Alien Misrepresentation

originally posted by: Ectoplasm8

It's the skeptics/debunkers/non-believers that do deep research into cases many times,

originally posted by: tanka418
I never see this happening!

Really tanka? Never?

Using a metaphysical analogy regarding belief in Alien phenomenon based on three degrees of faith or knowing

The Lore of Certainty: Books, stories related by experiences, research.


The Eye of certainty: intuitive knowing: there must be some aliens in this huge universe…or proof such as from ships landing or Radar.


The Truth of certainty: personal experience of abduction, sighting, visitation in this five senses and mental and spiritual realm….dreams, states of consciousness, neurological penetration

originally posted by: JadeStar

originally posted by: Ectoplasm8

It's the skeptics/debunkers/non-believers that do deep research into cases many times,

originally posted by: tanka418
I never see this happening!

Really tanka? Never?

Okay; I'll amend that. Rarely...

originally posted by: TheMadTitan
a reply to: solve

Imagine that! We are striving to create artificial intelligence only to find out that we are the AI and the 'aliens' are observing their creation.

Would explain why they don't want open contact. They're not "aliens". They're the creators. The world we live in is a computer simulation or maybe a physical manufactured universe. The want us to believe in this world we exist in, so they remain obscure and keep most of the facts to themselves. Like a farmer, they don't explain the farm to the farmed.

So is this just an ant farm? An intelligence factory? What's it? Why would these creators invest time and energy into something fake?

Well honestly this being a farm (or even a nursery) isn't the only possibility to explain things. I just took your hook and swallowed.

In all likelihood, it's posters on ATS making yarn and (voluntarily?) wrapping themselves up into a knot. I sincerely doubt there're ufos with alien occupants visiting Earth or otherwise presiding over our space/time. There're better explanations for the sightings and reports of close encounters. Witnesses, for example, are wrong more often than right. And people have all kinds of delusions, hallucinations and dreams. Even when people are lucid and sane, they still believe in ridiculous things like religion and supernatural realities and superstition. And there're more than a handful of people who'll weave tall tales. The bar is low for BS and high for credible knowledge of scientific value and that's why most of what goes on is BS. Is precisely why I'm guilty as dirt for posting.

Oh...you guys want to get a little deep. Well then I’ll tell you what the deal is:


This matrix is a complex way to transform energy in time and space( God’s chief endeavor)


The Matrix is the Garden of Eden

That’s it…that’s the root of the roost.

TAP, time and place is the key.


This matrix ... Garden of Eden…enclosed Garden of felicity states that has been corrupted so the world produces what we call evil and suffering because of this corruption…and humans are inwardly just as corrupt

This is done through the creation of Negative archetypes produced and reproduced through human beings experiential negativity through the corrupt Garden…


The aliens may be the bottom matrix dwellers

Will Tell

originally posted by: JadeStar

originally posted by: Erno86

originally posted by: JadeStar

originally posted by: AdmireTheDistance
a reply to: Erno86

I don't see it either. At all. Perhaps you should start your own thread...

I've found it as useless to show people who have a religious belief that they saw an alien in a rock that, no what they saw was a shape in a rock which their imagination ran wild with as it is useless to point out that "no you didn't see the virgin Mary in a cloud, you just saw a cloud."

Or "No, it's not a sign from above that you saw Jesus on a Lays potato chip,"


They'll never listen so I give up after they reject rational thought.

Thx for the high-minded putdowns.

I'm sorry you feel they were putdowns. You asked for my opinon. I gave it and you instead continued arguing that a rock was an alien. I explained why you might think that but you have a need to believe that was an alien and persisted in trying to get me to "see" it.

It gets old and it IS like people who see Jesus in a cloud or the virgin Mary in a tree trunk.

But how do you know the purported alien is a rock?

You've got the question backwards.

You should ask yourself "how do I know this rock is an alien?"

Psssssttt… those are just rocks too.

The only problem with your so called opinion: Is that the "rock" was never there. So how can you call it a rock when the rock was never there? You have zero evidence that it is a rock...and if it was --- I would have seen it myself.

You still haven't commented on my second YouTube photo titled- Space Alien petroglyph. Now that is a geoglyph carving on dirt, but it does have an extreme likeness of the purported alien in my first photo (with even the slit up the nose). In your case...you might have the wrong opinion. I'm sure if I showed my second alien photo of the laser holographic image of the dinosauroid humanoid (which you've shown no interest in seeing) --- you would find a way to debunk it too --- But that's what your good at...isn't it?

a reply to: tanka418

What is worse though is that many of the skeptics/non-believers around here will try to make the issue personal and attack the believer rather than use science to determine the reality.

You mean like saying believers having 'a false sense of security is more to me like a real mental illness, a blocking out of things still feared, and truths untold, is living in perpetual childhood.' Nahhhh.. that's actually a recent quote from a believer towards those who don't believe. Believers are clearly more angry and defensive. Which is understandable that they feel the need to be unnecessarily aggressive, verbose, and project themselves away from the old UFO/alien believer stereotype. It's worth a good chuckle every now and again, but I do understand.

It is almost as if they are s afraid that science will demonstrate something to be real, when they don't want that reality.

Another ridiculous believer go-to argument. This "fear" that we don't want to face the reality that might be there. In fact, most people on the opposite end of your belief, would like nothing more than to find the factual existence of intelligent alien beings. This also makes absolutely no sense and is another weak argument that should be dropped.

This I've never seen, especially here at ATS. It seems that most here are already experts in the subject and have no need to actually examine data!!1 Regardless of that data...I could hold you as a prime example of this....though honestly, there are better!

You actually give the perfect example of not addressing a case in it's entirety as I said. You hold on to dear life one part of the Hill case, the "star map" and won't even look at or question the entire case. You won't address the inconsistencies of the description of the "beings" in relation to Barney. Or won't question Betty Hill's claim there were 12-18 (some reports say less) silver dollar sized shiny spots on the trunk of their car made by this spacecraft with strange properties which she never photographed, videoed, or had analyzed. Spots that stayed there for months. After being upset that a book was removed from her hands by one of these aliens that would support this incident, she ignores these spots? Here's physical evidence that she so dearly wanted to support her story and she doesn't follow up? That defies logic.
Or you don't question Bettys overall mindset and other claims:
-Claims she has seen "thousands of UFOs"
-Claims to have photographed a landed UFO that she called the "headquarter" UFO. Other UFOs will fly up to it in the night and get their orders and fly off.
-Claims while driving to visit her mother, she was paced by UFOs on either side of her car. They fly ahead of her car and lead her to the spot in the above photograph mentioned.
-Claims a UFO crashed nearby to her home. She ran to it, along with other towns people. Other witnesses wanted to call the military or police. Betty tells them to go home and forget it, if someone is hurt, let "them" come and take care of it. They supposedly listen to her and all go home.
-Says she has picked up objects from UFOs and had them analyzed. Claims the material dissolves with water and the scientists can't figure out why. There's zero evidence to verify this.

That's only a small part of Betty Hills claims. Not to mention other inconsistencies in the story itself. Did you know any of this tanka418? If you took the time to research beyond the popular lore that's out there, you would have known.

a reply to: ultimafule

So, my "go-to" argument is a single sentence which I dismissed right away? Did you not read the rest of my post? Or do you prefer to cherry pick statements you think are easy to dismiss, knowing that 90% of readers here do not read entire threads?

Believers in general have this ridiculous go-to argument that anyone skeptical of the subject just isn't familiar with the cases. Along with we're scared to face the real facts, as pointed out above, and other nonsense. With the tone of your entire post, I took "oh never mind" as being sarcastic and not truthfully dismissive. Which is further supported in that post by you commenting-

I'm way ahead of youse guise, trying to figure out what is going on, instead of sitting on my dead arse asking for others to provide evidence. If you are genuinely curious, there are plenty of ways to do your own independent research to find answers for yourself.

^"Youse" see?^

If you have a story to tell with no verifiable evidence to back it up, I don't care and don't typically comment in such threads. When you post a photograph or video of a rock, bird, balloon, bug, mountain, reflection or some other silliness claiming UFO or alien, I absolutely will comment. When you post about a popular case giving only the facts read on the web or UFO biased TV shows, I absolutely will comment. Sorry, that's not trolling, it's bringing to light facts that some people may not know because they don't research for themselves. JAL 1628, Roswell, Betty and Barney Hill, Travis Walton are a few that come to mind where people first hear them from sources not searching for the truth, but searching for a good story. They rarely will follow up with investigation for themselves.

originally posted by: Ectoplasm8
a reply to: ultimafule

So, my "go-to" argument is a single sentence which I dismissed right away? Did you not read the rest of my post? Or do you prefer to cherry pick statements you think are easy to dismiss, knowing that 90% of readers here do not read entire threads?

Believers in general have this ridiculous go-to argument that anyone skeptical of the subject just isn't familiar with the cases. Along with we're scared to face the real facts, as pointed out above, and other nonsense. With the tone of your entire post, I took "oh never mind" as being sarcastic and not truthfully dismissive. Which is further supported in that post by you commenting-

I'm way ahead of youse guise, trying to figure out what is going on, instead of sitting on my dead arse asking for others to provide evidence. If you are genuinely curious, there are plenty of ways to do your own independent research to find answers for yourself.

^"Youse" see?^

If you have a story to tell with no verifiable evidence to back it up, I don't care and don't typically comment in such threads. When you post a photograph or video of a rock, bird, balloon, bug, mountain, reflection or some other silliness claiming UFO or alien, I absolutely will comment. When you post about a popular case giving only the facts read on the web or UFO biased TV shows, I absolutely will comment. Sorry, that's not trolling, it's bringing to light facts that some people may not know because they don't research for themselves. JAL 1628, Roswell, Betty and Barney Hill, Travis Walton are a few that come to mind where people first hear them from sources not searching for the truth, but searching for a good story. They rarely will follow up with investigation for themselves.

No, I don't see. I do see you beating the same drum and not addressing any of the other points I made that are relevant to this thread. The "never mind" was meant to be partly sarcastic, hence the word "intimation" in my reply. Once again, I never said debunkers will become true-believers simply by reading reports. I was implying that if one has read enough, they would have come across the concept of hierarchies. I'm 100% positive I said all this in my reply. Are you reading the entire post?

You say you don't reply to posts of stories with no verifiable evidence. Did you read the OP? If so, then why are you participating in this thread?

This is exactly what I'm on about. Go and read the OP and tell me if at this point we're still on topic.

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: ultimafule

I'm not familiar with David Jacobs and I too feel a little dubious when it comes to hypnotic regression. Why does Budd Hopkins' recovered memories differ so greatly from John Mack's, for example? But there are other sources for the idea that there is an alien hierarchy. Many people have remembered this info without regression.

Memory in general is a tricky thing. How in the world did I remember someone's post from a few years ago that I read in passing? Then how did I remember the moon being in a certain place in the sky one night and then later discovering that the moon wasn't even visible that night? With " memories recovered under hypnosis", that all played out in the 90s. In psychology its known as the memory war. That had more to do with recovered memories of childhood sexual abuse and later spilled over into abduction research. Its pretty well accepted in mainstream psychology that hypnosis doesn't really help recover memories but helps only to form memories. As far as Jacobs, you can listen to his sessions with Emma woods and decide for yourself.

Yes, it is an open forum. I haven't read the TC in a while, but how is it not thread drift if a thread starts off with a specific point (alien hierarchies) and ends up with (yet another!) debate regarding the existence of aliens and individual posters qualifications or whatever. I guess as long as it's about aliens/UFOs in general, it's still on topic? Again, I think it's important that people call out BS, but in some instances it seems a bit over the top, if not down right rude.

Yeah....I get that. I try to stay out of some thread topics. But then I hear complaining about how the skeptics dont comment on certain threads! The reasoning being that those threads are so good that the skeptics run for the hills!

I think what you might be seeing is spillover from other threads where a conflict between members just continues. Its the internet.

.

Agreed! Memory is a tricky thing and, like I said, I don't entirely trust hypnosis, which is why I've never had it done. I came to this point through the back door in a way. I've been having strange experiences my whole life and only in my early 20s did I start to get close to what was going on. I saw a UFO around age 7 extremely close. My mother was with me. She doesn't remember seeing the craft or whatever it was but she remembers me pointing up and then afterwards investigating these strange oily bubbles that fell from the sky. My entire family has witnessed beings and/or UFOs multiple times. Now my young niece is having similar experiences. Like I said, I'm a knower, not a believer.

I think Ectoplasm8 said something about "believers" getting defensive. I agree with this, because I've seen it and have had it happen to me when I point out obvious fakes people post on social media. I don't think I'm coming across as being overtly defensive, but it is frustrating when you've seen things over your entire life with multiple witnesses and know something exists, only to have people tell you you're delusional or outright lying. It's like if someone told me they had a ham sandwich for lunch I told them they hallucinated it or is lying. But I digress!

Skeptics probably don't comment on those threads because it's not even worth their time. I've read some stuff on here that is way out there, even for me! And I'm into some truly wacky stuff!

originally posted by: Ectoplasm8
a reply to: tanka418


You actually give the perfect example of not addressing a case in it's entirety as I said. You hold on to dear life one part of the Hill case, the "star map" and won't even look at or question the entire case. You won't address the inconsistencies of the description of the "beings" in relation to Barney. Or won't question Betty Hill's claim there were 12-18 (some reports say less) silver dollar sized shiny spots on the trunk of their car made by this spacecraft with strange properties which she never photographed, videoed, or had analyzed. Spots that stayed there for months. After being upset that a book was removed from her hands by one of these aliens that would support this incident, she ignores these spots? Here's physical evidence that she so dearly wanted to support her story and she doesn't follow up? That defies logic.
Or you don't question Bettys overall mindset and other claims:
-Claims she has seen "thousands of UFOs"
-Claims to have photographed a landed UFO that she called the "headquarter" UFO. Other UFOs will fly up to it in the night and get their orders and fly off.
-Claims while driving to visit her mother, she was paced by UFOs on either side of her car. They fly ahead of her car and lead her to the spot in the above photograph mentioned.
-Claims a UFO crashed nearby to her home. She ran to it, along with other towns people. Other witnesses wanted to call the military or police. Betty tells them to go home and forget it, if someone is hurt, let "them" come and take care of it. They supposedly listen to her and all go home.
-Says she has picked up objects from UFOs and had them analyzed. Claims the material dissolves with water and the scientists can't figure out why. There's zero evidence to verify this.

That's only a small part of Betty Hills claims. Not to mention other inconsistencies in the story itself. Did you know any of this tanka418? If you took the time to research beyond the popular lore that's out there, you would have known.

Yep you are absolutely correct...I only use the map (template) itself, and tend to reject the other. But, it is not like I haven't looked at it; its much more like I don't see any relevance in any of that in the shadow of the "map".

You see the map is virtually impossible to "draw" at random, and that is what it must be for your interpretation. Further, the map is quite unique, and contains features that help to identify it, making the overall probability of that map being produced at random...as I said virtually impossible...let me know IF you want real world numbers.

I use a system known as Bayesian inference...you should try it some time. After factoring ALL of the data, even the data you try to use to "debunk" it still comes out the same..."Map not produced at random."

After attempting to explain this to you and some others several times, you still refuse to actually use a viable science to come to a better understanding...and then of course you try to shift the refusal onto me...

You have not applied any science to this question at all, and insist that you are correct...you refuse to look at the data and then lie to yourself and others saying that you have...sorry man; perhaps it is time for you to deny ignorance and actually look at the data!

Seriously man; have you ever truly looked at the "map"? Unfortunately, the answer is easy to guess...you haven't any idea what is contained within the "map"...your loss, your BAD!

a reply to: ultimafule

No, I don't see. I do see you beating the same drum and not addressing any of the other points I made that are relevant to this thread. The "never mind" was meant to be partly sarcastic, hence the word "intimation" in my reply. Once again, I never said debunkers will become true-believers simply by reading reports. I was implying that if one has read enough, they would have come across the concept of hierarchies. I'm 100% positive I said all this in my reply. Are you reading the entire post?

How does the concept of hierarchies mean anything to those that don't believe people are being abducted or we're being visited by alien beings? In order for your statements to have any meaning and are worthy of serious discussion, you first need to prove the existence. The existence of decades and thousands of claimed physical beings that physically interact with humans. The evidence should reflect this. When you go to the outer fringes of this phenomenon, I really have no interest. So you're safe from me participating in a thread with you on this. When you comment seemingly using the same weak argument as other believers do- "we just don't know the cases" it's worthy of a comment.

You say you don't reply to posts of stories with no verifiable evidence. Did you read the OP? If so, then why are you participating in this thread?

I suggest you look at my first post in this thread and what I'm responding to. A member who has posted photos previously on this forum with a claim of an alien hiding behind a rock. I believe that falls into commenting on photographs. Any "derailing" from the topic was a comment from his believer side. If you missed it, it starts HERE.

Plenty of members post and stand righteous in their conviction that alien beings are here. If that's through their own personal experience, fine. I don't usually participate in "my experience" threads. Having your own experience however, doesn't mean every other UFO case is true. But it is treated so by many. When a discussion becomes about photos or public cases, I do chime in.

a reply to: jonnywhite

Interesting theories and ideas, but extremely limited in scope only because they are all based upon one person's value system, and experiences.
And if you haven't experienced any or all of things you say are false, then those conclusions must also be false, or of an unreliable nature based upon personal conjecture, which itself is relying on personal values which has no experience to justify them as any more true or false than those with opposing experiences.

Try saying all of that fast 3 times

Any ideas when I might receive that lab report?

originally posted by: JadeStar
Any ideas when I might receive that lab report?

I still haven't got my own PC back, which is where the documents are on..
Until then you might do some digging on the web.. Be creative.

My wife is really lazy too though, so don't feel bad.

try googling
"lab reports of alien metals found"
and same on yahoo or other search engines... I can't attest for their truthfulness, or if the links point to the reports I have, but they are what you make of them anyways.

originally posted by: JadeStar
I can't tell you how many times someone accused me of not knowing about the subject, being familiar with the cases, etc.

I've probably read more about this subject from both sides of the true believer/skeptical divide at age 20 than most of the people twice my age and older have.....

This seems unlikely. You weren't even aware of Sturrock's decades old study on astronomers and UFOs, remember? It wasn't that many months ago that we had to point it out to you, after you'd ignorantly and condescendingly wondered why astronomers never saw UFOs. (The answer is... they do.) So maybe you did read lots about UFOs by age 20, or maybe you didn't. Either way, it seems like there's a fair amount you're not familiar with.

a reply to: TeaAndStrumpets

ignorantly and condescendingly

the projections are strong in this one.

a reply to: Ectoplasm8

You mean like saying believers having 'a false sense of security is more to me like a real mental illness, a blocking out of things still feared, and truths untold, is living in perpetual childhood.' Nahhhh..

Why that sounds rather ignorant and condescending

originally posted by: Ectoplasm8
a reply to: tanka418

You mean like saying believers having 'a false sense of security is more to me like a real mental illness, a blocking out of things still feared, and truths untold, is living in perpetual childhood.'

That's only a small part of Betty Hills claims. Not to mention other inconsistencies in the story itself. Did you know any of this tanka418? If you took the time to research beyond the popular lore that's out there, you would have known.

5.84795e-87 ... the real world probability that the Hill map was random...you do understand that for your argument to have any merit at all this "map" must be random...

Please show me the sense of false security in that value...That is something you have never even addressed...you seem to want to ignore that bit of reality in favor of other facts that cannot affect the mathematics involved...You seem to want to dwell on the irrelevant instead of embracing the hard scientific points...

This kind of behavior is typical of the "skeptic", or more properly; pseudo-septic since virtually none have ever used any sort of scientific protocol...most of you only use slurs upon another's mental health, or some other wholly inappropriate issue...real or not. You virtually NEVER use science...even your interpretations aren't your own, but rather comments made by another person about some wholly unrelated issue.

Perhaps IF you did what you suggest I do...and; "took the time to research beyond the popular lore"...as I have...you might begin to gain a real understanding...But, alas; that would mean that you will actually have to look at the real data...as opposed to someone else's interpretation...something you have NEVER done!

So...I should claim that this "map" is the "smoking gun" of ufology (don't worry I won't yet), and constitutes proof that ET has and is visiting the Earth...the best part is; you are wholly unprepared to refute such a claim...you won't look at the data...

The reality is that I would love for someone to look at this and render an informed opinion.

For the rest of yall, who don't know quite what I'm talking about; here is a rather incomplete draft of a paper I'm working on: alien.wolfmagick.com...

a reply to: tanka418

you do understand that for your argument to have any merit at all this "map" must be random.

It is random. At one point Betty was convinced that it showed a region of the sky where the first pulsars were discovered. It did not match and the pulsars are now known to be a natural phenomenon. In other words, the best attempt to prove that they had a correspondence in the real world failed. They are the random products of Mrs. Hill's imagination.