beings, ignore. I am currently reading Colin Wilson's book Alien Dawn, now I know Wilson is a well known and "vetted" author, but it worries me to put too much stock in anyones ideas anymore. Can anyone offer some advice on this?

my advice is trust nobody and do your own research to find the truth. The truth is how you spin it and see it and using someone elses perception of events os setting yourself up for failure. Best of luck in your research.

Look in the mirror he /or she is the one to trust.

reply to post by agentblue


Ok good point, now heres something that I dont know how to do. I mean I ve no college degree, no contacts in the military or police or emergency departments, pretty much ALL I know about UFOlogy is from the work of others. I wouldnt mind researching this at all..my prob is I just dont know how. lol For example it amazes me to hear that people file for some information in regards to the F.O.I.A, how in the world do you do THAT? is there a hot line or something? The only person I know who has any real connection to any thing like this is a former boss ( and still good friend ) of mine who is also is a good friend of Dr. Joseph Farrell, however I would feel sooo embarrassed to ask him about any of this, . so..any tips?

The truth is, is that most UFO stories that are lacking in lies, are pretty dull...

Some are quite spectacular when first uncovered, and even years after but only the first time you hear about them because they are a single event, but people tend to embellish because it brings more book deals, speaking invitations and notoriety.

Every now and then though, there is just some mundane story with someone who doesn't really like talking about it. And those are definitely the good ones....

reply to post by dreadphil


if you think there is something there ASK
what have you got to lose
follow instincs and gut reactions
get the info out if u can
regards
dave

Originally posted by dreadphil
reply to post by agentblue

 

For example it amazes me to hear that people file for some information in regards to the F.O.I.A, how in the world do you do THAT? is there a hot line or something?

You can start here.

I would suggest stating yourself as an author, which, if you are jotting notes about the requests you receive, is entirely true. Perhaps you will find something worth writing about along the way...

reply to post by dreadphil


Deadphil my recomendations to file a FOIA document is on the national archives webpage. IDK where it is exactly bc its been a while since i've filed for my own FOIA doc on myself. Another thing i'll add is don't ever be embarrassed for asking questions to a phd or anyone who is in the accademia arena. They got their start by asking questions simmilar to yours. If this guy is that big of a douche to belittle you for asking serious questions then it usually points to the fact that he probably isn't as knowledgable as he leads on and doesn't want you to find out and putting up a stone wall. Anybody I have ever known that has very interesting info usually wants to spill it like an overflowing fountain.

reply to post by agentblue


well its not so much that he would belittle me, as Im more just embarrassed to ask lol Dr Farrell has written a number of books and is very well read, Im just a tad bit intimidated I guess. but thanx to you and the rest for the info and Ideas, I guess the only one who can say if something is real or no is me after I look into things myself,

I would say Jim Oberg is a solid voice of reason as a skeptic and, on the other side, Bruce Maccabee relies on fact and scientific process to support what I believe to be one of the most rational pro ET visitation cases.

My personal belief is that the ETH in regards to visitation is built on fraud, misidentification, governmental misdirection and sensationalistic media. That belief has been formed by years of interest in the subject. I believe most who are honest with themselves reach the same conclusion with the facts at hand but for some belief in ET visitation is as sacred as any deity.

Regardless of your belief, this topic is very polarized. Always remember that respect for differing opinions is a cornerstone of polite conversation and your journey to discovery will play out smoothly.

Hope this helps.

I believe the truth maybe more unusual,and less believable then we think.
That is why there are so many disinformationist out there to throw us off the passed to the truth...
That being said I like Icke....not saying I believe him just find him interesting....

You can really only trust yourself.
The truth means nothing, if it must be given to you by someone else.
You must discover it on your own. Research until you have pieced together what your instinct tells you is truth. And in my opinion, no single source has all the information. Pieces of the puzzle are scattered everywhere.

So many sources and information out there, that to find and research all of the articles is impossible. And to find someone that who's opinion and research you can trust, is rather like listening to research among Doctors. One will say coffee is good for you, wine is good for you. Sometime later, another Doctor says no its not. As in anything, who do you have confidence in. As stated by others. Yourself. Your logic and belief may differ from mine. But that doesn't make it wrong. I feel so strongly about most of my beliefs, that they won't change unless I begin to doubt myself.

Some of the information I enjoy is from a series on the History Channel entitled Ancient Aliens. This is information you can see. Others, I would rather not even start to list. I've been looking up ^ for over Fifty Years. Keep Looking, until your satisfied. If ever.

reply to post by Suohhen


thank you. I also like Ancient Aliens, and watch it avidly. I do somewhat trust the information they bring forth, and they seem to have done their research well. I also have been watching UFO Files...I dont know how old the show is but the History Chanel plays it often. Have you seen it?

reply to post by dreadphil

Good advice is to be skeptical of everything related to the subject, especially of anything you see on television.

Remember, skeptical doesn't mean you cant believe in something if you so choose.

Skeptical means that you are taking an objective consideration of the evidence presented before forming any belief.

While on the subject, I must admit that ATS sometimes baffles me.

The resident ATS dogma readily dismisses the "MSM" as lies and governmental propaganda, using television to control the will of the "sheeple".

Unless its Ancient Aliens or Monsterquest, then its o.k.

There is another thread discussing the ETH where the subject of Carl Sagan's "Baloney detector kit" came up.

While not agreeing on the subject at hand, everyone seemed in agreement that the baloney detector was a good general guideline.

I believe it would be appropriate to repeat here as well...

Warning signs that suggest deception. Based on the book by Carl Sagan, The Demon Haunted World. The following are suggested as tools for testing arguments and detecting fallacious or fraudulent arguments:

Wherever possible there must be independent confirmation of the facts.

Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view.

Arguments from authority carry little weight (in science there are no "authorities").

Spin more than one hypothesis - don't simply run with the first idea that caught your fancy.

Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it's yours.

Quantify, wherever possible.

If there is a chain of argument every link in the chain must work.

Occam's razor - if there are two hypotheses that explain the data equally well choose the simpler.

Ask whether the hypothesis can, at least in principle, be falsified (shown to be false by some unambiguous test). In other words, it is testable? Can others duplicate the experiment and get the same result?

Additional issues are:

Conduct control experiments - especially "double blind" experiments where the person taking measurements is not aware of the test and control subjects.

Check for confounding factors - separate the variables.

Common fallacies of logic and rhetoric

Ad hominem - attacking the arguer and not the argument.

Argument from "authority".

Argument from adverse consequences (putting pressure on the decision maker by pointing out dire consequences of an "unfavorable" decision).

Appeal to ignorance (absence of evidence is not evidence of absence).

Special pleading (typically referring to god's will).

Begging the question (assuming an answer in the way the question is phrased).

Observational selection (counting the hits and forgetting the misses).

Statistics of small numbers (such as drawing conclusions from inadequate sample sizes).

Misunderstanding the nature of statistics (President Eisenhower expressing astonishment and alarm on discovering that fully half of all Americans have below average intelligence!)

Inconsistency (e.g. military expenditures based on worst case scenarios but scientific projections on environmental dangers thriftily ignored because they are not "proved").

Non sequitur - "it does not follow" - the logic falls down.

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc - "it happened after so it was caused by" - confusion of cause and effect.

Meaningless question ("what happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object?).

Excluded middle - considering only the two extremes in a range of possibilities (making the "other side" look worse than it really is).

Short-term v. long-term - a subset of excluded middle ("why pursue fundamental science when we have so huge a budget deficit?").

Slippery slope - a subset of excluded middle - unwarranted extrapolation of the effects (give an inch and they will take a mile).

Confusion of correlation and causation.

Caricaturing (or stereotyping) a position to make it easier to attack.

Suppressed evidence or half-truths.

Weasel words - for example, use of euphemisms for war such as "police action" to get around limitations on Presidential powers. "An important art of politicians is to find new names for institutions which under old names have become odious to the public"

carlsagan.com

I hope this helps.

There's alot of talking heads out there, each with their own agenda.

But I'll give you a hint on who to trust.

Anyone who died trying to get the truth out.

Anyone who is dead and still has people bad mouthing them is a good place to start.

reply to post by Drunkenparrot


that does seem to be some sound advice from Mr. Sagan. Im glad the translation to the latin offered was there as I would never had known what it meant. lol Thanx for the info!

reply to post by dreadphil

Who can I trust as a non lying, earnest and trustworthy source of recent information and theory?

Generally, if after their amazing story, they offer to sell you a DVD, they are full of it.

Sadly this discounts almost every single "ufologist" or "insider" we have.

I have enjoyed books by jacque de valle - He doesn't have crazy stories about underground reptilian bases with the secrets revealed after you buy a dvd.


He does has some really interesting theories, and he has researched a lot of accounts which are not out there in the mainstream UFO world, which is sadly full of charlatans out to make a buck.

reply to post by Merigold


I totally agree with your point but to counter that point, with the american economy ( and the rest of the world as well) in the shape that it is, who can really knock some one for trying to make a buck or two. If its being presented under fraudulent claims and evidence, then to heck with them. However if the person is legit, or at least appears to be beyond reproach, and has evidence or information that seems to have a hint legitimencey then I coudnt really say anything against their wanting to make money. just my 2 cents.

This....

Originally posted by DrunkenparrotGood advice is to be skeptical of everything related to the subject, especially of anything you see on television. Remember, skeptical doesn't mean you cant believe in something if you so choose. Skeptical means that you are taking an objective consideration of the evidence presented before forming any belief.

Your research should take the approach scholars have used for hundreds of years, methodically examining the evidence and choosing the best explanation.

Look at the source material.

Example: Ancient Aliens. Go read the original ancient texts yourself. THEN read different analysis of those texts which take opposing views. Decide which you believe.

Example: Compare Tsarion's interpretation of the source material to Michael Heiser's. Which is more sourced, referenced, and documented?