'Do Your Homework Before Entering UFO Fray'

page: 2
35
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 12:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by dplum517
reply to post by karl 12
 


I notice your thread hasn't gotten that much attention.... you know why?

You're probably telling people something they don't want to hear...especially on the debunker side of things.

A few members who frequent this forum could stand to take this advice.... *cough cough* ..Drucsilla


A while back, a member offered an insightful parable on why people react the way they do to this subject:


Originally posted by Screwed

ATS has its share of terminal debunkers / psuedo sceptics to be sure.

As you pointed out, it just doesn't sit very well with their pre-packaged beliefs.
I liken it to trying to tell someone their spouse is cheating on them with their best friend.
If you've ever tried to do that then you know what I'm talking about.
It doesn't turn out at ALL how you'd think it would.

I live in a world and with a mindset where ALL truth is welcome.
No matter HOW disturbing it may be.
Not everyone has this mentality.
Alot of people THINK they have this mentality only to realise they don't later down the road.
Still others live their entire lives thinking they are open to ALL truth when nothing could be further from the truth.

I have learned to have a certian amount of compassion for these people.
The same kind of compassion YOU would have if you tried telling someone dear to you that their spouse is cheating on them with their best friend. They are going to cuss you out, "how dare you" "How could you" "why are you lying to me" "you are ruining my life". They will do anything and EVERYTHING they can to avoid coming to terms with reality for as long as they can because once they DO come to terms with it.... well....it will totally uproot all of their deeply held firmly planted beliefs and forever change the way they view the world.

So, you have compassion for them and understand how difficult it must be for them to come to terms with something so life changing. Yes, YOU were able to do it with style and grace but, it was still uncomfortable when you came to terms with this knowledge. Some of us react differently than others when faced with life altering information.

These people are in a very very deep form of denial and you kow what?
Deep down inside, WAAAY deep down inside.....They KNOW it!
They KNOW the truth. They will come to terms with it in their own time.
Until then, we try not to violate their free will to NOT know.
They deserve that much don't they?

Do you want to be the one who has to tell a child that mommy and daddy died in a car crash?
Would you want to interupt them playing in the sand box to tell them that?
Or would you give 'em just a few more minuites in the ol' sand box and let them have just a few more minutes
of their innocence because once you tell them, they will NEVER get it back.

Let them bury their heads in the sand for just a few more minutes. It won't be long now, and ALL will be known.


edit: thanks for bringing up a well needed discussion.


edit on 1-8-2012 by Screwed because: (no reason given)


By the way karl, thank you for another great thread.




posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 04:56 AM
link   
Nice one, Karl 12. Good thread and some interesting responses and links.

It reminds me of a Stanton Friedman quote from his 'De-bunking the de-bunkers' lecture. From his many years of debating them, he has 4 rules of the 'de-bunker', and my favorites are;

" Dont bother me with the facts- my mind is made up "

" Do your research by proclomation because investigation is too much trouble "

He also points out that there is a huge difference between a skeptic and a de-bunker- I have no problem at all with a skeptical viewpoint- its healthy. What I dont like is knee jerk de-bunking without the facts, something your thread title sums up perfectly.



posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 08:31 AM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 10:37 AM
link   
I've been reading and studying the ETH for over thirty years and I come nowhere near calling myself an expert.
I would say at best, I am a well informed amateur.
What hurts ufology most, imho, is the vast abundance of fakes and hoaxes which have become increasingly predominant with development of the internet, easy access to CGI methods and video, devices such a quad-rotors, and the fact that near anyone can afford those capabilities.
Further complicating matters are the number of authors, experts, whistleblowers, etc who use their built-up credibility to push speculative conjecture and hypotheses into the theory and facts category.
Snake-oil salesmen, Las Vegas hustlers and conmen, all pushing strawman arguments to the uninformed and gullible portion of the public.
Many of these guys and gals are raking in millions in personal wealth while advocating they're doing their "moral duty" for society to prove that "the truth is out there". Some (a fair number) have gathered significant followings to the point that they seem to be bordering on a religious cult.
Plenty of fringies in this business, for sure, making money through lies and selling t-shirts and coffee mugs.
Makes me sick...but God knows why, I keep wading through it looking for "exhibit A."
edit on 30/11/12 by synchronomy because: spelling



posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 11:46 AM
link   
reply to post by karl 12
 



1. Either stay away completely or do your homework first. This is a very complex subject, and "doing your homework" will not be quick, easy or painless.


2. Do not imagine that training in physics provides you with any relevant credentials that enable you to pontificate on the problem. Expertise in forensic science would be another matter.


3. Read the Condon report from cover to cover preferably from back to front so that you can better judge the extent to which Condon's conclusions and recommendations follow from the work of his staff. (E.U. Condon, D.S. Gillmor, Scientific Study of UFOs, Bantam Books, 1969)


4. Learn something about the history of the subject. An excellent summary of the early days of the controversy can be found in The UFO Controversy in America by D.M. Jacobs (Indiana University Press, 1975).


5. You might also wish to learn what a nongovernmental scientific review panel had to say about the subject by perusing my own book, The UFO Enigma: A New Review of the Physical Evidence (Warner Books, 1999).


6. Finally, bear in mind that although most scientists treat this subject as a joke, the public does not, and we would do well to treat their concerns with respect.


The same advice could be said here in multiple forums looking into other things which are total BS. Like dragons, ghosts, unicorns, bigfoot, the Loch Ness monster...go ahead, re-read what you quoted with those obvious fakes in mind and tell me why I should take what you post to heart? Just because your passionate about the subject and truly want to believe? Sorry, it takes more than that to get the ball rolling, otherwise you will spend the net few decades in dark corners like this website, thinking you know what you don't. Been around since probably before you were born, so don't even bother to tell me I'm wrong. I will be dead and buried by the time you ignorant mentality wakes up and smells the coffee. Until then, post away, just remember, when you finally "come to0" you will feel foolish for believing and posting what you have, but seldom do we get folks who stop back by and admit so......odd that.



posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 01:59 PM
link   
reply to post by karl 12
 


Another excellent thread by karl12. The guy has nothing better to do it seems but at least compiling information and well posted.

The thoughts presented by this man described in the OP is what I am trying to say and what in my sig below is about.

One should be skeptical of bought the believers and the skeptics - those who jump to conclusions thinking they have evidence when either side uses bias and nothing conclusive to believe or dismiss. Especially got to like the part:


2. Do not imagine that training in physics provides you with any relevant credentials that enable you to pontificate on the problem. Expertise in forensic science would be another matter.


Do not think that just because you study physics (and most skeptics haven't), and you see or read about something that defies that physics, it is necessarily wrong, non-existent or fake.

reply to post by gameisupman
 


As If I talked to a rock... just posted and one of those would come.



The same advice could be said here in multiple forums looking into other things which are total BS. Like dragons, ghosts, unicorns, bigfoot, the Loch Ness monster...


You see the moronicness emitting from such individuals as yourself explained in kind and polite way in my sig and the OP, is the reason why the useful advice exists. If ignorance is believing, yes it is, but your close mindness is just as close to stupidity as blind belief, you are only doing it from the other side. Like, despite the weak evidence - how do you know Big Foot do not exist?

Have you ever seen any evidence of the giant skeletins from Lovelock. Nevada? It was just a myth until they found large skeletons and the arrows described in the 'just a myth'. Troy was also just a fairy tail and no one knew if it really existed until discoverfed. The same about UFOs and other where there is data unlike the magical faries, a lot of data... Shall I go on?

Such ignorants like you are better off down there.
edit on 30-11-2012 by Imtor because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 06:47 PM
link   
Good to see more scientific investigation and discussion.

The days where "Picture or it didn't happen" are so... 20th Century
- Wiki on Invisibility. That our own technology is capable of rendering "near invisibility" at the very least should serve as a crowbar to open our minds to the possibilities that, "Well, just maybe..." We can add the radar reports and scrambling of military jets and consider that maybe for all we think we know, there are still a lot of things we don't.



posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 07:44 PM
link   
reply to post by karl 12
 


Sometimes people will only listen to someone like an Astrophysics professor, such is their conditioning and and the way governments treat this aspect of life which has become more and more public.

Well done this professor. If only more learned scientists would be so brave as to acknowledge these things.



posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 10:05 PM
link   
I`m an Air Force Vet, personal experience of myself and others, verification of these types of encounters from my uncle who was in the Pentagon (retired), who dealt with Naval aviation incidents . They`re real,don`t need any geek in a lab coat telling me otherwise, but whatever gets you through the night.
I dont blame people who have never been exposed or need absolute scientific proof of the subject matter. Alot of misinformation is out there. As far as im concerned I have never really given my faith to science because we are just children in this universe, we are constently evolving or devolving
depending on your point of view . While I have respect for most of the scientific community I feel they`re people just like everyone else just maybe a little more OCD or anal than most of us





Sometimes faith in science can lead brilliant men to believe things that are not true, because they haven't seen everything that science - or the universe - has to show them. Lord William Thomson Kelvin


Bill



posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 11:13 PM
link   
The reason why mainstream science will never take the UFO issue seriously is because you cannot reproduce the phenomena in a lab. One of the first steps of the scientific method is verifying if an unexplained phenomena exists, and then one goes to the drawing board to try and formulate a testable hypothesis. But if scientists can't prod and fiddle with UFOs in their labs to have a better understanding of their properties, then there's no reason it should ever be taken seriously by the scientific community.



posted on Dec, 1 2012 @ 09:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by TDawgRex
reply to post by karl 12
 


UFO's, and other strange stuff originally brought me here to ATS. Even though I rarely stray when replying from the forums that I am familier with.

So many links to look at concerning UFO's and other things...is that considered research, or just a curious mind?

I believe that we are not alone, but am always looking for proof.
edit on 29-11-2012 by TDawgRex because: (no reason given)


The sad thing is there is a LOT of proof in imagery especially the biological sprayer on mars. But so many just side step it and it is big error in doing so, because they are avoiding reality.

www.marsanomalyresearch.com...



posted on Dec, 1 2012 @ 12:30 PM
link   
So this is where Karl 12 has been
Good to see you Karl.

reply to post by thetiler
 


I'm honestly curious thetiler, what exactly do you think that image you linked to proves?



posted on Dec, 1 2012 @ 01:06 PM
link   
I don't waste my time reading investigative reports on whether UFOs exist...But I do enjoy reading information on what are they and where are they from...



posted on Dec, 1 2012 @ 02:10 PM
link   
reply to post by karl 12
 


You cite these quotes making a point that the subject needs to be taken seriously and studied, yet at the same time showing the phenomena has in fact has been studied. Studied by qualified scientists in the field of astronomy, astrophysics, physics, etc. To what conclusion though? There is no conclusion because a lack of physical evidence that can be studied. You can pull every scientists off their job to study UFOs and you will get the same conclusion. Assumptions and hypothesis. Until that one piece of physical evidence shows up, it will always be an assumption.



posted on Dec, 1 2012 @ 02:23 PM
link   
reply to post by karl 12
 

this is where the eyes glaze over and people just shrug their shoulders and then change the subject. Science goes where the funders tell it to go and it is one of those unspoken rules to individually not get caught up with "alternative" subjects. There doesn't need to be any blueprint on how it works, it is very simple- 1: raise doubt, 2: discredit people, 3: make jokes. The rest is easy because tptb own the media/entertainment groups.

Personally I believe the forensic evidence is enough to prove their existence, the details may be intuitive and not subject to empiricism. Everyone talks about motives and intentions of aliens yet no one can prove wtf is going on. Maybe there is just a lot of stuff going on and none of it matters anyway?



posted on Dec, 1 2012 @ 04:17 PM
link   
reply to post by dplum517
 


Thanks for all the replies and as I'm sure many scientists nowadays are employed by (and most scientific research funding comes from) major corporations or government contracts I'd say your posts on the subject make some pretty fair points - there's also a good article below dealing with how 'politicised and militarised' science has tried to bury the UFO subject, it discusses the complete lack of objectivity within the Condon report and also explains how over 50% (not 30%) of the reports were 'unknown'.



Of possible critical significance is the emergence in 2009 of documented evidence that confirms the dubious nature of the 1969 Condon report that has so sidetracked the interest of mainstream science in UFOs. Documents found in the papers of the late Roy Craig, confirm that the report chairman Dr. Edward Condon had drafted his negative conclusions about the UFO subject “without benefit of prior reading of the other sections of the report which were by (then) near completion.” The Craig papers also reveal that despite publicly reporting over 30 % “unknowns” in the final report (and astonishingly reporting that there was nothing of scientific worth to the UFO subject) the reality was that more than 50% were “unknown.” A confidential 3 page memo to Condon dated 5 September 1968 from Joseph Rush, a National Centre for Atmospheric Research physicist and Condon UFO project investigator revealed that despite growing more sceptical in the Condon study environment, the irony was so many of their investigations had ended up as unexplained cases. Rush wrote, “This may seem an anomalous conclusion, since more of the C-cases (Colorado University cases) are unexplained than explained.”

link




Originally posted by gguyx

Especially the advice to read up on the history and the deep thinking from such folks as Vallee, Sturrock, Haines, Sanderson, Hynek, Hill, Hall, Hastings, Feindt, Druffel, Chalker, Schroeder et al....and of course all the early studies, Sign, Grudge, Blue Book, Condon, McDonald's testimony before Congress--all this material is mandatory for the 'Ufology 101' course.


Certainly agree there mate and some very important names listed
- Professor Michael Swords also makes some mighty fine points below about the importance of reading serious UFO literature and acquainting oneself with the facts, documents and specific incidents surrounding the UFO phenomenon - too bad some people disagree and never lift a finger to educate themselves about the subject.



Q. What can a single individual do?

A. Decide to be an honest seeker-of-the-truth rather than an emotionally driven questor for concepts which "feel profoundly meaningful" to one's personal hopes and desires.

B. Read the few scholarly books available which present the history & most incisive, rational thinking in the field; and keep up with the most scholarly journal literature.

C. Find, if possible, one of the few scholars, & learn & help & make a personal effort to actually contribute something rather than just talk.

D. Don't expect an abduction under each bed, nor a true UFO hiding in every black helicopter.

E. If something serious, like CUFOS or BAE, still exists, make a commitment to joining its circle actively.

F. Try to resist the temptation that you have found the final answer, & that no one else makes any sense.



Q. Advice for newcomers?

This isn't easy. Aristotle told Alexander the Great that "there was no Royal [easy] road to Mathematics". The same is true for UFOs. There are a few essential books:

Jacobs, The UFO Controversy in America;
Ruppelt, The Report on Unidentified Flying Objects;
Hynek, The UFO Experience;
NICAP, The UFO Evidence.

Others recommended:

Keyhoe's 1st 2 books;
Vallee's 1st 2 books;
Hall's Uninvited Guests;
Michel's 2 Books;
Clarke's Encyclopedia;
Greenwood & Fawcett's Clear Intent;
the 2 volumes of CUFOS scientific symposia;
a collection of the papers of James McDonald;
Bullard's large papers on CE4's etc.;
The Journal of UFO Studies;
Gotlib's BAE;
Paul McCarthy's thesis on James McDonald;
Alan Hendry's UFO Handbook;
Symposium on Unidentified Flying Objects by 1968 House of Representatives;
Rodeghier's catalog of E-M effects;
Phillips' catalog of landing traces

CUFON Interview with Michael Swords


Cheers.



posted on Dec, 1 2012 @ 05:23 PM
link   
reply to post by gameisupman
 


You just fulfilled all the credentials of the knee jerk de-bunker there, friend- thrashing around, making proclamations and calling people names without bringing any significant information to the discussion.

You think if you try and lump 'dragons & unicorns' in with UFO's then that somehow puts them in a similar category and makes them an object of ridicule. Any photographs or video footage of Unicorns? How many pilot sightings of dragons? Any military or police reports of either? No- didnt think so. However, there is boat loads of different types of evidence of UFO's in our skies.

Just because you claim to be older than most people here doesnt give you the right to call people ignorant for showing interest in the subject- age does not guarantee wisdom.
edit on 1-12-2012 by Thunda because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 1 2012 @ 05:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Imtor

The thoughts presented by this man described in the OP is what I am trying to say and what in my sig below is about.


Imtor, thanks for post and that really is a great sig - below is Bernard's quote in full context and it's certainly another relevant statement from a prominent astrophysicist (the 'recommended reading' section of his website also contains some corkers).




"I propose that true skepticism is called for today: neither the gullible acceptance of true belief nor the closed-minded rejection of the scoffer masquerading as the skeptic. One should be skeptical of both the believers and the scoffers. The negative claims of pseudo-skeptics who offer facile explanations must themselves be subject to criticism. If a competent witness reports having seen something tens of degrees of arc in size (as happens) and the scoffer -- who of course was not there -- offers Venus or a high altitude weather balloon as an explanation, the requirement of extraordinary proof for an extraordinary claim falls on the proffered negative claim as well. That kind of approach is also pseudo-science. Moreover just being a scientist confers neither necessary expertise nor sufficient knowledge. (I wish it did, sigh.) Any scientist who has not read a few serious books and articles presenting actual UFO evidence should out of intellectual honesty refrain from making scientific pronouncements. To look at the evidence and go away unconvinced is one thing. To not look at the evidence and be convinced against it nonetheless is another. That is not science. Do your homework!"

Dr. Bernard Haisch - Director for the California Institute for Physics and Astrophysics


UFO Sceptic




reply to post by booNyzarC
 

Hola Boonster, how the Dickens are you mate - good to see you on ATS.


Don't know if you've seen this cheeky clip but thought Dr Hynek did a good job of summing up the Condon report.

Video

Cheers.



posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 02:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by karl 12
Hola Boonster, how the Dickens are you mate - good to see you on ATS.


Don't know if you've seen this cheeky clip but thought Dr Hynek did a good job of summing up the Condon report.

Video

Cheers.



J Allen Hynek is the perfect example of a scientist(astrophysics) that has thoroughly studied the UFO phenomena for many years. From field reports to first-hand interviews with the witnesses. Being an astronomer and physicist, he was someone that was as capable as any other "expert" in the field of UFOs. He's been quoted many times on this forum, but, it's never been made clear, while he believed in the UFO phenomena, he did not believe in the Extra-Terrestrial Hypothesis(UFOs are ET piloted craft) as an answer to UFOs. In 1983 he gave a talk at a MUFON symposium:

Source
Pages 6-7



"Hynek argued that there are at least seven points which appear to argue ill for the Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis (ETH):

1. Failure of sophisticated surveillance systems to detect incoming or outgoing UFOs.

2. The problem that the 'extraterrestrials' seem to have no difficulty with either our atmosphere or the earth's gravity.

3. The sheer statistical consideration of the numbers of aliens alleged to have visited our planet. Hynek likened to our launching of an Apollo space probe every half hour.

4. The elusive and absurd behavior of UFOs and their alleged occupants.

5. The apparent isolation of the UFO phenomenon in space and time, what Hynek calls 'Cheshire Cat Effect', after the character in 'Alice in Wonderland' who appeared sometimes as only a smile or a tail, and sometimes not at all 'The UFO appears spontaneously" said Hynek,'remains visible for a short while, and then like that remarkable cat, is gone... but where to? The UFO seems to have dual existence: physical at one moment, non-physical at the next.'

6. The 'space unworthiness' of the UFO. Things must be a little cramped aboard the average UFO, he speculated. Where is the room for supplies and equipment needed for a journey that might last years? To answer that question satisfactorily, he noted, ETH proponents call in the presence of the "Mother Ship"

7. The great astronomical distances that must be traversed between one solar system and another. 'Let us represent the actual distance that man has traveled in space, from the earth to the moon, by the thickness of one ordinary playing card. How many such cards must be placed back to back to represent the distance to Alpha Centauri, the nearest star to our solar system? The answer: Nineteen miles of cards!'

*According to Hynek in another article: "....points 1 through 6 could be argued, but point 7 represented an insurmountable barrier to the validity of the ETH.


While the phenomenon of unidentified flying objects can be admitted a real one. As in, objects in the sky people can't positively identify. The alien origin of these unidentified objects will not be settled until physical proof is presented. No matter how many scientists are given the task.



posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 10:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Ectoplasm8
 


I think you are attempting to play down Hyneks beliefs towards the existence and origins of the UFO phenomenon.

In the linked video, he completely slates the Condon report, calling it a 'travesty on science', and pointing out that not only did Condon not personally investigate 1 case, but wrote the summary ignoring the 1/4 of the studied cases coming back as unexplained.

Yes, he did indeed say the quotes you highlight, but he also said "There is sufficient evidence to defend both the ETI and the EDI hypothesis." and, as evidence for the ETI (extraterrestrial intelligence) he mentioned, as examples, the radar cases as good evidence of something solid, and the physical-trace cases. Then he turned to defending the EDI (extradimensional intelligence) hypothesis.

Besides the aspect of materialization and dematerialization he cited the "poltergeist" phenomenon experienced by some people after a close encounter; the photographs of UFOs, some times on only one frame, not seen by the witnesses; the changing form right before the witnesses' eyes; the puzzling question of telepathic communication; or that in close encounters of the third kind the creatures seem to be at home in earth's gravity and atmosphere; the sudden stillness in the presence of the craft; levitation of cars or persons; the development by some of psychic abilities after an encounter. "Do we have two aspects of one phenomenon or two different sets of phenomena?" Hynek asked

Finally he introduced a third hypothesis. "I hold it entirely possible," he said, "that a technology exists, which encompasses both the physical and the psychic, the material and the mental. There are stars that are millions of years older than the sun. There may be a civilization that is millions of years more advanced than man's. We have gone from Kitty Hawk to the moon in some seventy years, but it's possible that a million-year-old civilization may know something that we don't ... I hypothesize an 'M&M' technology encompassing the mental and material realms. The psychic realms, so mysterious to us today, may be an ordinary part of an advanced technology."

Hardly the views of someone who had written off the possibility of ET involvement in the UFO phenomenon.





top topics
 
35
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join