posted on Aug, 4 2008 @ 11:37 AM
Please excuse my interuption, despite lurking at ATS for at least a year and checking it several times daily I had not for a long time felt compelled
to join and contribute. I did start a thread a while ago entitled "Pseudo Magnetism" about a phenomena I had (and continue to) experienced, although
I do not recall the login credentials of that account.
Even if these sightings do turn out to be hoaxes, perhaps it would be an idea to try and extract something positive from them. I totally agree with
the member earlier in the thread who suggested an 'on call' network of 'reporters' (?) who could check out reported sightings and bounce around
what they see in writing / photos / videos.
It would at least help to validate the original source if several 'trusted reporters' were able to confirm the obervation of similar phenomena in a
certain area (as reported by OP). Photo and video evidence would add further creditability.
My one apprehension, however, is that surely ATS should encompass such a system anyway? Like the reportage we have seen in this thread...unfortunately
members cannot be confirmed as credible (they are new, lack of evidence, etc.) and their reportings are ripped to shreds by other members.
For such a system to be credible ATS members must be able to trust what is being reported, which begs the question 'How do you select reporters for
said network?'. Do we simply use whoever is present at the geographical location of the event, or do we limit access to the network and open it to
the wider ATS community for input only where required?
An open network would, of course, be more productive. The trade off is that the information thrown into the mix by potentially uncredible sources
would overwhelm the credible information. The best solution might perhaps be to have two seperate discussion areas; one which can only be posted in by
audited, trusted reporters but is open to be viewed by the entire ATS community, and one for the general ATS community to post in based on the
information supplied by the audited reporters.
What the auditing process would entail, I don't know; however there is bound to be ways to check the intergrity of volunteers. Additionally the
administrative team (and, any member, in fact) are able to check their posting history and evaluate their creditibility.
Regarding the live tracking on Google Maps, I am a web developer and have worked with the Google Maps API. I'm sure this is possible, and the
company/organisation behind ATS (having developed their own forum system) is bound to have access to the knowledge and resources required to develop
such a system. If they do not wish to get involved and this is to be a community lead project, I am happy to pitch in...
However, one might argue that if an event such as that described in this thread were to actually occur, there would not be a lack of photographs and
videos posted by ATS'ers anyway. Therefore eliminating the purpose of this networks existence outside of validation purposes.
I don't know? But it's worth some consideration, at least? Sorry for lingering so far off topic, maybe the idea should have its own thread.
I'm sure there will be many willing volunteers (including myself) who own professional or high quality image capture equipment (still and video
cameras). I for one recently purchased a £800 / $1600 dSLR which is considered 'semi professional', and doubtlessly there is no lack of forumers
willing to train their eyes on the sky incase such an event were to occur.
One thing which I believe should be taken into account, however, is the personal beliefs of the volunteer and whether these are likely to influence
their reportage. For this reason there should be a wide variety of volunteers with beliefs 'across the spectrum of scepticity'.
Sorry that this post diverts from the threads subject so much, and that my writing may be a little sloppy...
Hopefully there will be input on this idea from other members.