So because I dont believe this guys story with no evidence, that makes me a CIA , NSA, FBI operative

Part of the problem is that it seems as if many people come to these threads with their minds already made up. They appear not to want to learn and explore, but to reaffirm and validate. And that applies to both sides.

If you saw a light in the sky and you report it here, shouldn't you be mature and sensible enough to consider all the evidence? Compare what might have been to what you remember, and see if the match is close enough to be a strong possibility? It seems that too many believers don't want to really investigate, because there's a bit of mystery and majic in their lives after a sighting, and they fear losing that. They are unwilling to open their mind to the mundane on a sighting, because they're sick of the "ordinary" ruling their lives 24/7, and this one moment of the "unexplained" is their talisman against eternal bordom.

And if you don't believe in even the possibility of aliens, why are you here? Do you go to a wine festival when you're allergic to alcohol, and hate the taste ,smell, and people who drink? It seems like these folks really do believe, they just don't want to admit it. Denial is their mantra to avoid the possibility of have having to void their bowels from pure old fear. Like the little girl who hides her eyes at the movies during a scary scene, they are drawn to UFOs because they are fascinated with the subject, yet they hide their eyes and scream to drown out the fear in their souls; fear that life might not be predictable and safe and known.

But these two types are easy to understand, and generally write off. The ones from both camps that are lying to themselves are not.

Here we have the ones who say "Lets kill all these crazy stories, because they make us investigators look bad." It's sad, because their fear is that someone will think they're crazy, and down deep they do too. They're afraid to look into the abyss. They want to know what's happening, but they worry about what people will think; they believe, but not enough to actually get wet. They claim to be investigators, but they make sure they put enough layers of quasi professionalism on themselves that they never have to take any heat for the label.

And the same is true for the "I'm a scientist" types, who hide behind science to avoid looking at anything. These often say things like, "I'm open to anything, but there has to be real proof that science can accept." But that is a false statement, and I think they know it on some level. True science is always reaching into the unknown, finding ways to try and understand it. True science isn't scared of being wrong, and doesn't passively wait for evidence, but actively searches for it.

And the reason these labels wound so much is because on many levels they hit a nerve; there's a bit too truth to them. True believers hate the idea of being called that because deep down they know they'll fall for damn near anything. Debunkers hate that word because it reminds them too much of just how fearful they are to look at anything the majority hasn't already approved.

Maybe there would be a little less name calling if each of us could take the time to remember that our fellow man has all the faults and foibles we won't admit in ourselves. Like the blind sages describing an elephant, each of us has a sliver/glimmer of the truth, and only by working together can we ever hope to assemble the pieces of the puzzle into a real picture.

I often try to see the world through the eyes of my grandchildren, fresh and wonderous, with interesting marvels at every turn. So too do we need to slow down, stop defending our positions, and look at the world through the eyes of our brothers and sisters. That isn't accepting their view as correct, but caring enough to see if our own might be in need of adjustment. The person who cannot change his mind will never have wisdom.

[edit on 16-7-2008 by NGC2736]

I wrote the above mainly about the UFO split in our community. But with minor mental edits, it applies to 9/11 and the NWO contoversy, even those heated discussions in CiR.

I'll leave the mental editing to each of you.

Originally posted by NGC2736
They are unwilling to open their mind to the mundane on a sighting, because they're sick of the "ordinary" ruling their lives 24/7, and this one moment of the "unexplained" is their talisman against eternal bordom.

People are often first exposed to beliefs in the paranormal while very young. Often they are exposed to these beliefs by someone they consider to be in a position of authority, or by someone who claims to be the only true authority. This occurs before their critical-thinking process has fully developed. By the time critical-thinking has developed it is too late; these beliefs become internalized, as much a part of them as their arms or legs.

In fairness, this is not something reserved to believers, but is part of the human condition.

The use of the "unexplained" as a talisman against boredom, I believe, is a failing of our schools and media. The way science is often taught is dry and boring. Kids come to view learning science as a chore. The media presents the paranormal, be it in fact or fiction, as entertainment. Kids come to associate it with excitement. The failure is that a science is every bit as exciting as the "unexplained." Explained is not a synonym for "mundane" or "ordinary."

Originally posted by NGC2736
And if you don't believe in even the possibility of aliens, why are you here?

Even if you do not believe in the possibility of aliens, there are still reasons to be here. Aliens are not the only explanation for this phenomenon, just the most popular. Even if these explanations are "mundane," they are as fascinating as extraterrestrial visitation. It is a learning experience; in researching these events, even if you are seeking to debunk them (and yes, science as often seeks to disprove something as it does to prove something), you learn much about the world around us.

And hopefully, you can enlighten someone else in the process. One cannot deny the beneficial role that skeptics play within the UFO community.

Originally posted by NGC2736
Debunkers hate that word because it reminds them too much of just how fearful they are to look at anything the majority hasn't already approved.

I don't think that is necessarily true, insofar as it applies to ATS. Any skeptic operating here is by default iconoclastic and bucking the majority opinion. If they were fearful of deviating from popular opinion, they would not voice contrary opinions.

So because I dont believe this guys story with no evidence, that makes me a CIA , NSA, FBI operative???


No that just makes you an ignorant, but besides that calling each other fasistic names in discussions should revoke ones right to be able to discuss the issue one is discussing.

Best regards

Loke.

[edit on 16-7-2008 by Loke.]

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by NightVision
What about splitting the Aliens/UFO's forum into two groups: One with anecdotal stories/Possible Hoaxes, and the other with Pictures/Video/Evidence? You know, that way it will make thread searching alot faster for the educated poster.

Well fine and dandy... but can you please point me to the threads in the UFO and Alien forums which have absolute proof so I can get to the good ones? The RW thread is very popular but I see little evidence dealing with the OP story...

I for one would love to see a category for 'proof positive' or 'best case' for UFO's save a lot of time as you say

Thats funny. No where did I say 'proof positive', or best case. Zorgon, you're obviously cranky today, so lemme spell this out nice and clear so as to not be misunderstood:

Split the Aliens/UFO's forum into 2 groups:

A) Pictures/Video (only)

B) Anecdotal Stories

Are we clear now?




[edit on 16-7-2008 by NightVision]

reply to post by SaviorComplex

Originally posted by NGC2736
Debunkers hate that word because it reminds them too much of just how fearful they are to look at anything the majority hasn't already approved.



I don't think that is necessarily true, insofar as it applies to ATS. Any skeptic operating here is by default iconoclastic and bucking the majority opinion. If they were fearful of deviating from popular opinion, they would not voice contrary opinions.

Yes, but such a person is operating with the full backing of the rest of the world. ATS may be large, but only in a sense. The overwhelming weight of "consevative" thinking at large is that anyone who seriously considers these posiblities has a few screws loose. Sometimes it seems as if these debunkers/skeptics arrive with the mission of "straightening out" all the kooks and wierdos on ATS. An ego building cruise in the tinfoil seas.

And I will admit that perhaps my depiction of both sides seems a tad exaggerated, but please bear in mind that it is only with slight exaggeration that we can truely see ourselves as others do. (An example is how hard it is for many members to realize that a moderator still has opinions the express as a member of ATS. They often can't see past the moderator status, so they confuse that title with the person, leading to a lot of drama and hard feelings.)

I'm not saying that either side is wrong here. Only that the approach to these problems fails to do justice for either set of beliefs. Truely being open minded, (and how I sometimes hate the way that phrase has been whored around), is very difficult. It's a tightrope act not many seem able to accomplish. To truly be open minded, one has to neither believe nor disbelieve, but go where the body of evidence, both physical and cicumstantial, leads.

One must weigh the proponderance of all evidence, in all forms, equally, to arrive at some informal conclusion; and that conclusion should not be set in stone should new or different evidence surface. Nor should we be afraid of being wrong, especially to the point of doggedly defending an untenable position, once it becomes evident. Nor can an open minded investigator set aside certain eveidence on purely arbitrary grounds.

An example of this is debunkers who say that a single witness has no value, or a witness without a picture is worthles, etc. etc. By the same token, a believer cannot allow even his own past experience as a witness to color his perception so much that he accepts the inconsistent and ludicrous as fact. Each and every story must be judged on it's own merit, without prejudice from the past.

It seems a very hard task to many to suspend belief and disbelief equally, and to use common sense and logic to arrive at a temporary conclusion when regarding the unknown, or unlikely. To not allow their own past experiences, or any "generally accepted wisdom", to overly influence a real time investigation But once achieved, it makes many things in the UFO and other fields much easier. (I have also found it an essential tool for being a moderator. If a person cannot have a dispute with a member on the board, and then later rule fairly when that person has a complaint, they lack the skill to moderate; pure and simple. And those people that feel moderators cannot do this, generally feel this way because they themselves would find it impossible.)

And it is to these ends that the civility and decorum rules are in place. it is a nudge in the direction of calm investigation, as opposed to "overcoming" the "other side". There should be no "sides" when seeking the truth. And perceptions, or understanding, of any given "truth" is only a chimara of the moment anyway, for as knowledge expands, the truth of yesterday becomes the fiction of tomorrow.

Originally posted by GhostR1der
Or maybe you're a disinfo agent trying to pit people together in a big battle so people don't think and talk as much about the issues... conspiracy on a conspiracy eh

LOVE that avatar

REAL disinfo agents stay calm and 'work' their 'story' They do not resort to name calling because the minute that the name calling starts, all credibility is gone... To be effective at disinfo you have to be convincing...

If no one takes you seriously you have failed your job and your 'boss' will call you on it

Think about it

REAL disinfo agents also have a budget... a BIG one... and it comes out of YOUR pocket... so if they need to back up a claim... it wouldn't be that hard to whip up a document or two...

You think if the NSA, CIA, DIA, FBI, AIA, NGA (I like THESE guys), DSS, IAO (Illuminati Spooks), DNI, DHS, NRO, CGI, NIC (don't mess with this), ASA, DOE, INR, ONI, ICC, NCO, NSC, IAD, TFI, GIG, DAU (Spook University) AFISR, INSCOM, DCS G-2, USAISA, MSIC, MCIA, NIOC, DTRA, AFOSI, PFIAB, ISOO, NDIC, USNCB, ATSD-IO, DISA, JWICS, ... wanted to put one over on you... that you could figure it out?



To any spooks reading this... If I left your club out I apologize... Its a work in progress... please drop me a note and I will be happy to add your club...

Spying on the Spys
www.thelivingmoon.com...
www.thelivingmoon.com...

Just how many spooks does YOUR tax dollar buy ?

Now if you work for any of the above... how about an anonymous head count? Hmmmm don't know how to set that up



But seriously there are MANY people who I would call "Self Appointed Disinfo Agents"

They work for free... and feel it's their "Duty" to correct wrong thinking... and they are true disinfo agents even if they do not admit it or do not realize it.

If ANY mainstream idea is false... then promoting this idea most certainly qualifies

And personally I would LOVE to see their faces when Fox News announces the reality of the Aurora/Blackswift, NOVA interviews secret astronauts now generals; and National Geographic does a special on Alien Skulls...

l

Originally posted by Sandals24
response to TheInfamousOne

I think that kind of attitude is what im getting at. If an Alien sat next to anyone how could they possibly not believe it to be true....

Just because someone is sceptical doesnt mean they should branded in that way....

I think what I meant that it's perfectly natural to be skeptical to a degree. It's the small handful of skeptics that try to refute evidence and facts. It's these types of skeptics that still would not believe if an alien came down from space, took a dump on their porch, and knocked on their door asking for toilet paper.

This small handful of skeptic can't seem to put their hands around this sort of reality. If they can't prove their point, they'll make one up the fits their belief system. I recall the skeptics refuting that Global Warming existed just 3 or 4 years ago, well I think it's been proven. And there is a small handful today that still argue this.

But this goes both ways.

As I said "Sometimes Truth is Stranger Than Fiction."

Originally posted by SaviorComplex
I do not see why you thought this insult was necessary. What evidence do you have this is the case?

Ah my apologies... it really was a Freudian slip... no personal offense intended. I had intended to use the savior complex in a generic way... I can see how adding the qoutes to it and defenders of truth made it seem a personal attack... it was not... I rarely take anything personally

Originally posted by NGC2736
And that applies to both sides.

Yes got that I should have made that comment more generic... to reflect a general group of those with an agenda not single anyone out again my apologies on that won't happen again a weak moment... honest..

It seems that too many believers don't want to really investigate, because there's a bit of mystery and majic in their lives after a sighting, and they fear losing that. They are unwilling to open their mind to the mundane on a sighting, because they're sick of the "ordinary" ruling their lives 24/7, and this one moment of the "unexplained" is their talisman against eternal bordom.

I think there is another factor... conditioning... look at religions... BILLIONS of people simply BELIEVE... yet there is no proof to support any religion...

Try to discuss this with anyone and you usually end up in a heated battle that can lead all the way to wars...

So we are brought up to hold our beliefs 'sacred' So now we ask the same group of people that blindly accept religion, that have no reason to doubt the government can do any wrong, to be subjective in analyzing something they saw?

It would be great if they did... but that is not reality... so the few of us (on both sides) that take more time to research it are the only bastion of reality...

And even we can't agree

EDIT to add Just read this after I posted...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Seems SOMETIMES we CAN be on the same channel

[edit on 16-7-2008 by zorgon]

Originally posted by NightVision
Are we clear now?

Yup clear as skies over the Grand Canyon in Winter...

But I still want a list of credible UFO sightings from ANYONE

so lets do

1) Picture and Video evidence
2) Personal Experience
3) Hard facts


Just trying to save myself some time

reply to post by zorgon


Totally agree. We have WAY too many forums on this board as is. I don't understand why deleting a couple slow ones is such a big deal. No one had a problem moving all of PTS here.

The Aliens/UFO's forum has to be the most visited by far. MODS/SiteOwners: Doesn't it deserve to be split up? Otherwise we'll keep going thru the whole "lets move this and that thread to skunkwork"s bit for all time.

The reality is in order to find truth, we need balance. A world full of believers would mean any fabricated story would be believed by all. A world full of skeptics would mean the truth would be hard to discover.
We need believers to present stories, and skeptics to examine them. TRUE skeptics, not the ones that just go .

Originally posted by Loke.
So because I dont believe this guys story with no evidence, that makes me a CIA , NSA, FBI operative???


No that just makes you an ignorant, but besides that calling each other fasistic names in discussions should revoke ones right to be able to discuss the issue one is discussing.

Best regards

Loke.

[edit on 16-7-2008 by Loke.]

Hey Loke...

care to elaborate.... why am I ignorant?

A) Pictures/Video (only)

B) Anecdotal Stories

Some of the best cases don't have pics or video, but instead may have multiple, reliable witnesses, documents, etc. which back up the claims. By this suggested split, cases such as Roswell, the Hill Case, etc. would go into board B).

This is why I said you'd have to decide on each case, to determine which forum it would go in....and why a split would require a team of mods analyzing each post for it's "validity". And what qualifications would such a team have? What makes their opinions on a "valid" case any more important than another's?

I'm happy we were able to separate the "Reptoid" posts, as that was really a different conspiracy topic altogether. However, it's not so cut and dried when you're talking about separating the wheat from the chaff in UFO/Alien cases.

For example, the Meier case would have a preponderance of evidence. Of course, many serious researchers are aware that much of this evidence has been proven to be falsified, this case would be lumped in the A) category above. So, does the separation idea really work to the desired intent? Not really.

Sandal24 - you make a very valid point about debunkers - the whole purpose of these boards is to get various viewpoints; debunkers actually make the genuine cases stronger!

I agree about "evidence" - the best UFO topic was the one recently from Cardiff. It had not spectacular evidence except so may ATS'ers wrote in saying that they saw somthing as well.

Agree also with the point of people making their opinions/viewpoints so early in Life, but I wil save that for the religions boards.

The first time I ever in my life I very kindly offered a more "ordinary" explanation (which was simply an honest one for me) to a conspiracy nut that person simply resorted to colorful insults accompanied with threats and banned me from communicating with them. Of course this was accompanied with the "SHILL" epithet-- in caps to boot. The level of anger was astounding on account of a simply telling a personal story.

This actually turned out to be a good thing since the mentality and manifestation of psychotic delusion fascinated me to such an extent I kept looking around and found this site. At least here there's openness to real discussion from all sides and mental illness is kept relatively in check.

Frankly I don't understand why they would not want to talk to a supposed "SHILL" and keep them talking so that the person may reveal pieces of "the truth". "They" are so sloppy afterall and leave such an identifiable trail of breadcrumbs that it should be a certainty.

Edit: The claim made by the person was that noone could have possibly guessed that a particular outcome would result from a certain event and if they did this implied that they had "inside knowledge". My story was simply illustrate the fact that that was categorically false and simply logic and clear though would have led one there and hence lies in the realm of fact since it refuted the assertion or at least should have shown that a less hard-line stance on the issue was reasonable.

You may notice I'm not giving particulars and hence avoiding dropping the proverbial "breadcrumbs" - quite deliberate.

[edit on 16-7-2008 by EnlightenUp]

Originally posted by Gazrok


Some of the best cases don't have pics or video, but instead may have multiple, reliable witnesses, documents, etc. which back up the claims. By this suggested split, cases such as Roswell, the Hill Case, etc. would go into board B).

Not necessarily. Official Documents would qualify as pictures or visual evidence. Audio testimony as well would go into forum A.

This is why I said you'd have to decide on each case, to determine which forum it would go in....and why a split would require a team of mods analyzing each post for it's "validity". And what qualifications would such a team have? What makes their opinions on a "valid" case any more important than another's?

Mods already do this. When someone starts a thread that can't be proven, it gets moved to Skunkworks. Splitting the forums would actually make it easier to move threads. In fact you may as well rename skunkworks to "Anecdotal Anything Goes Stories" and make this forum, Forum A.

I'm happy we were able to separate the "Reptoid" posts, as that was really a different conspiracy topic altogether. However, it's not so cut and dried when you're talking about separating the wheat from the chaff in UFO/Alien cases.

I respectfully disagree on account of the overwhelming amount of anecdotal alien/ufo stories lacking documentation or visual/audio evidence.

For example, the Meier case would have a preponderance of evidence. Of course, many serious researchers are aware that much of this evidence has been proven to be falsified, this case would be lumped in the A) category above. So, does the separation idea really work to the desired intent? Not really.

The point of forum A is to have something to analyze visual/auditory. We do it all the time on the Aliens/UFO's forum anyway, despite the fact that the majority of them are hoaxes. Putting something in Forum A does necessarily prove it to be true, nor does it in forum B. Basically you'd be putting UFO 'stories' in one forum, and UFO visual/audio in another. It seems perfectly rational to me.



[edit on 16-7-2008 by NightVision]

A) "Excuse me sir, I don't mean to trouble you, but is this the right road to the Great Tower?"

B) "Sure is, sonny. Over that next hill in the forest, down the other side, and when you break into the clearing, you can't miss it. Biggest thing on the plains out there."

A) "Thanks Mister. I have some really important news from the Thinkers Guild; news that will really help them with the project, so I didn't want to get lost and waste time."

B) "News eh? Well, it won't do them any good."

A) "Oh, but it's ingenious ideas to help them get the job done quicker and easier. They're sure to want to know this."

B) "Maybe so, maybe so. But you'll find most of them rioting instead of working. And you'll have Nimrod's own chance of even getting close to the building itself."

A) "But this tower is supposed to be our chance to reach heaven! Surely they haven't gave up on the idea?"

B) "No. No they haven't given up exactly. They just seem unable to communicate."

A) "You mean they've all been struck dumb?"

B) "Worse than that, they can't understand each other. Everybody's blaming the other for things, and each one telling the other how to do it right, yet nobody understands anybody else. It's madness; and these are the smartest people in the land."

A) "So what am I to do with all these great ideas from the Thinkers Guild?"

B) "You may as well walk back to town with me son. Go tell your elders to write these things down on a rock and bury it in the sand. Maybe when it's found in few thousand years these fools will be done arguing and ready to learn something. Right now everybody's talking, but nobody's listening."

A. Parable

Originally posted by Gazrok
Some of the best cases don't have pics or video, but instead may have multiple, reliable witnesses, documents, etc. which back up the claims. By this suggested split, cases such as Roswell, the Hill Case, etc. would go into board B).

Hence why I added
C) Hard facts

Multiple, reliable witnesses, documents, etc is HARD FACTS and the ones I like best