Some bothersome interactions I've noticed on ATS concerning Aliens and UFOs

page: 1
47
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
+55 more 
posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 05:14 PM
link   
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 hoax".

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 conversation.




posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 05:27 PM
link   
Yea, I know what you mean, happily debunk the vid, don't ram stoopid/pointless/know it all comments at me..

People forget a lot of fakes are out there to hide the real thing, every thing deserves looking into.



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 05:34 PM
link   
reply to post by danj3ris
 


So a known hoaxer like Alison Kruse, who posts videos of lights that "morph into airplanes" when they get close....those videos would now be [DEBUNKED] rather than [HOAX]?


Or videos of specks of light, where ads are put on in, and awful dance track music added...they should be [DEBUNKED]?


Anyone that has an authentic video (without the fancy Spielberg type intros or advertising), or pictures with links to the original, unedited photos are ALWAYS welcome, and give fellow members the best chance to examine what they have captured. You don't need super state-of-the-art equipment, really. However, if you claim that you see a 100ft orb every night, yet still film it from 8 miles away on your iphone, I'm sure you will get some negative feedback.



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 05:36 PM
link   
There's no problem here other than a continued reliance on crappy YouTube videos. The UFO field is dying or dead. There are no good compelling cases being investigated, and the investigations themselves are frequently inadequate or completely off the point. It's become obvious that we're just going to have to wait for the aliens or time/dimension visitors (if there even are any) to make themselves known. No amount of our third or three-thousandth hand investigation is going to prove or solve anything.

But, since the forum isn't likely going away, we could possibly help the situation by using a greater variety of tags:
[HOAX] = Something determined by consensus or experts to have been purposely created to deceive.
[UNEXPLAINED] = No proof of a hoax, but no strong identification of anything else, either.
[LIKELY EXPLAINED] = Reasonably explained as something mundane, but perhaps still debatable if new evidence shows up.
[PROVEN] = Everyone agrees it's the work of "aliens."


+2 more 
posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 05:42 PM
link   
The thing about this site and it's DENY IGNORANCE mantra, is that there are a lot of know it alls in here who see this as a green light to label everyone guilty until they prove themselves innocent... or rather... "Ignorant until proven Knowledgeable" which I personally think is a bunch of elitist BS



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 05:43 PM
link   
Basically a poster gets flamed because of the way they present the video.
If it is labeled as"ABOSOLUTE PROOF OF ALIEN LIFE" and it is a shadow or blip of light, one should expect to get flamed.
A "WHAT IS THIS?" may get a more reasonable response.



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 05:54 PM
link   
I think that everyone would do well to read the definition of this forum, it specifically says that the posting should and will lean towards a favorable response and not one of debunking. The trouble here might be that if someone were tell you that aliens were real, that they have been in the same room with them, with witnesses, what would you say? There is a point in which people who have had real experiences do not wish to expose themselves to this kind of debunking, it is not important to have anyone believe, since it doesn't stop the experience from happening. Proof is relative. I don;t think a bunch of people standing in downtown New York taking photos of craft with their cell phones is a hoax, or the fact that a CHinese airport had to be closed down twice due to craft. I hardly call that being 'dead'. Why can't people believe what they want and post it. Truth is relative also.



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 05:58 PM
link   
reply to post by danj3ris
 


I am with you. I someone posts a video, a dream, a theory we should be able to put our two cents in without being rude or obnoxious. I seems like some people are so high on their horses... Everyone can be fooled once in a while. Especially if it is something you have never seen or experienced before. Occasionally I am an offender of this but I try to only do it when someone is totally off the wall... I think the point of this site is for us all to educate ourselves a little bit. After all knowledge is power... I think all of us whether we are believers, skeptics or need to keep an open mind.... Not every sighting is real, not every dream or prediction will come true, not every theory is correct...



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 05:59 PM
link   
reply to post by danj3ris
 


I posted a ufo video that I recorded myself with a link to download the original file and it was immediately (by accident
) thrown into the trash bin and then it took like two days to get it back only to have no one actually play back the video on a large screen as I suggested yet everyone had their opinions as to what it was. Then Springer pipes up to say he's going to ask an expert friend of his to analyze it which after a few days I asked how it was going and he replies basically they didn't have time for it.

I am handing something to them on a silver platter and they still have no time for it? talk about embracing ignorance.....

personally I don't give a crap what the stalwarts around here think about anything. It's the one or two people that actually may get something out of it that I care about. I really can't stand the people around here's attitudes as if they are the end all be all of the whole ufo world. experts my backside




posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 06:04 PM
link   
the rumor on the 'net is that ATS is HEAVILY monitored by agents. And agents can become moderators. there are behaviours that threads and posts take when they are being tampered with, and a whole slew of conversational and persuasive tactics employed by said agents. Search these tactics out so you know these fools by their works.

you post at your own risk.



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 06:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by gavron
reply to post by danj3ris
 


So a known hoaxer like Alison Kruse, who posts videos of lights that "morph into airplanes" when they get close....those videos would now be [DEBUNKED] rather than [HOAX]?


Or videos of specks of light, where ads are put on in, and awful dance track music added...they should be [DEBUNKED]?


Anyone that has an authentic video (without the fancy Spielberg type intros or advertising), or pictures with links to the original, unedited photos are ALWAYS welcome, and give fellow members the best chance to examine what they have captured. You don't need super state-of-the-art equipment, really. However, if you claim that you see a 100ft orb every night, yet still film it from 8 miles away on your iphone, I'm sure you will get some negative feedback.


she's got some of the best stuff out there and saying she's a known hoaxer totally ruins your credibility in my eyes. and I don't care if you don't care what I think. All you need to do is prove how she's a "known hoaxer". It's easy to say and one of the simplest ways to blanket debunk someone without any substantial evidence. I love how you guys try to explain her footage as airplanes. anyone who's spent more than two hours watching her stuff knows she's the real deal.



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 06:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by gavron
reply to post by danj3ris
 


So a known hoaxer like Alison Kruse, who posts videos of lights that "morph into airplanes" when they get close....those videos would now be [DEBUNKED] rather than [HOAX]?


Or videos of specks of light, where ads are put on in, and awful dance track music added...they should be [DEBUNKED]?


The [HOAX] tag isn't applied to a video on the internet, it's applied to a thread on ATS. In my opinion the [HOAX] tag should be applied to a thread whose author IS the hoaxer, or they continually post videos recorded by a known hoaxer and claiming ignorance about that fact. Maybe there should be a little blurb on the "New Thread" form that lists the names of suspected or known hoaxers, so thread authors can't claim ignorance, but I know this isn't ATS's responsibility for one's lack of research.

We should be aware that there is a huge difference between labeling something a hoax and debunking it.

A video of lights that upon focus become airplanes, to me is not a hoax. It's a video of airplanes. If someone goes and posts a thread and calls it UFOs when a majority of people can plainly see it's airplanes, usage of the HOAX tag makes sense. If someone posts a thread about the same video but calls them airplanes, is it a hoax?

Does horrible electronic dance music added to a video make it a hoax? Does a bunch of ads make it a hoax? No. It just makes the video annoying
.

My issue is mostly with the attitudes of the members when it comes to any UFO or unexplained phenomena recorded on video. There's a persistent mentality of "It's all bad footage, it's a waste of everyone's time, swamp gas, Chinese lanterns, you're trying to fool me and I'm so offended. Mods move this to the Hoax bin!".

That mentality makes it almost a futile effort to even post a video here. If you can explain it, do us all a favor and provide some proof! If you can't provide the proof, provide a valid opinion! If you can't debunk it, don't be sad! Someone else might, and you'll learn something. We all win.



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 06:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by rainbowbear
the rumor on the 'net is that ATS is HEAVILY monitored by agents. And agents can become moderators. there are behaviours that threads and posts take when they are being tampered with, and a whole slew of conversational and persuasive tactics employed by said agents. Search these tactics out so you know these fools by their works.

you post at your own risk.


It was plainly obvious to me that Springer was blowing smoke up my kazoo when he said he'd ask his expert to watch my footage and then when I asked him politely how it was going he got all uppity as if I was being a pain in the ass. Classic b.s. attitude and fully espousing ignorance.

watch them tag me with an "off topic" removal of this comment. they know who they are and hate it when we do too



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 06:25 PM
link   
S&F I agree with your entire post.

As others have mentioned, the ignorance we see on this site is appaling. Site owners should take note!!



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 06:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blue Shift

...But, since the forum isn't likely going away, we could possibly help the situation by using a greater variety of tags:
[HOAX] = Something determined by consensus or experts to have been purposely created to deceive.
[UNEXPLAINED] = No proof of a hoax, but no strong identification of anything else, either.
[LIKELY EXPLAINED] = Reasonably explained as something mundane, but perhaps still debatable if new evidence shows up.
[PROVEN] = Everyone agrees it's the work of "aliens."


I think you have the right idea here in terms of something that can promote more meaningful discourse. As for stopping people from posting generally negative comments or something about who posted the video instead of the subject matter of the video itself, these tags wont do much in that regard. The use of the [HOAX] tag seems to be thrown around as a label of sin, when really it should be used to designate to seekers of truth that "there be hoaxes here!" Then a member can decide whether the thread's author is worth their future readership.



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 09:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by bottleslingguy
she's got some of the best stuff out there and saying she's a known hoaxer totally ruins your credibility.


Seriously? Wow


Did you see the video where she invited her sons friends over to witness the "ufos", they kept telling her it was just a plane and she went crazy and started shrieking and crap until they said ok ok we see a ufo? too funny.

NOTE: Her own husband/boyfriend was on one of her earlier videos saying he doesn't see what she sees, only planes.

There have been people that have gone to the same location she films from...and zoomed in to show the "lights" are just aircraft on approach to the international airport that's close to her place. She promptly deletes posts like that on her videos. If you search you will find multiple videos of her stuff debunked.

She reigns as the queen of hoaxers.

edit on 8-8-2012 by gavron because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 09:45 PM
link   
reply to post by gavron
 

I stop listening to the debunkers when they start attacking her personally, sorta how you are right now. why not show some of the actual footage to pick on? she's done videos with sped up footage that shows things that are not airplanes. she's gone beyond the need for due diligence and has footage of highly strange activity which nobody has debunked in my opinion.

debunk this one for example



edit:
stupid ats won't embed the actual video I've chosen. the one I want to show for debunking is called "CLOSE Shape-Shifting UFO? June 4, 2011 Pennsylvania"

it's #8 in that playlist
edit on 8-8-2012 by bottleslingguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 10:03 PM
link   
S&F from me for this, as I couldn't agree more. I also hate the way folks pile up on other's when this happens. If I see it, I usually try to leave a decent comment to let the OP know that I thought the video was interesting.

I have no skills to debunk anything...HOWEVER...I do truly enjoy seeing some of the stuff folks post here. A lot of it is stuff I would never have run across if they didn't post it. I often think that someone could post the REAL deal and people would fall all over themselves to blame cgi, lanterns, bad camera angles, mr. greenjeans, etc. without giving the video a fair shot. I would never post an alien video here because of that. Whether I thought it was real or not. Nobody likes to feel stupid.... especially not in front of so many people regardless if they have an alias or not.



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 12:11 AM
link   
I Totally agree with the OP

I joined roughly a year ago (few days away from exact).. back then it wasn't so bad, it was till rough, but nowhere near as bad as it is since about February this year.

I came here to learn... and learn i have, but i don't feel it's all been for the best.. my enthusiasm has been replaced with synacisim, i no longer even bother with Utube.. as it's all apparently CGI (the good stuff).. and when a real winner pops up.. i barley even flinch as i wait for the "Debunkers" to arrive and kill the thread dead.

Aliens could land on my Front lawn.. with the Devil in chains spewing firey lava being whiped by Jesus.. they'd ask me why i haven't bothered pulling out my camera or any other device and id simply shrug and reply..

"No use mate, Haven't you guys seen ATS?"

no lol



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 12:32 AM
link   
reply to post by danj3ris
 


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 hoax".

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.


So I thought what is this video and I looked and its been removed by user.


Bummer. I wanted to see it and then be a "lacking" . Who cares what others think with their negativity? We are all lacking sometimes You are supposed to filter all that. Any forum that exists is like being at a baseball game. The game is going on, everyone is shouting, only those close to you in the seats can even hear you. Most of them will go bah anyway.

Who cares? The good thing about an internet forum is you can skip on down from the ones you don't like. Water off a ducks back. Skip on down. Filter on. Skip on down. Don't play to the "lackings" as you put it. Skip On Down. Enjoy the game.





top topics
 
47
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join