It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
The biggest issue I have with the field of Ufology is that it's ridiculed despite the clear and obvious scientific benefit from studying it.
In fact, here's proof that they were genuine, and not jumping on Streiber's bandwagon:
THOUSANDS of the people who contacted Streiber in the wake of his book had the exact same complaint - the cranium needed to be bigger.
That settles that point quite effectively.
THOUSANDS of the people who contacted Streiber in the wake of his book had the exact same complaint - the cranium needed to be bigger.
originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: trueskepticnumberone
THOUSANDS of the people who contacted Streiber in the wake of his book had the exact same complaint - the cranium needed to be bigger.
The fact is that anyone who saw that cover, abductee or not, would say that the alien head is not proportionate and thousands more did. I actually read the book when it came out and thought the head was stupid looking also.
Is your source for these thousands of letters Strieber who wrote the book to begin with? Or maybe your source is yourself? Either way, Strieber has been less than truthful if not fraudulent . Maybe your next screen name should be iamnotscdfa? Would be less obvious. Besides, you are just coming off as scdfalite. Boring. Grow a pair.
That settles that point quite effectively.
Whoever you are, thanks for your feedback anyway, I guess.
originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
No, no, NO! You should never be satisfied with not knowing. Yes, leave the church out of it. Yes, leave the political agenda out of it. Yes, leave the shady backroom practices out of it. Investigate the phenomenon objectively and with an open mind. But be satisfied with not knowing? That's ridiculous.
(If what you intend by those words is "Don't pre-determine the conclusion" then I would agree with you. I'm responding as if you said "Don't investigate".)
originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: trueskepticnumberone
Whoever you are, thanks for your feedback anyway, I guess.
Oh, you are quite welcome and I do appreciate you editing your response. However, I can assure you that my knowledge and understanding of this topic is rather fantastic. You see, I have had first hand ufological knowledge since 1966. I was there. Where were you?
originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
a reply to: Lost_Mind
While not confirming the nature of the phenomenon itself, it does prove that there is something there, something worth looking into. But anyone who tries is laughed off the stage, has their career destroyed, or worse.
have you had any sinse, I would understand not having a camera at the ready circa 1966.
originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: trueskepticnumberone
Whoever you are, thanks for your feedback anyway, I guess.
Oh, you are quite welcome and I do appreciate you editing your response. However, I can assure you that my knowledge and understanding of this topic is rather fantastic. You see, I have had first hand ufological knowledge since 1966. I was there. Where were you?
originally posted by: HorusChrist
have you had any sinse, I would understand not having a camera at the ready circa 1966.
originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: trueskepticnumberone
Whoever you are, thanks for your feedback anyway, I guess.
Oh, you are quite welcome and I do appreciate you editing your response. However, I can assure you that my knowledge and understanding of this topic is rather fantastic. You see, I have had first hand ufological knowledge since 1966. I was there. Where were you?
originally posted by: trueskepticnumberone
In fact, here's proof that they were genuine, and not jumping on Streiber's bandwagon:
THOUSANDS of the people who contacted Streiber in the wake of his book had the exact same complaint - the cranium needed to be bigger.
That settles that point quite effectively.
originally posted by: draknoir2
originally posted by: HorusChrist
have you had any sinse, I would understand not having a camera at the ready circa 1966.
originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: trueskepticnumberone
Whoever you are, thanks for your feedback anyway, I guess.
Oh, you are quite welcome and I do appreciate you editing your response. However, I can assure you that my knowledge and understanding of this topic is rather fantastic. You see, I have had first hand ufological knowledge since 1966. I was there. Where were you?
Mine was always handy.
Oh, um yeah, lots....the problem with the cameras is that the alien spaceships dont show up on the photos...because they have advanced technology or something. ok, ok...i have never actually seen a UFO....or an alien. I have traveled into other dimensions....but that's off topic.
have you had any sinse, I would understand not having a camera at the ready circa 1966.
originally posted by: AceWombat04
…...near the end of the Truman administration the CIA determined that continuing public interest in and reporting of UFOs constituted a potential national security threat - ostensibly due to possible mass hysteria and the flooding of communications and intel channels. Thus the CIA established a cursory, four day review of the available evidence by prominent scientists with ties to the military establishment (the Robertson panel,) after which the NSA mandated that unexplained cases like those described in the above mentioned reports and memos should not be discussed with the public and/or press, and perhaps most tellingly, that ONLY those cases which could be explained as mundane or the result of hoaxes and psychological issues should be publicized. In various forms, that policy has been in effect ever since, despite periods of renewed (or at least feigned) interest in being more forthcoming with the public. (For a time, it was even a crime punishable by imprisonment or fine to release UFO sighting data to the public and press, despite the study and investigation thereof continuing in earnest behind closed doors.)
is another weak go-to argument by those that believe. Another attempted excuse and diversion from the fact that there hasn't been irrefutable evidence.