Aliens or what?

Technology that is advanced enough can be and probably will be confused with miracles or works from gods. An understanding of that would remove that god like cloak that these encounters would have.

Ufos are everywhere. Not particularly alien just everywhere. We just can't see them, they're around us all the time. Something like 1 - 2% of human beings have really good eye sight. Dogs can see them they just have the senses. A very small amount of human being can just see outside the standard light spectrum and these people are usually the witnesses to the ufos., unless the ufos want to be seen and turn up their gas

a reply to: ufoorbhunter

Your statement isn't true. Even our technology allows us to see beyond the visible spectrum. I own IR and thermal devices. Lots of people do. If the bogeys are "everywhere" we'd be seeing them on a regular basis.

a reply to: Foundryman

I stand by the statement. If you have watched a dog they will follow something in the air, even though you can't generally see them while a few humans actually can.

In addition to which, if you haven't seen them you are looking in the wrong places

You need to get to an energy line

originally posted by: Waterglass
a reply to: oloufo

I disagree with all you wrote. You reference many things including the Ariel school but cut you own investigation short. Then again you and I are part of the Goggle life in that we are steered with our feet in a couple of buckets towards whatever they want.

In 2017 a series was on Discovery + . It was titled Expedition Unknown Hunt for Extraterrestrials by Josh Gates.

Expedition Unknown: Hunt for Extraterrestrials

In the 3rd episode he returns to the Ariel School with many of the kids who are now adults. Also did you know that all kids were separated and asked to draw what they saw? That happened in 1994 and they still have the drawings. Take a look and report out. However, if you don't then I would think of you as a disinformation specialist.

Then the series was torpedoed by claims of fraud.

So why is it these series are always torpedoed? Read the book called "Mind Games" by Richard Thieme. You will understand in the 1st 50 pages as to whats going on and why these shows also have to include some fake stuff.

Aliens in my opinion have been here on earth for at least 30,000 years. Look at all the ancient carvings all over the world of the large eyed things. All coincidental of course right?

Kick it up a notch and Deny ignorance. Its all out there and free!

i'm not ignoring anything. i'm looking at everything and try to find logical explanations. because, for example, there's probably no bigfoot, and there's no loch ness, there are rare bear species, or very large fish in deep lakes. there are two big questions. what comes after death and are we alone? i just can't imagine that something as big as the answer to the last question can be kept secret for decades. i'd be happy if i'm wrong.

a reply to: oloufo

my best guess is they are way to fast to be shot down.

originally posted by: iwanttobelieve70
Most plausible explanation for me is that the ETs have made contact and there is an agreement on both sides to not make things known for whatever reason and that should scare everyone. Things that are done in the shadows are by nature are nefarious.

It is obvious for anyone with a brain that there are unexplained things in our past and present and our leaders act like they do not exist. Why do they do that? Whenever someone can’t even discuss the subject at hand it sets off all forms of bells and whistles in my mind.

What gave me enough information was Roswell. A base housing our best and brightest confused a weather balloon with a flying saucer and the information surrounding the encounter is redacted to this day. What plausible possible explanation could there be? There isn’t one.

The secrecy of our world will be its downfall.

why not a test surveillance balloon? why is this explanation less credible than the assumption that it was aliens?

i've seen many interviews. everyone tells their own fantastic story. and in the end, you learn that many of the storytellers are known for telling stories. it's not enough to interpret, it's about putting facts and evidence on the table. and there's nothing of that in sight so far.

originally posted by: data5091
a reply to: oloufo

my best guess is they are way to fast to be shot down.

if they are so fast that you can't shoot them down, how could the eyewitnesses have seen them?

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: oloufo

You said:

i believe there is life everywhere in the universe. i don't believe that we are visited and have even had contact.

To me, this is just an illogical position. If you believe there's life in the universe, what do you believe is stopping them from visiting earth or some of their probes visiting earth?

Are you saying life in the universe is limited by our understanding of science and technology?

How do you explain U.F.O.'s that have been flying in our skies since the dawn of civilization? How do you explain U.F.O.'s the outrun some of our fastest jets and that cause Nuke sites to malfunction?

What civilization on earth has gotten around Moore's Law and created all of this advanced technology? Here's a case:

The Pascagoula abduction of Calvin Parker and Charles Hickson is one of the best known abduction cases in the history of Ufology. One of the men, Calvin Parker, recently wrote a book after 45 years of mostly staying silent. The guy could of made a killing traveling with Hickson on the U.F.O. circuit but didn't want to say anything at first and retreated from the spotlight. He finally chose to tell his story 45 years later and it's as profound today as it was back then. Here's a video where Parker gives some detail as to what happened.

These guys were examined, polygraphed and they tried to trick them by recording their conversations unbeknownst to them.

Parker says some very interesting things. He says that the 3 creatures came out of the ship and these 3 creatures took them into the ship and into an examination room. He said these 3 creatures looked more mechanical. This is important because he notices mechanical movement vs. what he saw later.

He then says something came out of the ceiling and examined his head. After it examined his head, it went back up into the ceiling and another creature came into the examination room.

This is important, because while the others looked mechanical, this one looked biological. It looked like something he recognized because he said it was female. The female being talked to him telepathically and told him everything would be okay.

Here's Hynek talking about the case.

Questions:

1. If Parker and Hickson were lying, where's the evidence?

2. If they weren't lying, then what country on earth got around Moore's Law and had the technology described?

we are an aggressive species. we wage wars, conquer and plunder, destroy and rob. we even destroy our own planet. would you make contact?

originally posted by: Waterglass
Also did you know that all kids were separated and asked to draw what they saw?

And the drawings are different! I'm not talking about artistic differences like the shape of the saucer. I'm talking about all those kids are old enough to count to 5, and if it was a real event, they should be able to tell if there was one saucer, or 5 saucers. So why does one kid draw 5 saucers and another kid draws one saucer? Why does one kid draw one humanoid, and another kid draw two humanoids? If they all saw the same thing, how many were there? One or two? Were they bald or did they have hair, because one kid draws them bald and holding hands and another draws one with long hair that looks like dreadlocks. These are not small differences. I do expect to see differences in drawings of a real event, but, differences this huge do not suggest a real event to me, I don't know why they suggest a real event to anybody except biased people like John Mack and Cynthia Hind, the biased investigators who lied and said the kids all saw the same thing, when their drawings show they didn't.

You're right, they apparently did make the drawing separately, but Cynthia Hind and John Mack didn't keep them separated during their interviews of the children which of course is a bad research method if you're seeking truth.

There's the Ariel thread on ATS where the OP asks why would kids make up a story like this, and posts some photos of the kids. Then someone with an Emily Bolton e-mail address posts she's one of the kids in those photos, and says they made it up after seeing a UFO documentary the night before:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I'm one of the kids in these photo's. I remember this well. We made it up - Sorry. By the way there was a documentary on UFO's the night before, more or less everyone had a TV at that stage and for those who didn't it was still a cool story to get in on
I'm in the last photo. You may email me if you like. [email protected]

Here is the last photo in the OP which she claims is her, so it should be possible for her to prove if she's really this same person or not, though older now of course:

Also the drawings are all different, which seems to confirm they made it up! John Mack and Cynthia Hind seem to have conducted a biased investigation and promoted the false story they all said the same thing, but the original drawings the children made clearly show otherwise.

Ariel School UFO landing 1994


This drawing by Tara from 1:16 in the video looks like a human man or woman with dreadlocks, and it's just one humanoid:

This other drawing from 2:02 in the video doesn't show any dreadlock-like hair, and it shows two humanoids instead of one. So no they did not all see the same thing when the number of humanoids drawn isn't even the same, and they don't look the same. By the way both these drawings look rather human to me.

So don't these drawings bust the myth they all saw the same thing? Why does one drawing show only one humanoid and the other drawing shows two humanoids?

Here's a drawing from 3:02 showing what looks like one big silvery object on the ground, and 4 other smaller silvery objects on the ground, all sort of saucer shaped.


So first, none of them look like they are flying, and 5 objects and one humanoid, is this what all the other children described? No, it's not, here's another drawing showing only one object, again on the ground:

That looks more like a RV trailer than a flying saucer to me.

They did not all show the same thing in their drawings though improper questioning methods may have poisoned the investigation when Cynthia Hind and John Mack showed up, but I think the drawings might have been made before those two researchers had a chance to poison the investigation with their bad methods, discussed here:

25th UFO congress

Vendittelli introduced Emily Trim, who in 1994 was one of the schoolchildren involved in the famous Ariel School 'UFO landing' incident in Zimbabwe. She spoke on "E.T. Contacts and the Ariel School Incident." Her talk was highly emotional. She was crying as she spoke of encountering ETs floating above the ground. She said that she fell to her knees before one such being, whose face kept changing between that of an alien, and that of a lion. She has also had a conversation with a magic butterfly...

You cannot take seriously the account of someone who is in such a highly emotional state, and relates an impossible story.

Here's more about the bad research methods I mentioned earlier:
A New Investigation of the 1994 Ariel School Case

Relatively little critical analysis has been given to this case - until recently. The French skeptic Gilles Fernandez, who has a PhD in Cognitive Psychology, writes the French-language Blog, Sceptiques vs. les Soucoupes Volantes (Skeptics vs. the Flying Saucers). On June 26, 2016 he published the results of his latest investigation of this case. Crediting skeptic "Nab Lator" and unnamed participants of other forums, this is the culmination of work begun in 2010 ( "thanks to Nab Lator who did 95 % of the work on the sources, ufologiques resources (articles, videos, web archives) key passages, and much more"). Nab Lator did an earlier analysis of the case in 2011 on the forum Reality Uncovered, making many important observations that Fernandez builds upon. (Nab Lator was also the one who successfully de-blurred the placard next to the body of the supposed "alien" in the Roswell Slides.) Viewing one of John Mack's interviews with a child, Lator writes,

The boy is coaxed to imagine a rationale, then transpose it into the real world in the next question. A manipulation that is hidden by the editing of short sequences in the video. John Mack is caught red-handed encouraging the child to confabulate, integrate imagination into reality. JM knew that there was no verbal communication, so why did he suggested so heavily a different type of communication? What else than telepathy could it have been? The children did not make up the telepathic message, JM did. It became a "compelling" element of the story, fully validated by the famous Harvard psychiatrist.

Maybe aliens are visiting us, but the evidence of these eyewitnesses in the form of their vastly different drawings does more to convince me that the story is fictitious than to convince me it was real. So, did anybody ever follow up with Emily Bolton? I couldn't find where anybody did, seems like she was just ignored and if she was telling the truth about the story being made up, apparently nobody wanted to know that. I suspect the other folks like the attention they get, just look at Emily Trim and her crazy account that makes her look like a nut to me, she got lots of applause, so she has plenty of motivation to not admit if the story was made up, as do the others.

I also think the people who say "kids don't lie" forgot what it was like to be a kid.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

cool stuff. thanks for that!

a reply to: Arbitrageur

This is one of the most asinine posts I have ever seen on this topic. You have to laugh at the absurdity of your post. You said:

Maybe aliens are visiting us, but the evidence of these eyewitnesses in the form of their vastly different drawings does more to convince me that the story is fictitious than to convince me it was real.

I just...you pseudoskeptics are so illogical. Sometimes I wonder if you guys actually believe what you post.

First, you pseudoskeptics tell us that eyewitness accounts aren't reliable but then you act as though the kids drawing should be exactly the same. Of course they're going to look different, they're kids!

I remember when I was in school, the teacher in art class had us draw the playground and all of our drawings looked different and we played on the playground everyday in recess.

These kids just saw a U.F.O. and occupants of the U.F.O. and you expect them to be Picasso? Look at the drawings. All of them draw a figure and a dome shaped object.

THIS IS JUST ASININE!!!

Most of these little kids are not artists that can draw perfect replicas of what they saw. This has to be one of the ....pseudoskeptics.

None of what you said discounts or refutes their story in any way.

You quote some Johnny come lately skeptic that doesn't provide a shred of evidence that the kids were lying. In fact all of the kids stand by their accounts of what happened.

Then you link to some anonymous post claiming to be one of the kids LOL! You can't make this stuff up. You then add the pseudoskeptics last resort. "Liar, Liar, Pants on fire!."

I also think the people who say "kids don't lie" forgot what it was like to be a kid.

Man, this was a post filled with the usual pseudoskeptic nonsense!

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: Arbitrageur

This is one of the most asinine posts I have ever seen on this topic. You have to laugh at the absurdity of your post. You said:

Maybe aliens are visiting us, but the evidence of these eyewitnesses in the form of their vastly different drawings does more to convince me that the story is fictitious than to convince me it was real.

I just...you pseudoskeptics are so illogical. Sometimes I wonder if you guys actually believe what you post.

First, you pseudoskeptics tell us that eyewitness accounts aren't reliable but then you act as though the kids drawing should be exactly the same. Of course they're going to look different, they're kids!

I remember when I was in school, the teacher in art class had us draw the playground and all of our drawings looked different and we played on the playground everyday in recess.

These kids just saw a U.F.O. and occupants of the U.F.O. and you expect them to be Picasso? Look at the drawings. All of them draw a figure and a dome shaped object.

THIS IS JUST ASININE!!!

Most of these little kids are not artists that can draw perfect replicas of what they saw. This has to be one of the ....pseudoskeptics.

None of what you said discounts or refutes their story in any way.

You quote some Johnny come lately skeptic that doesn't provide a shred of evidence that the kids were lying. In fact all of the kids stand by their accounts of what happened.

Then you link to some anonymous post claiming to be one of the kids LOL! You can't make this stuff up. You then add the pseudoskeptics last resort. "Liar, Liar, Pants on fire!."

I also think the people who say "kids don't lie" forgot what it was like to be a kid.

Man, this was a post filled with the usual pseudoskeptic nonsense!

children are very imaginative and tend to exaggerate. they saw something and they made it up. unthinkable? why do you react so aggressively when someone tries to find an answer and comes to a different conclusion than you? what is this forum for then? i also find the case fascinating and puzzling but my opinion is that they saw something strange but it wasnt aliens.

originally posted by: oloufo


i want to talk about the current case. the drones that regularly haunt american warships and that many believe to be alien flying objects. there is supposed to be an official report on these drones and the famous nimitz encounter (tic tac). the ufo community is vibrating. my questions to the ats members is: if an unknown drone circles an american warship, flies over it, flies alongside, that means a potential danger. because you don't know what it is. why are none of these drones shot down? instead, they observe, report, but don't act. that sounds pretty unamerican to me.

i think the answer to most sightings: secret tests of future technologies. it's just the most logical explanation.
best regards with some cool zeitgeist from germany!

Two things:

1) Both U.S. military pilots and military ship captains are trained observers with knowledge of the known catalog of inventory both foreign and domestic (Russia, China mainly).

2) Whatever the objects are, with reference to the Nimitz incident, the operating temperature is often cooler than that of the surface of the ocean. They have been recorded on radar, visual, infrared, and thermal flying at speeds of up to 60-80,000 mph making instant stops and turns as well as maneuvering underwater.

Given these facts, logic would dictate these objects are incredibly unlikely to be drones.

originally posted by: neoholographic
These kids just saw a U.F.O. and occupants of the U.F.O. and you expect them to be Picasso?

So you think drawing one saucer if there was one saucer, and five saucers if there were five saucers, is "picasso" skill level?

How many saucers were there? One? Five?

Look at the drawings. All of them draw a figure and a dome shaped object.

You need to look at the drawings, that's not true, some do, some don't.
No dome shaped object in these, and the number of fugures isn't the same and are they bald or do they have long hair?




Some draw more than one figure, again is counting to one or two expecting too much? How many humanoids were there, one, or two? Bald or with long hair?

originally posted by: neoholographic
Then you link to some anonymous post claiming to be one of the kids LOL!

If I wanted to stay anonymous, I wouldn't post my e-mail address. That was an invitation to check out her story, but I can't see where anybody did that.

originally posted by: oloufo
my opinion is that they saw something strange but it wasnt aliens.

I don't know about that, but even if they did, notice the similarity in these two images; all the drawings I see in the video are on the ground, none of them show "flying":




I see people hypothesizing about what they might have seen along those lines, but the drawings are just not convincing to me that they really saw something.

Compare to a real UFO case from 1996 where the witnesses didn't make it up, and I'm certain the witnesses saw something. It was one of the "top ten" UFO cases until we figured out what it was about 10 years ago. Even if people see something strange, you can't always trust their descriptions to be anywhere near accurate, which is why eyewitness accounts are next to useless from a scientific perspective.

The drawings these Yukon UFO witnesses made had differences, but they had more in common than the drawings of the kids from the Ariel school in my opinion:



Even though we know what that was and have known for 10 years, lots of the comments on that video still think it's a UFO and proof that aliens are here; we are too easily fooled by eyewitness accounts, our own and others. Yes they saw something strange coming from outer space, but it wasn't a giant alien mothership like the videos still being promoted on Youtube claim. We need something more reliable than eyewitness accounts.

Let's say the Ariel school incident happened today. Kids would have their phones out taking pictures and they would be all over the internet, so we would have something to look at, not just unreliable eyewitness descriptions. So those old school UFO events are historically unique I think which can't be repeated because of the proliferation of phone cams everywhere in modern times. The internet gets instantly flooded with images of anything unusual these days, and yet we still have no good UFO pictures, why is that? The answer is obvious if you think about it, and look at cases like that Yukon case.

originally posted by: NightVision
and thermal flying at speeds of up to 60-80,000 mph making instant stops and turns as well as maneuvering underwater.

Given these facts, logic would dictate these objects are incredibly unlikely to be drones.

You call that a "fact"? From the US military that gives us the "fact" that this can't be a balloon and they call it a cube, even though it looks exactly like a balloon?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: mirageman
a reply to: Arbitrageur

There are lots of problems with this picture.I've already posted them. But here they are again.

The article about this photograph very confusing.

1. Descriptions of the object are contradictory.

...described as an “unidentified silver ‘cube-shaped’ object” encountered by military pilots as it hovered motionlessly over the ocean.

It is obviously not a 'cube shaped object'

2. The location is in question

They asked an expert about it being a dropsonde.

He said;

“Dropsonde are dropped into hurricanes over water, not over military bases,” Hock added. “

The report says the obect "hovered motionlessly over the ocean". No mention of it being over a military base???


3. We have claims that the picture does not depict a balloon.

...all three officials we spoke with seemed dismissive of the idea that it depicts a balloon.

But it does look like a balloon. Maybe the three officials were Col. Ray Charles, General Stevie Wonder and Marshall Andrea Bocelli?


4. The date the photo was taken is in question

...officials with the DoD...confirmed that the leaked image is the same photo provided in a 2018 intelligence position report issued by the UAPTF.

But the EXIF data says the picture was created on March 4th 2019???

5. The picture is allegedly a photo of a photo?

The metadata for the photo we shared relates to someone taking a picture of a picture with their cellphone. The actual photo that was included in the report had differing metadata

Twitter archived

I don't know how large the original photo must have been to have taken a picture with that level of clarity?

6. Is the object really there in the photo?

It could be a fake or a joke that somehow got passed around. We don't really know. There are already copies of a lower resolution blurred version of it that have been around since at least May 2020 too. As posted earlier in the thread.

Kids can be easily influenced.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

LOL!!!

You said:

Let's say the Ariel school incident happened today. Kids would have their phones out taking pictures and they would be all over the internet, so we would have something to look at, not just unreliable eyewitness descriptions.

Unreliable Eyewitness Descriptions???

Where's the evidence that one of these kids changed their story in all of these years? Some anonymous post from 2008 LOL!

These are very reliable accounts and there's not a shred of evidence that these kids were making things up.

You then post a picture of an RV that looks nothing like the drawing. How do you know the kid ever saw an RV? Have you talked to the kid?

They're drawings from kids. Some kids may have thought they saw one being, some kids two. That in no way takes away from the account. You act like kids are supposed to draw exact replicas of what they saw after experiencing a U.F.O. and it's occupants.

This is a perfect example of pseudoskeptic nonsense. Because you can't refute the account you throw out these illogical comments that don't refute anything.

Where's your evidence that these kids were lying? I'm not asking for conjecture or asinine pictures of RV's that mean nothing. Show me the evidence that these kids were lying. After all of these years, why wouldn't half of these kids come out and say we were joking?

How can 60 kids make up a lie, all draw similar things seperately and not say anything for all of these years?

This is why you're trying to attack the drawings because the fact that they drew these things seperately destroys your asinine comments. So you come on the thread and post a picture of an RV to somehow show what? It makes no sense. They all drew beings or some type of oval craft seperately. Did they communicate telepathically??

Talk about a leap of logic. I have debated the same pseudoskeptics since I've been on ATS since 2012 and this has to be one of the worst posts. I understand why you're doing it, because the kids drawings and the fact that they haven't refuted their story in all of these years strengthens the case. You realize this so you post asinine pictures of RV's and accuse them of lying without a shred of evidence. TYPICAL!!

a reply to: Arbitrageur

The picture you posted was not the object I referred to in my post. Also, any thread that attacks people and not the data is just as suspect any other UFO thread here at ATS. You're referring to TTSA. I'm referring to the objects captured on radar, infrared, visual and thermal in 2004.

originally posted by: oloufo

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: Arbitrageur

This is one of the most asinine posts I have ever seen on this topic. You have to laugh at the absurdity of your post. You said:

Maybe aliens are visiting us, but the evidence of these eyewitnesses in the form of their vastly different drawings does more to convince me that the story is fictitious than to convince me it was real.

I just...you pseudoskeptics are so illogical. Sometimes I wonder if you guys actually believe what you post.

First, you pseudoskeptics tell us that eyewitness accounts aren't reliable but then you act as though the kids drawing should be exactly the same. Of course they're going to look different, they're kids!

I remember when I was in school, the teacher in art class had us draw the playground and all of our drawings looked different and we played on the playground everyday in recess.

These kids just saw a U.F.O. and occupants of the U.F.O. and you expect them to be Picasso? Look at the drawings. All of them draw a figure and a dome shaped object.

THIS IS JUST ASININE!!!

Most of these little kids are not artists that can draw perfect replicas of what they saw. This has to be one of the ....pseudoskeptics.

None of what you said discounts or refutes their story in any way.

You quote some Johnny come lately skeptic that doesn't provide a shred of evidence that the kids were lying. In fact all of the kids stand by their accounts of what happened.

Then you link to some anonymous post claiming to be one of the kids LOL! You can't make this stuff up. You then add the pseudoskeptics last resort. "Liar, Liar, Pants on fire!."

I also think the people who say "kids don't lie" forgot what it was like to be a kid.

Man, this was a post filled with the usual pseudoskeptic nonsense!

children are very imaginative and tend to exaggerate. they saw something and they made it up. unthinkable? why do you react so aggressively when someone tries to find an answer and comes to a different conclusion than you? what is this forum for then? i also find the case fascinating and puzzling but my opinion is that they saw something strange but it wasnt aliens.

You saying children are imaginative and exaggerate has absolutely nothing to do with this case. You have to provide evidence that these kids were exaggerating and making things up. Do you realize just saying kids are imaginative is meaningless?

You have to provide evidence that these kids were lying. Why are pseudoskeptics so illogical.

You say things like humans are bad observers as if this means no humans are excellent observers at describing what they saw. You say kids are imaginative like that means these kids are imaginative and made up the story.

YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE!! NONE!!

Why can't pseudoskeptics understand this? It's simple logic. If you're going to refute a Pilots account you don't need to say it could have been this or that unless you can show this or that can behave like the Pilot described.

Again, this is basic common sense. It really irks me when I hear the blanket statement kids are imaginative and kids exaggerate, SO WHAT! Why would that mean these kids made it up or are exaggerating?