posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 05:14 PM
My very first post on ATS was of a youtube video that showed a bunch of kids being scared by something that peered into a window (I know, I should
have introduced myself first, but oh well). I wanted to know what other ATS users thought of the video.
Some long-time members thought I was a scammer, that I should be banned, that anyone who thought the video was worth looking at needs to get out more,
blah blah blah. Then there were some people who looked at the video, thought it was garbage, and that I shouldn't have posted such an "Obvious
Then there was a group of people that actually posted what they thought of the video, and why they thought what they did. These people are lacking on
ATS, and it's a shame.
If I post a video and it gets debunked, I'm HAPPY because we got to the bottom of it, and it's time to examine another. Some people believe that in
the process of debunking a video, the person who posted it must be ridiculed and made a fool of. Or worse yet, the thread gets the [HOAX] tag placed
upon it and that member is warned not to post anymore hoaxes. It's a ridiculous process that suggests debunking something means it's a hoax, and the
thread starter was trying to fool people.
I personally feel the more videos that are debunked, the better off we all are because we learn something in the process. New knowledge can then be
applied to the examination of a new video of an unknown "something". Seems like there aren't many who share my views.
All in all it makes me feel that a website geared towards "Denying Ignorance" is unfortunately not a good place to post any video recording of
anything not easily explainable. It's not even a good place to post something explainable, because if it is explainable, the thread starter gets
berated for wasting everyone's time.
The [Hoax] tag shouldn't be applied to a thread unless the thread starter is the one trying to hoax members of ATS. How do we prove such a thing?
Through investigation of course, and if investigating doesn't yield any conclusive results, so be it. I believe there should be a [DEBUNKED] tag, so
if a member can provide "agreed upon" evidence that explains what we're seeing in a video, congrats! We can move on!
Otherwise we're left with a thread devoted to a video, with people collectively stating "Chinese Lantern", the newest "popular" explanation for
all things UFO, or "CGI" because they couldn't think of anything better to say, and how dare they say "I cannot identify that object" or simply
not post anything until they've discovered another video that can help explain it. They rather claim the video must be a hoax or CGI because it
exists on a "for profit youtube page". Or if the camera used to record the object was of poor quality, there is anger spewed forth at the
cinematographer for not having a multi-hundred dollar rig with zero gravity stabilizing anti-blur 2000 frames per second Terapixel resolution... and
the subject matter of the video is not mentioned.
This has to stop. We're supposed to be denying ignorance. Not automatically linking the term "UFO" to inhuman flying technology and the "oh boy
here's another one " mentality before we even watch the video, tainting the tone of our opinions and attempts at meaningful constructive