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.

 

My opinion on UFOs as a research scientist: some are extraterrestrial

page: 3
107
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 07:28 AM
link   
reply to post by LastProphet527
 


id like to hear more about what you posted here as thats all news to me, and any extra info and/or links etc... would be appreciated




posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 07:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vandelay Industries
reply to post by Bilk22
 


Thanks for reading. I guess I would say that considering the phenomenon as a whole, I have read enough solid cases to convince me.



For someone claiming that only empirical data is the only way to measure, you really have no idea whether or not you have all of the data as there is no way of knowing that with any measurable degree of certainty. You just state your opinion you have all of the data.

As an example, you cannot know what is withheld through authoritative measures and you cannot have any definitive proof your methods of measure are a good means by which you can draw a conclusion. The lack of radar imaging for a particular incident may only mean the ETs have the ability to circumvent such measures. You also cannot know if there are events that were never experienced by a general public population, but instead by an authoritative body that does not want to report such an incident. Just saying.



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 08:47 AM
link   
Interesting post and I have to agree with points made. Yes, Ufology is 99 percent crap and you really have to dig through it to find the interesting stuff, no other subject is quite like it and also, it's very easy to be conned in this subject, such is the crap that dominates the field.

However, if you're prepared to do the digging and find the cases which are truly bizarre then you can't help but sit up and take notice. Richard Haines for example www.nicap.org... now you won't find a lot of the cases he has covered unless you look for them, but when you do, you have to appreciate the possibility, that some of the craft described are real and ergo, they ain't from around here.

Yes, Ufology is flooded with frauds, attention seekers and people out for a quick buck, but not ALL of them are.


As an example, read some of these reviews:

www.nicap.org...

www.nicap.org...

www.nicap.org...
edit on 11-6-2012 by Zcustosmorum because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 10:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by homeskillet
reply to post by Vandelay Industries
 


paragraphs

please

This bloke gives a great introduction to this thread and all you can say is paragraphs please. Sheesh!
Back to the OP. Thanks for a great explaination. And thanks for the references to start with



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 11:29 AM
link   
I do find the claim that only 1% of sightings hold some unexplained component while 99% are rubbish is inaccurate, expecially when such high standards of verification are applied. I am not aware of any other topic where human cognition and perception fails to such extents. When looking at public surveys, an error rate of 1% - 5% is common as there are many psychological and educational factor involved. Personally, I would expect an error rate in the range of 33% - 66% depending on if there are motivations to distort the truth, with very strong indications there are.

In trying to makes some sense of the situation, if you consider all the growing information that is available in black or white you will either be left in the dark or blinded by the light. Acknowleding the risks that all information and perceptions present does over time present a gray scale image in which some distinctions can be made. In trying to verify the actual situation is is important to step out of the very narrow specilisation that many research paths take and be inclusive of what we do know about the state of the world and workings of life.

Working with uncertanity is not easy, but until all the answers are available this is the situation.



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 11:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by kwakakev
... Personally, I would expect an error rate in the range of 33% - 66% depending on if there are motivations to distort the truth, with very strong indications there are...


If you rare stating that 33%+ of sighting are real, is that in reference to researched sightings or all UFO sighting, in general?



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 12:09 PM
link   
reply to post by roadgravel
 


It is refernce to human cognition and just how much we can mess things up at times. I have not done a study into it, but just from observations throughout life. I am sure there is heaps out there if you really look into it. My point is that we have to step outside the small little scientifc boxes that keep us apart and look towards other scientific envediours to get through some of the confusion going on. There are many collorilations throughout all aspects of life.



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 12:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vandelay Industries
As a PhD research scientist


May I ask in which discipline you earned your degree ?

Furthermore you said "Unless more scientists like me come forward" .. well come forward then, don't publish your "findings" anonymously on ATS, that's hardly what I call "coming forward".

Not buying a single word.



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 01:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Vandelay Industries
 


"The actual orgins of the terms "flying saucer" and "flying disc," is somewhat controversal and complicated. However, earlier stories did in fact credit Kenneth Arnold with using terms such as "saucer," "disc," and "pie pan."

Check out the Bequete interview with Arnold on Wikipedia.

"A review of early newspaper stories indicates that immediately after his sighting, Arnold generally described the object's shape as thin and flat, rounded at the front but chopped in the back and coming to a point, ie, more or less saucer--- or disk like. He also specifically used terms like "saucer," or "saucer-like," "disk" and "pie pan" in describing the shape.

According to Jerome Clark, Arnold described them as a series of objects with convex shapes, though he later revealed that one object differed by being cresent shape."



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 01:40 PM
link   
Shape of an object can differ depending on the axis of the object in relation to the person's view.

For example, a cone might look like a triangle or a round object.



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 01:46 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 01:53 PM
link   
reply to post by LastProphet527
 


Can you provide some sources for the 1991 probe story? I can't find anything, anywhere.. interesting!



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 01:55 PM
link   
Question is: Was Kenneth Arnold being pressured by the Air Force, to change his description of the object's from "disk" shape too "cresent" shape?
edit on 11-6-2012 by Erno86 because: typo



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by LastProphet527

Germany found the first and only' triangle space ship 'back in the late 1800s and finally dug it out in 1917...with out that event happening, 91% of all your high tech machines and science knowledge would be obsolete in your evolved matrix of today.

In 1991 your government captured a probe, they than planted cameras and other devices hoping they can follow where this probe goes.
When the probe was called back it docked inside a massive ship, but than was expelled and what they claim self destructed in mid air, dispersing green and orange like substance from underneath.

In 1995 in a secret meeting ,it was discussed that the 3 engines at the bottom of that ship has the same energy as 4 nuclear bombs ,therefore passing a bill that it could never ever be shot down.

I don't suppose you'd be interested in citing any sources for your claims...
edit on 11-6-2012 by JohnnyCanuck because: ...just because...ok?



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 02:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Vandelay Industries
 


What UFOers have to do is understand the difficulties of space travel and they will never again con join aliens with flying objects. If I see something flying and I can't explain what it is ,I will assume its an advance military craft, not some freaking ET taxi-craft.

Not a single UFO thread should be under an Alien forum(s).



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 03:11 PM
link   
Good post by the OP as far as a basic stance on the subject goes.

My own opinion as a layman, is that I divide the UFO topic into three main areas of interest.

The first and most credible is that of the professional aviation observers, the pilots, the radar operators, and to a lesser extent the military. They see a lot of flying things, routinely, and then they see something extraordinary, outside of all known classifications and the sightings are often corroberated one way or another. They think extraterrestrials are visiting the skies, at least, and they are very credible.

The second group are military whistleblowers. I am very suspicious of what is said by these people. Many of their stories are not believable. This kind of person could easily be duped in a psy-op and I believe the military would love for their enemies to believe that they are working on alien technology. Anyone who gets out of a top secret facility claiming to have seen something top secret and then appears at all the UFO conferences talking about it is a dupe, in my opinion and not to be believed.

The third group are citizens who relate personal encounters or relate personal collisions with military clean-up crews at sites of high strangeness. I think that some of these situations could be genuine with genuine "off world" ingredients.

One of the local ordinances that might cause problems for aliens in the neighborhood and which makes it more than likely that alien vehicles have either crashed or done forced landings on the planet is Murphey's Law.

Actually, that ordinance's jurisdiction might be galaxy wide, if not universal. They, like us, probably know all about it, everything but how to get around it.

I think there likely is alien wreckage on the planet, invoking Murphy's Law as the basis for believing that, especially when taking the first category of very credible witnesses into consideration.
edit on 11-6-2012 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by MAC269
reply to post by Vandelay Industries
 


Dear Vandelay Industries

Very interesting, what made you look into it?

Have you seen anything personally?

Do you think that there will every be official disclosure?

edit on 10-6-2012 by MAC269 because: (no reason given)


This is impossible even for more mundane aspects of government. Official and Disclosure are almost oxymoronic.



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 04:23 PM
link   
Scientist, schmientist. A person does not have to go to college to learn how to analyze information and draw a conclusion. Its called reasoning and we are all inherently born with it, most of us anyways. You're a cell biologist, that hardly qualifies you as an expert on the cosmos.



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 04:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Vandelay Industries
 


Thanks for the good read OP!

I agree with your point of view on many things you brought up. In fact, I was recently pondering something similar to what you just wrote about.

I also don't think that our government, or any government, has successfully made contact. But I do think that we have tried to shoot them down early on (which must have been hilarious for the aliens) and have now learned only to ignore them.

I also think that this knowledge of their existence and the fear of imminent attack may have been what prompted American leadership in the past to build our vast military complex. But what do you do with it when you have no one to fight? Well, that's why we are the world police.



Khar


edit on 11-6-2012 by Kharron because: typo



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by croweboy
Scientist, schmientist. A person does not have to go to college to learn how to analyze information and draw a conclusion. Its called reasoning and we are all inherently born with it, most of us anyways. You're a cell biologist, that hardly qualifies you as an expert on the cosmos.


]

You actually just said, Scientist, schmientist.....




top topics



 
107
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join