Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

2014 New year : New start for ufology? Or a continuing fall in standards?

page: 5
16
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 4 2014 @ 04:51 PM
link   

JadeStar
By the way I have some serious yet simple thoughts on things which may help move things forward. I am debating whether to post them in this thread or create another one because of the danger of thread drift.

I think creating a new thread would be better. I'm also interested in helping move things forward.

If I may be so bold to suggest this to IsaacKoi, maybe your "Collective" working group could be a place where some other kind of discussions and debate could occur? Coupled with your idea of keeping and creating an archive of scanned material, I bet it would be of great interest to many participants.




posted on Jan, 4 2014 @ 05:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Tearman
 





It is easier than ever to connect with others and share ideas and data, and easier than ever to collect the data itself.


mm.. no it is not easy to collect data , I do that for years now and sources are finishing or are in control , even to collect data from main Stream medias or alternative medias, or even social network is really not so easy , because there are many hoax and hoaxer too, and the thai mode is a problem.

It was such a problem in germany in 2007 that germany officially ban the thai , holland ban the thai and england think to do so , in usa and canada you have many many thai cases presented as triangle or such .. same boring history.. orange light or glow, slow motion or speed motion in same general direction, long duration and sudden disappearance .. so many I don't understand authorities has not decide to ban , because thai are a real risk for civil aviation and for risks of fire, specially in arid region

and it take time to collect data, so sharing is important but hard work is needed too , halas few people collect and share datas in the world, really few.. I would say 1,500 persons for all world ..it's really few and most of them are aged now



posted on Jan, 4 2014 @ 05:39 PM
link   

vbstrvct

JadeStar
By the way I have some serious yet simple thoughts on things which may help move things forward. I am debating whether to post them in this thread or create another one because of the danger of thread drift.

I think creating a new thread would be better. I'm also interested in helping move things forward.

If I may be so bold to suggest this to IsaacKoi, maybe your "Collective" working group could be a place where some other kind of discussions and debate could occur? Coupled with your idea of keeping and creating an archive of scanned material, I bet it would be of great interest to many participants.


I've also been thinking along the same lines.



posted on Jan, 4 2014 @ 05:40 PM
link   

vbstrvct

JadeStar
By the way I have some serious yet simple thoughts on things which may help move things forward. I am debating whether to post them in this thread or create another one because of the danger of thread drift.

I think creating a new thread would be better. I'm also interested in helping move things forward.

If I may be so bold to suggest this to IsaacKoi, maybe your "Collective" working group could be a place where some other kind of discussions and debate could occur? Coupled with your idea of keeping and creating an archive of scanned material, I bet it would be of great interest to many participants.


Ok, I'll create a new thread in a day or so. Some great ideas going on in this one



posted on Jan, 4 2014 @ 05:52 PM
link   
The more things change the more they stay the same...

As such I think its gonna get worse. UFOlogy is pretty much dead in my opinion it died with the 90's and early 2000's, shame
.

I always sort of scoffed at Arthur C Clarke in his latter years when he dismissed UFO's (this was during the 90's for me), when earlier in his life he seemed very open to it and a believer of sorts. But now that im 20-15 years older and followed it all my life, I can honestly see where he came from in his twilight years when he basically said its a load of bollocks, sure they might exist but there has been little to no real evidence to say conclusively 'yes they exist', and the growing hoaxes, charlatans have all but ruined the field and subjects credibility to the point no one but the die-hards even care about it any more.



posted on Jan, 4 2014 @ 09:22 PM
link   

vbstrvct
If I may be so bold to suggest this to IsaacKoi, maybe your "Collective" working group could be a place where some other kind of discussions and debate could occur? Coupled with your idea of keeping and creating an archive of scanned material, I bet it would be of great interest to many participants.


I've recently been thinking along those lines...


Incidentally, by all means be bold and make any suggestions you like. The point of this thread was to take the opportunity of the start of a new year to generate discussion and ideas. (I look forward to seeing JadeStar's thread mentioned above containing JadeStar's ideas).



posted on Jan, 5 2014 @ 07:41 AM
link   
reply to post by IsaacKoi
 


my non commercial site is reactivated now if you want to look at some sources i'ts there

www.anakinovni.org

this site is permanently changing , the final data collection is validated at 1968 for now, hard work is continuing to validate the rest .. some months of hard work needed, then I'll be able to present data for each country of the world from 1890 to 2014 and thus world waves



posted on Jan, 6 2014 @ 03:32 AM
link   

IsaacKoi

2014 is likely to be the year when I either launch a new project within ufology (which has the working name "the UFO Collective") or quit the subject altogether. I'm rather torn between these apparent options.

The Internet has given us all access to more information and resources than previous researchers - however, this does not yet appear to have been translated into better quality investigations/research.

Is else anyone working on (or have ideas for) any projects that may improve the quality of research?
edit on 1-1-2014 by IsaacKoi because: (no reason given)


Hopefully you will continue with the new project, I am sure there are many (as I do) that appreciate your work.

I would be interested to hear how you believe research can be practically improved and additionally what you see as the primary purpose of the research and the ultimate goal ?

Obviously there is the easy overriding one word answer or the essay but in a paragraph ? I ask because it seems that researchers themselves (as per the previous link to the MW article) cannot agree, some believing that historical "research" will overtake current "investigations". Personally I feel the phenomenon is multi-faceted and probably warrants let alone allows room for different approaches but that by their nature these will have and should have slightly different purposes. Perhaps any collective should define their purpose (mission statement) and create an actual structured plan to work towards that goal.

Probably the best research was in the 50's / 60's and was funded by the US military, I'm not sure how the conditions that could lead to that level of research in the public domain can be achieved, but maybe that should be one purpose of a particular group. In an ideal world these groups would then all fall under a single structured managed programme but how you achieve a global organisation like that with sufficient resource would probably take a combined scientific effort such that made CERN and the LHC possible.



posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 01:56 PM
link   
reply to post by josuavalley
 


site in underground mode again, sorry



posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 02:15 PM
link   

josuavalley
site in underground mode again, sorry


Okay.

I've downloaded the Inforespace material, converted the files to searchable PDFs, uploaded the new versions to a free file storage website and sought permission to release the link. I've had an initial response from COBEPS and am optimistic permission will be granted soon. I'll let you know. Thanks again josuavalley for scanning this material.

By the way, I checked the total number of pages : 1388.
edit on 7-1-2014 by IsaacKoi because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 02:16 PM
link   
Double-post.
edit on 7-1-2014 by IsaacKoi because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2014 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Toadmund
It really doesn't help that YouTube monetises everything now. All the CGI hoaxers want is exposure for ad revenue.
I don't think that it is ethical to try and fool people and to make money inventing falsities and presenting them as truth.
Oh boy, I could make so much money if I was dishonest!
But I am poor, and honest.

I click on UFO videos mostly to entertain myself with hoaxing attempts, whilst looking for that gem that 'may' have merit in the belief department.

I still believe they are here.


Oh yeah...monetize the YouTube...except you still won't make any money until you get 100's to 1000's of views within a single 30 day period...and then it still isn't very much (a few bucks at best). At that rate One might get a small deposit every 2 - 3 months ($100 or so).

Seriously...YouTube doesn't pay for S***. Not until you have your 100 vids and they are all viewed 100's of times per month.

But the YouTube traffic really isn't a serious issue to Ufology, the apathy I see IS, however. What I see is people who are actually "wanna-be" UFO researchers, and just plain people who want an answer they can understand, and hold. Not very forthcoming though.

Part of the problem is that Ufology has NEVER had real standards, and of course today, everybody has their own private standard. A truly untenable situation.

I don't see anybody even trying to resolve these issues, only talk and complain; never take on the task.

With the tools available today it shouldn't be (and indeed isn't) difficult to find and understand any data so-ever. For instance; I believe I have "unique DNA properties"; I was able to get preliminary test results from various laboratories and ponder what it all meant. Then I was able to use the Internet, and a good ole search engine (such as they are...) and learn about micro-biology, genetics, DNA, etc. until I gained an understanding of the science. I was also able to use the mathematical and probabilistic data that accompanied the biological results to arrive at a set of "probabilities" about what I was studying.

In short; wile I may not have answered my initial query, I did learn an awful lot about the general subject, and myself. This same technique can be applied to anything...even Ufology.

Course, that also means that y'all actually are willing to do the work.



posted on Jan, 11 2014 @ 01:05 PM
link   
I don’t think UFOlogy is going down, it may be transforming into something else.

If the alien UFO events are legit, and I believe many are, then this intelligence behind them will evolve into something positive and will not remain stagnant and merely proceed on with mysterious inscrutable incidents.

This intelligence wouldn’t want us to become idolaters of UFOlogy and alien mysteries, but better human beings who will evolve to something greater than what we are.



posted on Jan, 11 2014 @ 01:33 PM
link   
Thing is, has the standard ever been set with Ufology before. Has there been Identified ufo's, with various physical features, as well as flight behaviors.

Most time, I think it just the New age mumbo jumbo trying to make a profit out them, or even try to get some religious/cult intervention involved.

Cause I don't c any identified Ufos. The only the would help, would witness statements from various locations and time and dates. If certain fall into one category, or similarities like was it orange?

Most of time I just see black triangles being stated, however the military seem chalk full of them, like the stealth jet Raptors. Problem is with ufology is that it just word of mouth. Plus, it hard to find /or believe accurate data. Plus video footage...

I said Hi to black triangle once...

And you guys should think " Is he bull#ting?".



posted on Jan, 17 2014 @ 03:00 AM
link   

josuavalley
reply to post by Tearman
 





It is easier than ever to connect with others and share ideas and data, and easier than ever to collect the data itself.


mm.. no it is not easy to collect data , I do that for years now and sources are finishing or are in control , even to collect data from main Stream medias or alternative medias, or even social network is really not so easy , because there are many hoax and hoaxer too, and the thai mode is a problem.

It was such a problem in germany in 2007 that germany officially ban the thai , holland ban the thai and england think to do so , in usa and canada you have many many thai cases presented as triangle or such .. same boring history.. orange light or glow, slow motion or speed motion in same general direction, long duration and sudden disappearance .. so many I don't understand authorities has not decide to ban , because thai are a real risk for civil aviation and for risks of fire, specially in arid region

and it take time to collect data, so sharing is important but hard work is needed too , halas few people collect and share datas in the world, really few.. I would say 1,500 persons for all world ..it's really few and most of them are aged now


The reality is cameras are more prevalant than ever, and sharing methods are also more prevalant. And yet what we find dominating the data landscape churned out from that reality is: a vast number of hoaxes, misidentifications, and delusions. That IS the data right there. If collection methods are improving, then it should follow that the rate of genuine UFO picture/video occurances should increase. It shouldn't be that only the false UFO sightings with mundane explanations should increase. The ratio between false and genuine UFO sightings doesn't change just because more people have more ways to document their subjective experience.

So what does the data tell us? It tells us that the ratio between false and genuine UFO sightings is probably closer to 1:0 than we previously believed. It tells us that people's perceptions don't always correlate to objective reality. And that if a truly astonishing UFO case were to pop up, we should remember to ask ourselves whether there could be something faulty about our perception of what is happening--before we start making assertions about what is actually happening.






top topics



 
16
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join