We Should Have Some Theory By Now

a reply to: standingwave

Well, that is hardly accurate is it?

No information is forthcoming from these experiments and observations. Its not that poor data is being released, instead NO data is being released, and that usually means that someone is checking and re-checking their findings, establishing for themselves and the team involved, some sort of conclusion, BEFORE publishing any findings, which is the responsible thing to do.

Its basically the opposite of what morons like Greer and Collier would do.

People in the limelight of UFOlogy, like the aforementioned cretins, used to rely on their ability to make unproven, but more specifically unprovable statements, that they claim are, despite their total lack of ability to be probed with the tools of the sciences. This tactic is snake oil salesmanship at its highest ebb of course, but the crucial thing about it, is that using this tactic means that you can give regular and interesting updates on the lie that you are creating for your consumers. It does not, however, have any actual value. I would rather wait twenty years for data based on rigorous scientific inquiry, than wait two weeks for a charlatan and a liar to drop their latest hornswoggle on the population.

a reply to: standingwave

Well thanks that would be interesting.

a reply to: TrueBrit

. I would rather wait twenty years for data based on rigorous scientific inquiry,

Well yr right (a lot of cursing though) but...

waiting on science ?! well science isn't even interested am I right, how many scientific papers on the subject ?
Rethorical : Would a scientist risk it's scientific career by diving into the UFO rabbithole ? I don't think so.

In 20 years hardly anything would change. Scientific advancement has it's own bias. Keep in mind there is a difference between the unbiased scientific method and science that is actually done and accepted by the scientific community.

So to be short I agree ufology = pretty much useless in finding the answer. But also science isn't a tool for finding it because the scientific community isn't entirely unbiased.

They are evil and hate man with a vengeance. Read the book of Enoch, they were cast out forever for coming here and having relations with women. Man does this, though not in the face of God since God has died from this world and we do no directly know Him, and man can be redeemed and return to live with his heavenly Father. So, the demon looks to deceive and trick man out of his most precious gift. The only 'understanding' man needs of them is to know, they are your eternal enemies. Do not have anything to do with them, and if they show up uninvited, call upon the name, power and blood of Jesus Christ to protect you from them. BTW, look up alien abductions and calling on the name of Jesus. God and Jesus are real. So are Satan and demons.

reply to: standingwave

a reply to: frenchfries

First of all, I could not agree with you more on the following point:

There has, without doubt, been a dearth of scientists of renown, prepared to speak out about their desire to actually perform rigorous study of the UFO phenomena that have occurred over the years, or to create systems to capture more data in an effective manner, without necessarily involving manned stations.

However, what you have to consider is that there are very good reasons for that, and the vast majority of them have to do with one simple, but gigantic problem that UFOlogy has, with regard to the population of its upper echelons, and indeed with some of the people at the ground level, thats you, me and the milkman. That problem is a total lack of willingness to engage with actual scientific methods, standards of proof, a complete collapse of all legitimacy on the part of the most influential voices on the topic, and indeed an inability on the part of some individuals within the community, to prefer the truth no matter what it is, to any kind of lie or misunderstanding.

The fact that Collier and Greer are amongst the loudest voices in the community at large, means that genuine inquiry will be difficult to engage in. Their fans and followers create some of the worst signal to noise situations in history, so much so that they may as well be part of whatever government cover up they allege others might be involved with. People like that muddying the water with nonsense makes it near impossible to figure out the truth, even with the determination, patience and intellect necessary to become a renowned physicist or astrophysicist, chemist, and so on. And when you then ADD the potential loss of face, the inability to find paying work because of your connections to a field which is mostly occupied by charlatans, luddites and other clueless, intellectually irrelevant specks, you can see why they might not be tempted.

Now, if you edited out of the history of UFOlogy, all the hoaxing, the snake oil, and parsed it down to a specific interest only in things that can be physically proven, I think people like Neil de Grasse Tyson, Brian Cox, and their like, would be all over the situation like flies on a four day old corpse. Why? Because the signal to noise situation would be improved, making it possible to see the real incidents without having to waste resources on falsehoods, and because without all that nonsense I mentioned, the legitimacy of the study could be a damned sight closer to guaranteed than is now the case.

It's like trying to wrestle a greased pig.
Herding cats.
I know they exist.
Can I prove it?
Nope.
Can I make myself appear to be a crazy person.
Check.

a reply to: TrueBrit

Now, if you edited out of the history of UFOlogy, all the hoaxing, the snake oil, and parsed it down to a specific interest only in things that can be physically proven, I think people like Neil de Grasse Tyson, Brian Cox, and their like, would be all over the situation like flies on a four day old corpse. Why? Because the signal to noise situation would be improved,

Well right... and than the conclusion is inevitable that these scientists simply don't have the guts to do so. Simple herd animals going with the flow that has been tainted by ufology. I might even consider that without ufology we would know more about ufo's. But still I see scientists more like showmen preforming on the stage of science dancing to the rythm of the mainstream to get funding.

19th century inventors had at least the balls to think the unthinkable. Now scientific progress is controlled by many many factors. Too many to solve the UFO mystery

So to be very short humanity wont ever see the light 'this prison stays' closed for at least another milenium

A big part of what they're trying to show us is that the scientific model isn't the only way to understand and experience existence, hence their trickster-ish and elusive nature.

There are plenty of people in direct contact with them, but nobody wants to hear it because it doesn't confirm their bias or is simply too weird and unbelievable. We're also too busy getting work done to be bothered to try to convince skeptics who inevitably call shenanigans and demand a clear photo of a grey holding its galactic ID card or some such none sense as evidence.

a reply to: standingwave

I've just finished reading Hunt For The Skinwalker, great read. The best theory is these things, or at least most of them are interdimensional and there are places on the planet that are hotspots where the 'gateway' is stronger. I believe they are interdimensional, the wolf like creatures are from there, bigfoot creatures, orbs are their drones, ufos are their actual vehicles. I think they are all from another dimension, with advanced technology and advanced cognitive abilities. They label them tricksters because it appears they are messing with the Gormans which they are really, making stuff disappear then re-appear etc.

The biggest problem to a pure scientific study or proof is the transient nature of what is to be studied.
An example:- a scientist is looking through his microscope at some viruses, he wants to prove a certain virus exists and needs a repeatable method to either capture one or capture a photo of one. Repeatable because the evidence he produces must bring the same results to another scientist to confirm his discovery.
The bad bit come when the virus in question only appear occasionally and only a fleeting glimpse that the recording method has not the time to register it. It exists but how to prove it exists when it can't be relied on to appear when the scientist wants it to appear and when it does(maybe over intervals of months or years) it is so fleeting that it's come and gone in the blink of an eye.
To actually prove UFOs exist you have to know when( that means year, day exact time), where in the world, what part of the sky etc. etc. and even then it has to appear regularly.
Therefore "scientific proof" is virtually impossible (except if you have one) because it must be repeatable by other scientists to verify your findings.

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: standingwave

Here is the thing though....

How much video is even remotely conclusive??

Everyone on the planet has a video camera now, but good ufo videos have dwindled..

I think this is the correct answer.

It's the same with things like Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster, etc. When people only had our eyes to count on, we were sure we saw more abnormal and unidentifiable things. But once we started seeing those "abnormal and unidentifiable" things in high definition, they usually turn out to be easily identifiable things.

originally posted by: enlightenedservant

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: standingwave

Here is the thing though....

How much video is even remotely conclusive??

Everyone on the planet has a video camera now, but good ufo videos have dwindled..

I think this is the correct answer.

It's the same with things like Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster, etc. When people only had our eyes to count on, we were sure we saw more abnormal and unidentifiable things. But once we started seeing those "abnormal and unidentifiable" things in high definition, they usually turn out to be easily identifiable things.

Was there ever a golden age of "good" videos? The good ones are buried under a pile of hoax garbage thanks to consumer market CG software and ad hungry click bait channels and sites.

Besides, would a crystal clear video of a ship or whatever actually convince anyone? There's like a horde of debunkers ready to dismiss any such evidence as soon as it's rolled out.

One will NEVER come close to the truth by standing on the sidelines of this subject. The irony being once intimately involved, you automatically are labeled a nutter! Lol

a reply to: ultimafule

Was there ever a golden age of "good" videos?

That depends. A lot of these legends and "unexplainable" things started off as word-of-mouth stories/accounts. After the invention of modern video recorders, new video clips were used to prove that those previously spoken of legends were real. So I think that's why people point towards a lot of the video footage from the 1960's-90's, etc, since those videos were the heavily promoted "proof" of their lifetimes.

Hmm, that sounds a bit convoluted. I'm just trying to say that what makes a video "good" depends on the individual. There was a lot less nationwide skepticism of these things up through the 1970's, 80's, and 90's, and that's when a lot of the "classic" videos and witness accounts come from. But as movies started using CGI, as people learned about image manipulation software, and as individuals could film things for themselves, the newly released "proof" of supernatural phenomena become less and less credible.

So most people here would probably consider the "good" videos to be from the time period when the public was more ignorant to image recording techniques and image manipulation techniques. If you want a better idea of what I mean, go back and look at some of the pictures that were used as "proof" that Stalin had people removed from official photographs.

Besides, would a crystal clear video of a ship or whatever actually convince anyone? There's like a horde of debunkers ready to dismiss any such evidence as soon as it's rolled out.

Wait, so is the goal to convince the entire public or to convince an individual? Individuals often don't need a lot of proof to be convinced of things, which is why so many people constantly fall for hoaxes and con-men. Those UFO hoax sites and channels make a living by constantly convincing people that their products are real.

But if the goal is to convince the entire public, I'd have to ask why? We can't even get the entire public to believe easily provable things like "the Earth is round". So why would anyone think it would be easy to prove to the entire public that some inter-dimensional or intergalactic creatures have been visiting us?

So to answer the question, yes, a crystal clear video would convince someone since the hoax sites often have amazingly clear UFO, vortex, whatever videos and they constantly convince people that they're real. But no, a crystal clear video wouldn't convince most people and definitely not all people, especially when there would still be so many unknowns surrounding the video.

One will NEVER come close to the truth by standing on the sidelines of this subject. The irony being once intimately involved, you automatically are labeled a nutter! Lol

Labeled by who? This is why I asked if the goal is to convince an individual or to convince the entire public. There will always be people who think people are "nutters" for believing in something. But there will also always be people who still believe in those subjects and support others who believe in those subjects. In other words, if a person genuinely believes in something, it shouldn't matter if a group of other people ridicules or exalts them for those beliefs.

a reply to: enlightenedservant

Excellent points all around!

And also most of the reasons I don't bother most people with the subject anymore lol

a reply to: standingwave
IMHO,
It is just the old switch and bait strategy. While you believe as those crafts as being aliens, they are really man made tech that's been studied and almost perfected right before your eyes. Area 51 became the legal testing ground for satanic and occultic practices, just like Hitler, and technology became one with the occult. They use the alien propaganda to cover it all up. That simple really. But, the most sinister cover-up of all time.

I will answer questions, I am a victim of their monstrosities.

originally posted by: standingwave
How much more data is needed to start putting together some sort of theory as to why they are here and acting in this manner?

We need that one little definitive piece of data that we don't have. Otherwise, it's all conjecture.

No, it is people failing to see this 'phenomenon' for what it is. It isn't rocket science and doesn't take a genius to see all the corruption happening all around us, this is just another deception.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: standingwave

Well, that is hardly accurate is it?

No information is forthcoming from these experiments and observations. Its not that poor data is being released, instead NO data is being released, and that usually means that someone is checking and re-checking their findings, establishing for themselves and the team involved, some sort of conclusion, BEFORE publishing any findings, which is the responsible thing to do.

Its basically the opposite of what morons like Greer and Collier would do.

People in the limelight of UFOlogy, like the aforementioned cretins, used to rely on their ability to make unproven, but more specifically unprovable statements, that they claim are, despite their total lack of ability to be probed with the tools of the sciences. This tactic is snake oil salesmanship at its highest ebb of course, but the crucial thing about it, is that using this tactic means that you can give regular and interesting updates on the lie that you are creating for your consumers. It does not, however, have any actual value. I would rather wait twenty years for data based on rigorous scientific inquiry, than wait two weeks for a charlatan and a liar to drop their latest hornswoggle on the population.

No, it is people failing to see this 'phenomenon' for what it is. It isn't rocket science and doesn't take a genius to see all the corruption happening all around us, this is just another deception.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: standingwave

Well, that is hardly accurate is it?

No information is forthcoming from these experiments and observations. Its not that poor data is being released, instead NO data is being released, and that usually means that someone is checking and re-checking their findings, establishing for themselves and the team involved, some sort of conclusion, BEFORE publishing any findings, which is the responsible thing to do.

Its basically the opposite of what morons like Greer and Collier would do.

People in the limelight of UFOlogy, like the aforementioned cretins, used to rely on their ability to make unproven, but more specifically unprovable statements, that they claim are, despite their total lack of ability to be probed with the tools of the sciences. This tactic is snake oil salesmanship at its highest ebb of course, but the crucial thing about it, is that using this tactic means that you can give regular and interesting updates on the lie that you are creating for your consumers. It does not, however, have any actual value. I would rather wait twenty years for data based on rigorous scientific inquiry, than wait two weeks for a charlatan and a liar to drop their latest hornswoggle on the population.

No, it is people failing to see this 'phenomenon' for what it is. It isn't rocket science and doesn't take a genius to see all the corruption happening all around us, this is just another deception.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: standingwave

Well, that is hardly accurate is it?

No information is forthcoming from these experiments and observations. Its not that poor data is being released, instead NO data is being released, and that usually means that someone is checking and re-checking their findings, establishing for themselves and the team involved, some sort of conclusion, BEFORE publishing any findings, which is the responsible thing to do.

Its basically the opposite of what morons like Greer and Collier would do.

People in the limelight of UFOlogy, like the aforementioned cretins, used to rely on their ability to make unproven, but more specifically unprovable statements, that they claim are, despite their total lack of ability to be probed with the tools of the sciences. This tactic is snake oil salesmanship at its highest ebb of course, but the crucial thing about it, is that using this tactic means that you can give regular and interesting updates on the lie that you are creating for your consumers. It does not, however, have any actual value. I would rather wait twenty years for data based on rigorous scientific inquiry, than wait two weeks for a charlatan and a liar to drop their latest hornswoggle on the population.

a reply to: standingwave

So where's your theory?