Is there an organized effort to undermine the Aliens and UFOs forum?

a reply to: bottleslingguy

What responsibility are you referring to?

SkepticOverlord and the rest of the crew behind the scenes at ATS, from moderators to our forum subject matter experts and administrators, do a bang up job of providing us with fora to discuss the events of the day, and the events of yesteryear, and even the potential of the future. They have provided us with places to discuss the most complicated and thorny mysteries and the most fascinating new discoveries in fields to wide ranging to list in a single post.

The responsibility as you call it, for creating quality content, for discussing things rationally in this lovingly crafted environment, falls to us, the members, you, me, all of us. If there is something wrong with the way that certain subjects are being represented or misrepresented, then all you can do to improve that situation is make sure that you are doing a bang up job yourself, and make sure you do it better every time, or at least give it the best shot you have! It is not Skeppy's job to make people behave in a manner which suits you! Look at the terms and conditions, look at the disclaimers at the bottom of ATS pages!

from my own experience of belonging to this and other forums on the same subject of ufo's and aliens, I find ATS to be far less shall I say, inhospitable, than some other website forums of the same subject. There will always be some disbelievers, no matter how much proof is offered, and there are many ufo cases over the past many decades with various types of proof. Whether it is accepted or not is up to the individual poster. Doesn't stop me from posting what I consider to be interesting sightings of some interesting things.

originally posted by: SkepticOverlord
a reply to: TrueMessiah

Well… the problem is that, right now in this environment of overwhelming noise and BS… what exactly is the big picture?

my take on it at the moment is that jacques vallee comes closest to seeing it for what it is - if he is right and it is some way related to 'the control system' of 'THE' big picture, it may be 'noise' from the control system (as opposed to 'signal', as it were)

however the control system operates, i think it is much harder to see than the related noise, which to me seems both meaninglessly random and yet somehow very powerful

a reply to: PhoenixOD

If only 2% of all sightings are unexplainable and out of that 2% is an even smaller percentage that really might be interesting then you have to realize that almost all sightings posted here can and probably will be explained away.

Thats not a conspiracy it called investigation.

Investigations can be skewed to cast doubt on what is real. Skeptics use the very government sources that are trying to divert any real investigation and attention into the UFO phenomenon. Project Blue Book is just one glaring example.

Explaining sightings away with no facts or proof, or comparing lights to similar man made aircraft is really not bringing any factual proof to explain away a sighting. How many man made machines or structures are lit up in the night which are very similar or look exactly the same as other man made designed aircraft? Does that mean an off world race couldn't have crafts that look similar to ours in the night sky?

How many sightings have involved veteran commercial pilots, where the radar tower has confirmed exactly what they were seeing? If they're so easily explained away, why does the FAA frown upon pilots reporting any unusual sighting they see in the night sky? You simply can't ignore multiple witnessed sightings, and explain it away as being a mass hallucination.

I question your 2% sighting statistic. Skeptics will use statistics that will support their way of thinking. To point the finger at those who believe we are being visited and saying they have nothing to back it up is really ignoring some hard core UFO cases. Most skeptic explanations don't have absolute proof, it's purely circumstantial evidence. Sure, there are cases that have genuinely been found to be mis-identified objects in the sky and even hoaxes, but to claim everything can be explained away is simply wrapping yourself up in a security blanket hoping that all this UFO stuff isn't real.

originally posted by: khnum
a reply to: duaneology

Yes armed with the deny ignorance motto there are a few grand poobahs of the international skeptic association that will constantly derail these threads using the unassailable tools of reason logic and known(primitive)science,the flat earth society so to speak.

And Dr. Carl Sagan was the leader of the back, he had it down to a science (pun intended).

For the record. I am not part of any organized effort. I work completely alone and for my own amusement.

No, really, I think the topic is fascinating on many levels. Its a topic that deserves to be challenged. The folks that you think are "undermining" the topic are the ones that are probably telling you the truth. The folks that are telling you what you want to hear are just telling you what you want to hear.

originally posted by: OrionsGem


Heres the thing...yes most of it is faith based...but lets not forget one very very very important factor of alien and UFO encounters and that is: FIRST HAND WITNESS TESTIMONY.

This is one thing that DOES EXIST in the ufo field. Think about it....someone witnesses a murder. There is no other proof to the murder other than 1 witness. That witness testimony puts the murdered in jail.

First hand witness testimony is often overlooked in the UFO and alien field, but I feel its VERY IMPORTANT.

If its good enough in a court of law, then its good enough for a UFO investigator.

Where the line gets muddy, though, is the amount of disinformation that is deliberately injected into this field to ridicule legitimate encounters. And soon we all become battle hardened and don't believe anything unless there is hard testable proof...OF WHICH THERE IS NONE AT THIS POINT.

So yea as the poster says: I want to believe...but it does not mean I will believe every story out there..

Does that make sense?

OG

Actually, witness testimony about an alleged murder is pretty worthless in a court of law without a dead body. That's the problem with UFOs--no body (ie. UFO) to examine. For that reason, your example is not good. Obviously, unidentified flying objects exist. Anything that "flies" and is unidentified qualifies. It's when people make claims of fact about the nature of UFOs that things get murky. What do you think happens when someone calls the cops and says, "I saw a man being stabbed right there in the parking lot! He was murdered!" The police arrive and if there's no body, no blood, no anything except the claim of the "witness",nothing happens because there's no concrete proof that a crime has been committed.

originally posted by: Willtell
The op is right. Though it may not be organized but you never know.
What it is is a mentality.

In any non linear doctrine such as forms of mysticism, religion and now UFOlogy there always are haters and non believers (if you may) and extremely intolerant people who think their intellect is supreme over any non material philosophy…even though their intellect can't explain any of the mysteries of life yet they condemn others who offer extraordinary non intellectual non sense beliefs that explain reality.

The people who say “ if I don’t see it I don’t believe it.

You see this in people like Bill Maher on his views of religion and Dawkins and his militant atheist disciples.

This kind of mentality often goes after UFOlogy as well just as hard as many go after religion.

UFOlogy would be a bigger target if it were more mainstream.

There are many like this on ATS

Categorizing people as "haters" because they don't accept someone's word as fact is pretty strong. Sure, there are debunkers, but skeptics, who simply want some evidence before they accept claims of fact, get dumped into the same category as debunkers on these sites. If you want to present UFOs or your religious views as beliefs, that's fine. However, if you make claims of fact, why don't you expect people to ask for testable evidence?

I suspect if you eliminated the True Believers (those who expect their claims to be accepted as facts absent an iota of testable evidence), the number of debunkers would be greatly reduced. The problem lies on both ends of the spectrum.

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: OrionsGem


Heres the thing...yes most of it is faith based...but lets not forget one very very very important factor of alien and UFO encounters and that is: FIRST HAND WITNESS TESTIMONY.

This is one thing that DOES EXIST in the ufo field. Think about it....someone witnesses a murder. There is no other proof to the murder other than 1 witness. That witness testimony puts the murdered in jail.

First hand witness testimony is often overlooked in the UFO and alien field, but I feel its VERY IMPORTANT.

If its good enough in a court of law, then its good enough for a UFO investigator.

Where the line gets muddy, though, is the amount of disinformation that is deliberately injected into this field to ridicule legitimate encounters. And soon we all become battle hardened and don't believe anything unless there is hard testable proof...OF WHICH THERE IS NONE AT THIS POINT.

So yea as the poster says: I want to believe...but it does not mean I will believe every story out there..

Does that make sense?

OG

Actually, witness testimony about an alleged murder is pretty worthless in a court of law without a dead body. That's the problem with UFOs--no body (ie. UFO) to examine. For that reason, your example is not good. Obviously, unidentified flying objects exist. Anything that "flies" and is unidentified qualifies. It's when people make claims of fact about the nature of UFOs that things get murky. What do you think happens when someone calls the cops and says, "I saw a man being stabbed right there in the parking lot! He was murdered!" The police arrive and if there's no body, no blood, no anything except the claim of the "witness",nothing happens because there's no concrete proof that a crime has been committed.

Ah it seems you have never heard of a little something called "circumstancial evidence" Lets examine your claims that witness testimony is "worthless in a court of law without a body" shall we?

Case#1: NO BODY

In 1996, Thomas Capano was convicted of the murder of Anne Marie Fahey, his former lover. Investigators did not have a murder weapon or body, nor any evidence that Capano had purchased a gun. He was convicted of first-degree murder in part due to the evidence given by his brother Gerry, who had admitted to helping Capano dump Fahey’s body in the Atlantic Ocean.

Case#2 NO BODY

In June 2001, Essex teenager Danielle Jones went missing and despite a body never being found, the required circumstantial evidence was provided by forensic analysis of text messages sent by the accused, her uncle Stuart Campbell, who was charged with her murder in November 2001 and convicted a year later.

Case#3 NO BODY

In 2012, in Scotland the prosecution twice won a conviction without a body in the murder of Suzanne Pilley and the murder of Arlene Fraser.

LINK


There are countless more cases, and this is what makes your argument null and void.

OG

originally posted by: OrionsGem

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: OrionsGem


Heres the thing...yes most of it is faith based...but lets not forget one very very very important factor of alien and UFO encounters and that is: FIRST HAND WITNESS TESTIMONY.

This is one thing that DOES EXIST in the ufo field. Think about it....someone witnesses a murder. There is no other proof to the murder other than 1 witness. That witness testimony puts the murdered in jail.

First hand witness testimony is often overlooked in the UFO and alien field, but I feel its VERY IMPORTANT.

If its good enough in a court of law, then its good enough for a UFO investigator.

Where the line gets muddy, though, is the amount of disinformation that is deliberately injected into this field to ridicule legitimate encounters. And soon we all become battle hardened and don't believe anything unless there is hard testable proof...OF WHICH THERE IS NONE AT THIS POINT.

So yea as the poster says: I want to believe...but it does not mean I will believe every story out there..

Does that make sense?

OG

Actually, witness testimony about an alleged murder is pretty worthless in a court of law without a dead body. That's the problem with UFOs--no body (ie. UFO) to examine. For that reason, your example is not good. Obviously, unidentified flying objects exist. Anything that "flies" and is unidentified qualifies. It's when people make claims of fact about the nature of UFOs that things get murky. What do you think happens when someone calls the cops and says, "I saw a man being stabbed right there in the parking lot! He was murdered!" The police arrive and if there's no body, no blood, no anything except the claim of the "witness",nothing happens because there's no concrete proof that a crime has been committed.

Ah it seems you have never heard of a little something called "circumstancial evidence" Lets examine your claims that witness testimony is "worthless in a court of law without a body" shall we?

Case#1: NO BODY

In 1996, Thomas Capano was convicted of the murder of Anne Marie Fahey, his former lover. Investigators did not have a murder weapon or body, nor any evidence that Capano had purchased a gun. He was convicted of first-degree murder in part due to the evidence given by his brother Gerry, who had admitted to helping Capano dump Fahey’s body in the Atlantic Ocean.

Case#2 NO BODY

In June 2001, Essex teenager Danielle Jones went missing and despite a body never being found, the required circumstantial evidence was provided by forensic analysis of text messages sent by the accused, her uncle Stuart Campbell, who was charged with her murder in November 2001 and convicted a year later.

Case#3 NO BODY

In 2012, in Scotland the prosecution twice won a conviction without a body in the murder of Suzanne Pilley and the murder of Arlene Fraser.

LINK


There are countless more cases, and this is what makes your argument null and void.

OG

Case #1: Someone confessed to participating in the murder. One also assumes that evidence was presented proving the existence of the person murdered.

Case #2: The existence of the murder victim was proved. Text messages sent by the murderer were produced.

Case #3: Not enough information was provided but it can be assumed that the existence of the murder victims was produced.

I suggest you ask a lawyer to explain this to you.

a reply to: Tangerine

You do understand that none of these cases had a body present. The first had testimony. The other had text messages. and the third

"Suzanne Pilley was a 38-year-old bookkeeper from Edinburgh, Scotland, who went missing on the morning of 4 May 2010. Following a highly publicised appeal for information on her whereabouts and intensive police enquiries, her former lover, David Gilroy, was arrested and charged with her murder. He was found guilty by majority verdict on 15 March 2012 and sentenced to life imprisonment. The case is controversial because the prosecution obtained a murder conviction without a body. The body of Suzanne Pilley has never been found"

I dont need a lawyer to tell me your argument is completely flawed and based in a fantasy like understanding of law.

Sorry its true.

OG

originally posted by: OrionsGem
a reply to: Tangerine

You do understand that none of these cases had a body present. The first had testimony. The other had text messages. and the third

"Suzanne Pilley was a 38-year-old bookkeeper from Edinburgh, Scotland, who went missing on the morning of 4 May 2010. Following a highly publicised appeal for information on her whereabouts and intensive police enquiries, her former lover, David Gilroy, was arrested and charged with her murder. He was found guilty by majority verdict on 15 March 2012 and sentenced to life imprisonment. The case is controversial because the prosecution obtained a murder conviction without a body. The body of Suzanne Pilley has never been found"

I dont need a lawyer to tell me your argument is completely flawed and based in a fantasy like understanding of law.

Sorry its true.

OG

Let me know when you have a UFO in hand.

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: OrionsGem
a reply to: Tangerine

You do understand that none of these cases had a body present. The first had testimony. The other had text messages. and the third

"Suzanne Pilley was a 38-year-old bookkeeper from Edinburgh, Scotland, who went missing on the morning of 4 May 2010. Following a highly publicised appeal for information on her whereabouts and intensive police enquiries, her former lover, David Gilroy, was arrested and charged with her murder. He was found guilty by majority verdict on 15 March 2012 and sentenced to life imprisonment. The case is controversial because the prosecution obtained a murder conviction without a body. The body of Suzanne Pilley has never been found"

I dont need a lawyer to tell me your argument is completely flawed and based in a fantasy like understanding of law.

Sorry its true.

OG

Let me know when you have a UFO in hand.

Okidoke since your only rebuttal when you have nothing to answer is childish sarcasm, you will now be placed on perma-ignore, a prestigious achievement since I don't ignore many, just a special select few. Congrats!!

OG

originally posted by: TrueMessiah
My main point was it would be wise to look beyond just the typical hoax bin of videos floating around on Youtube concerning one specific subject "UFO's", and dig a little deeper into Pandoras Box so to speak.

And where would those be?

Seriously. I haven't seen anything that hasn't been easily dismissed as a hoax or misinterpretation for a long, long time.

Don't know what's going on with MUFON there, would you happen to have a link to that. I'm really interested in how they came to that conclusion.

Click bait to get people interested in the MUFON conference in Pennsylvania. Speakers will present material that speculates bigfoot is actually an EBE.

Hm. Well.

1) There is a lot of total junk out there trying to sell advertising and what-have-you using sensationalist topics via Youtube and other sites, those who bring junk here will be called out on it, or who re-hash old threads, etc.,

2) there are also, I've noticed, certain topics/people that, if mentioned in anything other than an unsavory light, will instantly bring people out of the woodwork that haven't posted in forever, simply to do a "pile on;" in that regard, I have to say, it can get weird,

3) while there are excellent people with truly great experience and resources here (yes, I learn from you!), you will still find people who WANT a certain outcome - whether it is to uphold something as "truth" or to tear it into shreds REGARDLESS of whether or not they have actual proof of anything, yea or nay, because that is what FEELS right to them - this is the "True Believer" and "Ultimate Skeptic" - two sides of the same coin.

My advice? Learn to recognize the signs of obvious fakes - I have learned SO MUCH here in that regard! Also, if you have had an "undebunkable" experience in your own life, while it may not be 'proof' to anyone else but you, hold on to it, don't become jaded and keep your eyes peeled = sometimes things will pop out that you will recognize and that others may not be able to see or interpret.

It is a weird phenomenon and I have witnessed a bit of it, but really and truly, I have no idea what it ultimately is. People can laugh and deride all they want. No one can take away what I know from my own experience. That being said, I would never try to convince anyone of the reality of my rather brief experience, as I have zero "proof."

Peace,
AB

a reply to: rigel4

Otherwise this thread is utterly pointless!

You don't get to define what this thread is based on your opinion sorry. Not sure why you would want to shut down discussion of others if their beliefs cause you no insecurity.

a reply to: duaneology

If you consider critical thinkers and people who provide facts over B.S. and hoaxes designed to sell a book, tickets to a presentation, or a DVD as "agitators" then I'd say yes.

With the HUGE MOUNTAIN OF CRAP that has been spawned by YouTube videos, phony documents, and "people in the know" (think SERPO and 99% of the phonies on the "UFO Speakers Circuit")) which has gone on to separate good people from their money and common sense why would it be any different?

I wrote a column about this very thing for UFO Magazine a few years ago, check it out, it might be enlightening. It might also cause anger... Just depends on where your head is at and what you're looking for I guess.

a reply to: TrueBrit

VERY WELL PUT my man.

its clear you are very confused about what a skeptic is.

a reply to: WeRpeons

In regards to the question whether there exists "an organized effort to undermine the Aliens and UFOs forum" I would say yes.

In fact there most likely an organized effort to undermine ALL significant research into Aliens and UFOs, this has been going on for decades. The difference, nowadays, is that each individual has access to the know-how and technology to attain their own personal disclosure, whether the rest of world believe you is another story, BUT yes you can get your own disclosure, dangerous as it might be.

I have been posting on my little niche of ATS regarding experimental UFO research

ATS Niche

I would have to say that, even though I personally have not yet attained my own personal disclosure, the way governments, financial markets, organized religions, and certain ethnic groups in the U.S. have reacted indicate to me that there IS something to UFOs and aliens. The more they react, the more they reveal just how important non-disclosure is to them.

I am currently retired from posting about Aliens and UFOs, because of all the indirect personal threats, along with the gangstalking, and surveillance I have experienced.

Here is a way to "test" which groups, secret or otherwise have influence and how much. Publicly criticize each group in turn, then watch for the reaction. Then analyze the reaction, how extensive was it, how intrusive was it, how many resources do you think they used, was it local, regional, or global? By doing this you can get some information as to who may be behind the secret government.

There is only so much change this government can tolerate or is willing to tolerate, much of the time the goal to change at the surface level, without touching the inner workings. For example they can change who appears on what forms of money, but not how the money is backed, they can change how much we pay for oil (at least a little bit), but not actually take steps to get the U.S. off of oil, they can discuss disclosure, without actually disclosing, etc.

Very little of what we see is "actual reality", many people in major cities appear to be more like actors playing a part than actual people. People are guided and directed to appear in certain places at certain times to try to influence events, they are told to mention a certain "phrases" that only have meaning to individuals. Often, especially in and around the big university in Phoenix, I notice that the composition of people changes almost weekly. People I have never seen before appear and disappear on a regular basis, in an almost coordinated fashion, people are shipped in and out.

Something similar took place in the Bay Area, almost overnight the people changed, I thought what are the chances that all of a sudden and in a coordinated fashion people would come and go. Often I am left wondering just how extensive this program would have to be and why? How do they find these people, where do they find them, why do they hire them, for what purpose? With this much control, then what need is there for politics and elections? With this much control then what need is there to spy on people?

Some elements of the movie "The Matrix" may have been an accurate description of our reality.