Why do people lie about aliens? An in-depth look at why we can discredit near all stories

originally posted by: JackHill

originally posted by: admirethedistance
a reply to: Scdfa

You're like a broken record. Yes, many people, from many backgrounds have said many things. Don't you find it at all suspicious that not a single one of them has been able to come away with anything other than a story, though?

During the International Rally Championship that took place in South America in 1978, two participants were lifted by an UFO (along with the car) some minutes after they left a start point and later released close to destination. When the encounter finished, they started the car again and reached the final point. Problem is, they arrived hours before any other car, which is inconsistent with the capabilities of the car they were driving. Long story short, they arrived so early that they were accused of cheating, of course nobody could explain how they did it, basically because you can't cheat considering there was only one road, almost a straight line, and they somehow they also skipped 3 of 4 checkpoints.

'Story' huh? Being uninformed isn't a excuse to talk nonsense.

So no one witnessed this? This story sounds as if someone was just exaggerating that 2 racers were faster than the rest. An international Rally Championship is well televised and have people watching at EVERY POINT, as well as you said it was a straight road? How could this have missed cameras and all the fans in the stands that it came down to them being accused of "Cheating" it would be a CONFIRMED sighting. Also, this is making less sense as I read it, almost a straight line? Are you suggesting it's a straight length of road of it's 1 road that cannot be rentered. Rally's usually take place offroad. Also that simply sounds as if they paid off someone to turn a blind eye and let them back in the track. Also this would signify these men have been in contact with the aliens themselves or are they that generous to cheat other drivers out of their winnings? Also at what point would they lift these cars? Cause in a race they would most likely all start together, or is it a rally where there's it's done by comparison of times?

I also cannot find this event.
en.wikipedia.org...

Please post more details.

a reply to: SuspiciousTom

link

originally posted by: aynock
a reply to: SuspiciousTom

link

Thank you for this, a quick google search further revealed the winning cars horsepower ranged from 180-222, the renault is rated at 108 hp. As well as those times are in minutes.

originally posted by: JackHill

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: JackHill

originally posted by: admirethedistance

originally posted by: Scdfa
What's more important, I'm still waiting for you to back up your claim that nearly all claims of alien contact are a lie.

A claim like that can't be proven. Just like you can't prove that a single claim of alien contact is true.

The Pascagoula incident is enough proof,

Again:

"Parker's corroboration of the tale was likely due to suggestibility since he told police he had "passed out at the beginning of the incident and failed to regain consciousness until it was over"

Tale corroborated by a sleeping witness.

You have a low standard for proof.

Since the tread title uses the word "discredit," I will point out that the above quote alone is more than enough to discredit a lot of the story.

Harte

OMG how many times do we need to clarify the subject?

Parker SAW the beings and SAW the craft. Are you trolling?

Are you?

But if Hickson had a hypnagogic experience, what about Parker? Actu­ally, he need not have been in such a state himself because, as he told officers, he had passed out at the beginning of the incident and failed to regain consciousness until it was over (United Press International 1973). Later he “remembered” bits and pieces of the alleged encounter. This would be consistent with an example of folie à deux (a French expression, the “folly of two”) in which a percipient convinces another of some alleged occurrence (as by the power of suggestion, the force of a dominant personality, or the like) or the other person simply acquiesces for whatever reason.

Source

Another source.

He remembers nothing, until it starts to "come to him" later, after hearing Hickson's claim.

End of credibility and thus event corroborated by sleeping witness.

Harte

a reply to: Scdfa

Where did you run off to? Surely you're not going to just disappear after I proved you wrong and showed that you were just making stuff up, right?

a reply to: Harte
Hickson says Parker passed out too. So you have two people saying he was unconscious. But then latter Parker says he just said that because that's what Hickson told him to say so he didn't have to talk about it. So now we have two people telling the same part of the story that might not be true because they agreed on it beforehand? Remember its two people telling the same story that may or may not be true.

originally posted by: admirethedistance

originally posted by: Scdfa

originally posted by: admirethedistance
a reply to: Scdfa

Then surely you can provide an excerpt showing that....

Yes I certainly can.

Ok...So where is it? Where's the excerpt from the book containing the phrase 'UFO'?

Sorry disinfo dude, but that was your claim, not mine.
You said it was the first use of the term UFO, I did not. Surely you remember what you wrote?

I said that the term UFO was invented by the Air Force in 1953.
You tried to argue the point, but you haven't provided any evidence that I'm incorrect.
Nor will you.

originally posted by: Scdfa

originally posted by: admirethedistance

originally posted by: Scdfa

originally posted by: admirethedistance
a reply to: Scdfa

Then surely you can provide an excerpt showing that....

Yes I certainly can.

Ok...So where is it? Where's the excerpt from the book containing the phrase 'UFO'?

Sorry disinfo dude, but that was your claim, not mine.
You said it was the first use of the term UFO, I did not. Surely you remember what you wrote?

I said that the term UFO was invented by the Air Force in 1953.
You tried to argue the point, but you haven't provided any evidence that I'm incorrect.
Nor will you.

Are you really that dense?
Since you're apparently incapable of reading back, here it is yet again:


Mighty strong words, considering you're apparently making stuff up as you go.

Here you go: The first (and second) ever published use of the term 'UFO', from Donald E. Keyhoe's 1953 book Flying Saucers From Outer Space, Chapter 1: Behind The Scenes, page 2:

Three years before, many Air Force officers would have scoffed at Fogle's report. He was not ridiculed now. For two hours Intelligence officers grilled him on every detail.

Did the UFO (unidentified flying object) seem to be piloted or under remote control? What was its size and shape, its speed compared with a jet? Did it oscillate in flight, or flutter when it climbed? Did the blue light blink or pulsate?

On and on went the probing questions, worked out by the Air Technical Intelligence Center to identify UFO types. Then secret reports were put on the wires, for the ATIC at Dayton and Intelligence Headquarters in Washington.

Emphasis mine.

As you can see, it is not part of a quote from Albert M. Chop, or anybody else, nor does it come from the Air Force in any official capacity. It is Keyhoe's own, original words. YOU ARE WRONG.

So there you have it, yet again. That's the first use of the term 'UFO', and it has nothing to do with the Air Force. Unless you're claiming that the Air Forcr 'invented' the term, and just never used it until after it was published in an unrelated book. If that's the case, you're just hopeless.

originally posted by: JeanPaul

originally posted by: Scdfa
a reply to: JeanPaul

I did read an entertaining thread here on ATS though, the guy who said he was "chosen" by aliens to fly around in ships when he was in the military. I think he's lying. Stuff like that is perhaps motivated because they lead boring lives, wanting attention etc. It might be fun for some people.

Yes, everybody's lying.
The hundreds and hundreds of military personnel who have come forward with first hand eyewitness testimony of close encounters are all lying.

Because their lives as test pilots and astronauts are so boring and they want attention.

Go back to sleep. And pull up the covers.

I was really interested in the Nuke shutdowns. Those are some of the more interesting cases IMO. I think it possible that the US has some sort of drone with EMP capabilities. And ya, a couple of the pilots accounts are very compelling, but i cant bring myself to say "yes, aliens are visiting earth" without hard real evidence. I'm very interested though...open minded. I just have no way of knowing for sure. My lack of faith may sound insulting, I'm simply incapable of fully believing aliens are visiting without undeniable proof. Perhaps that's some sort of character defect, who knows. I think our corner of the universe would be much more interesting if I did believe. I'd like to believe...

No need for belief, it is a matter of fact, some are aware of it, some are not yet aware of it.
But they're here whether you are ready or not.

Save "believing" for faith-based matters like Santa, the Easter Bunny, and trickle-down economics.

originally posted by: Scdfa

originally posted by: JeanPaul

originally posted by: Scdfa
a reply to: JeanPaul

I did read an entertaining thread here on ATS though, the guy who said he was "chosen" by aliens to fly around in ships when he was in the military. I think he's lying. Stuff like that is perhaps motivated because they lead boring lives, wanting attention etc. It might be fun for some people.

Yes, everybody's lying.
The hundreds and hundreds of military personnel who have come forward with first hand eyewitness testimony of close encounters are all lying.

Because their lives as test pilots and astronauts are so boring and they want attention.

Go back to sleep. And pull up the covers.

I was really interested in the Nuke shutdowns. Those are some of the more interesting cases IMO. I think it possible that the US has some sort of drone with EMP capabilities. And ya, a couple of the pilots accounts are very compelling, but i cant bring myself to say "yes, aliens are visiting earth" without hard real evidence. I'm very interested though...open minded. I just have no way of knowing for sure. My lack of faith may sound insulting, I'm simply incapable of fully believing aliens are visiting without undeniable proof. Perhaps that's some sort of character defect, who knows. I think our corner of the universe would be much more interesting if I did believe. I'd like to believe...

No need for belief, it is a matter of fact, some are aware of it, some are not yet aware of it.
But they're here whether you are ready or not.

Save "believing" for faith-based matters like Santa, the Easter Bunny, and trickle-down economics.

Yet there's no evidence of it....Perhaps you ought to re-check what the definitions of 'faith' and 'belief' are.

originally posted by: Scdfa
No need for belief, it is a matter of fact, some are aware of it, some are not yet aware of it.
But they're here whether you are ready or not.

Ah.

Magical secret knowledge.

Harte

originally posted by: admirethedistance

originally posted by: Scdfa

originally posted by: admirethedistance
a reply to: Scdfa

Technically, the term wasn't created by the Air Force. The first published use of 'UFO' was in the 1953 book Flying Saucers From Outer Space (a follow-up to his 1950 book The Flying Saucers Are Real), which was written by Donald E. Keyhoe, and based in large part on interviews and reports stemming from the Air Force, but it was not endorsed by, or officially affiliated with the Air Force; It was Keyhoe's personal work.

So there. I've shown that you're wrong.

You are wrong.

The book included writing by Albert M. Chop, the Air Force's press secretary in the Pentagon.

Nice try, no cigar.

Mighty strong words, considering you're apparently making stuff up as you go.

Here you go: The first (and second) ever published use of the term 'UFO', from Donald E. Keyhoe's 1953 book Flying Saucers From Outer Space, Chapter 1: Behind The Scenes, page 2:

Three years before, many Air Force officers would have scoffed at Fogle's report. He was not ridiculed now. For two hours Intelligence officers grilled him on every detail.

Did the UFO (unidentified flying object) seem to be piloted or under remote control? What was its size and shape, its speed compared with a jet? Did it oscillate in flight, or flutter when it climbed? Did the blue light blink or pulsate?

On and on went the probing questions, worked out by the Air Technical Intelligence Center to identify UFO types. Then secret reports were put on the wires, for the ATIC at Dayton and Intelligence Headquarters in Washington.

Emphasis mine.

As you can see, it is not part of a quote from Albert M. Chop, or anybody else, nor does it come from the Air Force in any official capacity. It is Keyhoe's own, original words. YOU ARE WRONG.

Sorry, I'm not the least bit wrong.

The term UFO was invented by The US Air Force in 1953, and you've provided no evidence to the contrary. None.

You claim Keyhoe invented the term because he was the first to use the term in a BOOK?

The Air Force isn't in the business of book writing, or publishing.
Keyhoe never claimed to have coined the term in any way, and he used it in his book because the term was already in use by the U.S. Air Force.

As much I would like to be wrong once just to see what it feels like, I guess it'll have to wait for another day.

And it will take a better agent than you to make it happen.

originally posted by: Scdfa

originally posted by: admirethedistance

originally posted by: Scdfa

originally posted by: admirethedistance
a reply to: Scdfa

Technically, the term wasn't created by the Air Force. The first published use of 'UFO' was in the 1953 book Flying Saucers From Outer Space (a follow-up to his 1950 book The Flying Saucers Are Real), which was written by Donald E. Keyhoe, and based in large part on interviews and reports stemming from the Air Force, but it was not endorsed by, or officially affiliated with the Air Force; It was Keyhoe's personal work.

So there. I've shown that you're wrong.

You are wrong.

The book included writing by Albert M. Chop, the Air Force's press secretary in the Pentagon.

Nice try, no cigar.

Mighty strong words, considering you're apparently making stuff up as you go.

Here you go: The first (and second) ever published use of the term 'UFO', from Donald E. Keyhoe's 1953 book Flying Saucers From Outer Space, Chapter 1: Behind The Scenes, page 2:

Three years before, many Air Force officers would have scoffed at Fogle's report. He was not ridiculed now. For two hours Intelligence officers grilled him on every detail.

Did the UFO (unidentified flying object) seem to be piloted or under remote control? What was its size and shape, its speed compared with a jet? Did it oscillate in flight, or flutter when it climbed? Did the blue light blink or pulsate?

On and on went the probing questions, worked out by the Air Technical Intelligence Center to identify UFO types. Then secret reports were put on the wires, for the ATIC at Dayton and Intelligence Headquarters in Washington.

Emphasis mine.

As you can see, it is not part of a quote from Albert M. Chop, or anybody else, nor does it come from the Air Force in any official capacity. It is Keyhoe's own, original words. YOU ARE WRONG.

Sorry, I'm not the least bit wrong, disinfo dude.

The term UFO was invented by The US Air Force in 1953, and you've provided no evidence to the contrary. None.

You claim Keyhoe invented the term because he was the first to use the term in a BOOK?

The Air Force isn't in the business of book writing, or publishing.

As much I would like to be wrong once just to see what it feels like, I guess it'll have to wait for another day.

And it will take a better agent than you to make it happen.

So I suppose you have evidence that the Air Force 'invented' it?

I've provided definitive evidence of the origin of the term 'UFO'. You've provided nothing.
I'm about done wasting my time with you.

a reply to: admirethedistance

I've provided definitive evidence of the origin of the term 'UFO'. You've provided nothing.
I'm about done wasting my time with you.

You keep saying that, yet here you still are.

Keyhoe never claimed to have invented the term, he used it in his book because it was already in use, by the US Air Force who invented the term.

originally posted by: Scdfa
a reply to: admirethedistance

I've provided definitive evidence of the origin of the term 'UFO'. You've provided nothing.
I'm about done wasting my time with you.

You keep saying that, yet here you still are.

Keyhoe never claimed to have invented the term, he used it in his book because it was already in use, by the US Air Force who invented the term.

...And yet again, you sidestep the issue and provide no evidence.

I'm done here. Those reading this thread in the future will see that one of us is a lying, back-pedalling, blithering idiot. They can make up their own minds as to which of us it is.

originally posted by: admirethedistance

originally posted by: Scdfa
a reply to: admirethedistance

I've provided definitive evidence of the origin of the term 'UFO'. You've provided nothing.
I'm about done wasting my time with you.

You keep saying that, yet here you still are.

Keyhoe never claimed to have invented the term, he used it in his book because it was already in use, by the US Air Force who invented the term.

...And yet again, you sidestep the issue and provide no evidence.

I'm done here. Those reading this thread in the future will see that one of us is a lying, back-pedalling, blithering idiot. They can make up their own minds as to which of us it is.

LOL People in the future?

You bet your butt they will.

They will wonder how so many idiots could pretend that alien contact wasn't a fact of life since the middle of the last century!

History will not judge you kindly.

Blither on.

i may have linked up an earlier chapter *23* about the Dhurmsalla meteorites, my mistake, it was more chapter 24 and onwards into lo and strange lands, heres the revised link and a snippet of a paragraph of that chapter

that damned book, chapter 24

"Most extraordinary and singular phenomenon," North Wales, Aug. 26, 1894; a disk from which projected an orange-colored body that looked like "an elongated flatfish," reported by Admiral Ommanney (Nature, 50-524); disk from which projected a hook-like form, India, about 1838; diagram of it given; disk about size of the moon, but brighter than the moon; visible about twenty minutes; by G. Pettit, in Prof. Baden-Powell's Catalogue (Rept. Brit. Assoc., 1849); very brilliant hook-like form, seen in the sky at Poland, Trumbull Co., Ohio, during the stream of meteors, of 1833; visible more than an hour: large luminous body, almost stationary "for a time"; shaped like a square table;

Niagara Falls, Nov. 13, 1833 (Amer. Jour. Sci., 1-25-391); something described as a bright white cloud, at night, Nov. 3, 1886, at Hamar, Norway; from it were emitted brilliant rays of light; drifted across the sky; "retained throughout its original form"

(Nature, Dec. 16, 1886-158); thing with an oval nucleus, and streamers with dark bands and lines very suggestive of structure;

New Zealand, May 4, 1888 (Nature, 42-402); luminous object, size of full moon, visible an hour and a half, Chili, Nov. 5, 1883 (Comptes Rendus, 103-682);
bright object near sun, Dec. 21, 1882 (Knowledge, 3-13); light that looked like a great flame, far out at sea, off Ryook Phyoo,

Dec. 2, 1845 (London Roy. Soc. Proc., 5-627); something like a gigantic trumpet, suspended, vertical, oscillating gently, visible five or six minutes, length estimated at 425 feet,

at Oaxaca, Mexico, July 6, 1874 (Sci. Am. Sup., 6-2365); two luminous bodies, seemingly united, visible five or six minutes,

June 3, 1898 (La Nature, 1898-1-127); thing with a tail, crossing moon, transit half a minute, Sept. 26, 1870 (London Times, Sept. 30, 1870); object four or five times size of moon, moving slowly across sky,

Nov. 1, 1885, near Adrianople (L'Astronomie, 1886-309); large body, colored red, moving slowly, visible 15 minutes, reported by Coggia, Marseilles, Aug. 1, 1871 (Chem. News, 24-193); details of this observation, and similar observation by Guillemin, and other instances by de Fonville (Comptes Rendus, 73-297, 755); thing that was large and that was stationary twice in seven minutes,

Oxford, Nov. 19, 1847; listed by Lowe (Rec. Sci., 1-136); grayish object that looked to be about three and a half feet long, rapidly approaching the earth at Saarbruck, April 1, 1826; sound like thunder; object expanding like a sheet (Am. Jour. Sci., 1-26-133; Quar. Jour. Roy. Inst., 24-488); report by an astronomer, N.S. Drayton, upon an object duration of which seemed to him extraordinary; duration three-quarters of a minute,

Jersey City, July 6, 1882 (Sci. Amer., 47-53); object like a comet, but with proper motion of 10 degrees an hour; visible one hour; reported by Purine and Glancy from the Cordoba Observatory, Argentina, March 14, 1916 (Sci. Amer., 115-493); something like a signal light, reported by Glaisher, Oct. 4, 1844; bright as Jupiter, "sending out quick flickering waves of light" (Year Book of Facts, 1845-278).

mildly tied in with the et, hypothesis , that is if you except that ufo's may be part and parcel of that phenomena,

if anyone can check the links to his refrences , i dont have access to paper libarays of such antiquity

or any idea of whether these storey where made up by liars

funbox

I'm starting to think Jack and scdfa are the same persons.. they have 1 star for each post, and they support each other every step of the way and have a fairly similar mindset. Everyone else has been open to reasoning, he just seems to troll or is in extreme denial. Almost every point I've hit him with he goes quiet.

originally posted by: SuspiciousTom
I'm starting to think Jack and scdfa are the same persons.. they have 1 star for each post, and they support each other every step of the way and have a fairly similar mindset. Everyone else has been open to reasoning, he just seems to troll or is in extreme denial. Almost every point I've hit him with he goes quiet.

Same here. They either go quiet, or sidestep the point/question entirely. Every. Single. Time. I'm glad I'm not the only one who's noticed.

originally posted by: admirethedistance

originally posted by: SuspiciousTom
I'm starting to think Jack and scdfa are the same persons.. they have 1 star for each post, and they support each other every step of the way and have a fairly similar mindset. Everyone else has been open to reasoning, he just seems to troll or is in extreme denial. Almost every point I've hit him with he goes quiet.

Same here. They either go quiet, or sidestep the point/question entirely. Every. Single. Time. I'm glad I'm not the only one who's noticed.

Well then, I certainly hope you both notice this.
.
The Oxford English Dictionary.

"According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the term ‘unidentified flying object’ goes back at least to the 1950s: it is recorded in 1953, in a book by the US aviator and writer Donald Keyhoe. The OED also gives a citation in 1956 by Edward Ruppelt, an officer in the USAF, stating that he’d invented the term as a more general one to replace the earlier description for such objects, flying saucer."

www.oxforddictionaries.com...

Sorry, but I neither sidestep, nor back-pedal.

I only know how to go straight ahead. With the truth.

Every.
Single.
Time.

But take heart, someday I just may be wrong, it just won't be to you two.