IS ufology dead nowadays?

a reply to: AnodeOrCathode

Ah Billy Meier, maybe he began as a real UFO encounter witness but soon it spiraled out of control with his cult - arguably he had mostly good intentions since he was preaching peace BUT he also made a packet of money out of his little cult.

I can't find my favourite footage but it was taken in the 50's by a US family holidaying on some lake somewhere in North America and they captured very clear footage of an definitely odd craft of some kind flying over the lake, hundreds of people also witnessed it.

Of course there is almost always context to add.

The Nazi Bell and the Kecksburg incident in the US after the war.
www.ufoinsight.com...

Of course I have my own take on that, I don't believe the NAZI's originated the technology - IF they had it.


My personal belief is that if the German's DID have such a device and were testing it then it all has to do with something that was SHOT down in a battle over Nuremburg in 1561 and was later dug up under the cover of constructing the NAZI national parade grounds in Nuremburg in the 1930's - something that becomes more plausible when you consider the influence of occultists and the Ahnenerb in the NAZI political state.


If I am right then the NAZI's may have possessed exotic technology but they did not invent it, they probably got it to partially work but were unlikely to have been able to adequately reverse engineer enough of it to get it to work, they tested what they had and the remains of this were later captured and secretly spirited away to the US under the guise of operation paper clip, the US then attempted to continue to reverse engineer it and to advance the work the NAZI's had already done in this direction.

Of course IF I am right it is actually most probably the LOSING sides technology in that battle over nuremburg and so likely inferior not only because it is now hundreds of years behind whatever they may have today if they are still here BUT also inferior to what they had back then but likely still far ahead of what we see - at least in the civilian sector.

Im currently looking at the ufo section here and it prooves my point
every single thread is about old historical cases
theres absolutly nothing of substantial note happening nowadays

It's dead because so-called "researchers" think poring over every frame of a youtube video of some blurry glob of light in an attempt to force the "evidence" to fit a preconceived idea that "they" are biological beings in an advanced craft from another planet constitutes proper research.

I'm sure there are others like me, who have made leaps and bounds in understanding the phenomenon, but don't talk about it because it's not the narrative everyone wants to hear. One cannot know it, without becoming a part of it. Then it changes you. Then you lose credibility because some people have this crazy idea that to know something one must be detached and observe from the outside. It's like someone who's never rode a roller coaster thinking they know what it's like better than someone who's rode it 100 times because they studied its movements and understand the physics and mechanics of the ride. Nevermind the sheer, utter, ridiculousness and absurdity of the "reality" of the phenomenon. The passive observer can never experience it, and it's the only way to "know" this...

Ever wonder why Keel and Vallee basically dropped out of the scene? One gets to a point where events strain the witness' own credulity when one digs deep in earnest without WANTING to find anything other than the "truth". And to put that kind of stuff out to the general public could potentially kill what little respect they already have from academia and fellow UFOlogists. The "truth" as it were, will always be on the fringe.

originally posted by: ultimafule
Nevermind the sheer, utter, ridiculousness and absurdity of the "reality" of the phenomenon. The passive observer can never experience it, and it's the only way to "know" this...

I have noticed that generally - not always - people who have put the time in, done the research and have a more panoramic view of the phenomenon recognize it to be both real (as real as anything) an ridiculously baffling. There is that feeling of repetitive frustration that arises where it becomes more obvious that combing over some blurry video or photo or looking for clues in some 50 year old report is just a waste of time. I get this even as a passive observer.

On the positive side, we're really efficient these days at tagging junk reports and images. In the old days a crap photo would be reprinted in a dozen UFO books. On the negative side, we're stuck in the position of just having to wait for things to happen, either personal or public. For the thing to finally reveal itself for what it is...if we can even understand it when it does.

originally posted by: PandaPrincess
Absolutly zero clear or semi clear videos or photos of ufos (just random pictures of orbs or bits of light with no point of reference)

All cases are just witness (albeit compelling), cases, sometimes second or third hand, no hard evidence.

The only cases discussed nowadays are cases from decades ago like rendlesham, betty barney hill, billy meier or even roswell 70 years ago

Absolutly nothing of note happens nowadays - yes sure, more people discuss it nowadays, and the us navy did say they can confirm their ufo video was unidentified but they didnt actually come out and say aliens/ufos are et in nature.
Plus in this social media age, everything gets discussed more, from sexuality, to mental illness, etc everyone is more open about every topic, so its no suprise that the navy came out and presented the video and said its unidentified to them.

I genuinely feel weve hit a dead end of ufology - i mean i love ancient aliens, but even that just brings up the same old cases again and again.

Literally theres nothing of note nowadays apart from `lights over lake eerie` and a video showing random orbs which could be absolutly anything!

And you are stil guaranteed when anyone embedds a youtube video of a ufo, it will be blurry/ at night/ no point of reference/ camera shaking/ video ending for no reason/ etc etc

Its so frustrating ufology today........... yes theres doctors/ lawyers etc etc people with no reason to lie, whove given their testimony, but these are all old worn out cases.

Ufology today in my opinion is absolutly dead in terms of things happening these days or being closer to the truth.

Bringing up Billy Mieir tells me you know little
about the subject of ufos, which makes me wonder why you are making a thread about it. You see, bring into ufos, then hearing about the American navy taking this seriously (Which they have to becsuse the evidence is strong) then that's a good thing.

Regarding photos and movies regarding ufos. You simply cannot win. People will moan about blurry photos and shaky videos, saying thsts all their is, but when photos and footage does come out that is clear and day, then it's a fake because it looks too real.

As for ufos themselves, what some of these are, no one knows, but one thing is for sure, militery sightings alone, tell us that something odd is flying in our air space, and just because every new case does not show up on ATS, does not mean there is none.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

If you look at the subject, without the believer blinkers on, or the skeptic blinkers on, if you step back and look at the subject, it's quite obvious that something strange is flying in our airspace. Militery sightings alone tell us that.

As for witnesess. To me, it's a cop out! Why? Because it's used time and time again to try and explain something no one can explain. I am not saying that witnesess get it wrong, but when you get a witness/witnesess who say they saw a flying disc, clear as day, only to be told that humans are crappy witnesess, then it's a cop out.

Let's say I went outside now, and a saw a silver disc hover about some trees, and then shoot off. What's the bets certain people will saying I miss identified the object. If I say it was in the same direction of Venus, they would say it was Venus.

Can you see what I am getting at here? These people just cannot hold their hands up and say "ok, you may have seen this, but it's not evidence" To say that is fair enough, but to come out with ridiculous explanations tell me that these people just do not want to admit that. Do that tells us that they are using belief as much as the believers sho say these ufos are ET

Humans like to be part of groups.

originally posted by: Jay-morris
Let's say I went outside now, and a saw a silver disc hover about some trees, and then shoot off. What's the bets certain people will saying I miss identified the object. If I say it was in the same direction of Venus, they would say it was Venus.

Here's an example. The witness says it can't be Venus because it was going back and forth from one side of the road to the other when he was following it with his car. And, he thinks Venus can't do that. And, then people believe him that Venus can't do that, so they think it's not Venus, when in fact it was. It was an illusion because he was driving down a winding road and people are easily fooled by illusions and they never want to admit it.

I guess we have to agree to disagree, because I get what you're saying, and I just don't agree. I see witness statements as almost completely useless and unreliable, no matter how credible the witness thinks he is. The reason I say "almost" is there are some things I might trust, like if they counted the number of lights, and said they saw 5 lights, that might be credible, but almost nothing else is usually reliable, like estimates of size, distance, or speed, or even the disc shape. I mean look at this "disc" UFO which the air force says they can prove it's a balloon. Someone might say it looks "disc shaped" but that doesn't rule out a balloon, yet people seem to think if the witness sees a disc, that rules out balloon, when this example suggests it doesn't:

Found? Gordon Cooper's 1957 UFO film "sent...to...Washington...never to be seen again"

Plate 620s:

Tell you what, read Allan Hendry's book, "The UFO Handbook" and see if it doesn't allow you to re-evaluate your position. When he investigated, weather balloons accounted for a lot of "disc" sightings, and so did aircraft, aircraft which were not discs. He didn't work for Bluebook and he wasn't under any pressure to make excuses like bluebook was accused of doing, and his research seems quite good. You want to think when a witness says they saw a disc, that it wasn't an aircraft, yet Hendry's research shows that's a flawed mode of thinking since he found a significant number of "disc" sightings were aircraft.

"The UFO Handbook" by Allan Hendry, p57:

originally posted by: Jay-morris


Bringing up Billy Mieir tells me you know little
about the subject of ufos, which makes me wonder why you are making a thread about it. You see, bring into ufos, then hearing about the American navy taking this seriously (Which they have to becsuse the evidence is strong) then that's a good thing..

Actually i know a lot about ufos and the subject
billy meier is an example of how all people seem to talk about are the old rehashed topics

i did not say for a second billy meier is a reputable case

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: Jay-morris
Let's say I went outside now, and a saw a silver disc hover about some trees, and then shoot off. What's the bets certain people will saying I miss identified the object. If I say it was in the same direction of Venus, they would say it was Venus.

Here's an example. The witness says it can't be Venus because it was going back and forth from one side of the road to the other when he was following it with his car. And, he thinks Venus can't do that. And, then people believe him that Venus can't do that, so they think it's not Venus, when in fact it was. It was an illusion because he was driving down a winding road and people are easily fooled by illusions and they never want to admit it.

I guess we have to agree to disagree, because I get what you're saying, and I just don't agree. I see witness statements as almost completely useless and unreliable, no matter how credible the witness thinks he is. The reason I say "almost" is there are some things I might trust, like if they counted the number of lights, and said they saw 5 lights, that might be credible, but almost nothing else is usually reliable, like estimates of size, distance, or speed, or even the disc shape. I mean look at this "disc" UFO which the air force says they can prove it's a balloon. Someone might say it looks "disc shaped" but that doesn't rule out a balloon, yet people seem to think if the witness sees a disc, that rules out balloon, when this example suggests it doesn't:

Found? Gordon Cooper's 1957 UFO film "sent...to...Washington...never to be seen again"

Plate 620s:

Tell you what, read Allan Hendry's book, "The UFO Handbook" and see if it doesn't allow you to re-evaluate your position. When he investigated, weather balloons accounted for a lot of "disc" sightings, and so did aircraft, aircraft which were not discs. He didn't work for Bluebook and he wasn't under any pressure to make excuses like bluebook was accused of doing, and his research seems quite good. You want to think when a witness says they saw a disc, that it wasn't an aircraft, yet Hendry's research shows that's a flawed mode of thinking since he found a significant number of "disc" sightings were aircraft.

"The UFO Handbook" by Allan Hendry, p57:

I am not disagreeing with you. Off course people can missidentify something, and we have see thst many times in this subject. But surely you must agree there have been some quite ridiculous explanations for some ufo sightings. So ridiculous that they make the ET explanation more plausible.

You ok d of done it yourself, right here in the post above. I have an example about what if I saw a disc shaped ufo hovering above some trees then suddenly shoot off. You then post an article about how many people missidentify disc shaped objects in daylight cases.

If I was true, and I did see a disc shaped ufo hover above some trees and then shoot off, how many people would come forward with stupid explanations for what a saw?

Does that tell you that belief is involved on the skeptics side too?

originally posted by: PandaPrincess

originally posted by: Jay-morris


Bringing up Billy Mieir tells me you know little
about the subject of ufos, which makes me wonder why you are making a thread about it. You see, bring into ufos, then hearing about the American navy taking this seriously (Which they have to becsuse the evidence is strong) then that's a good thing..

Actually i know a lot about ufos and the subject
billy meier is an example of how all people seem to talk about are the old rehashed topics

i did not say for a second billy meier is a reputable case

Most people who have been into this subject a while know that billy mieir is a fraud and the only people that bring him up are the people in his cult, that's all.

So you used quite a bad exame there.

When you sit down and think what we have seen and learnt about Ufology over the last couple years, you notice that there are a few photos and the odd video out there. But are we any closer to finding out some of these things are?
Are we any closer than those who have studied Ufology before us?

I hear people say that why in an age of amazing phone cameras do we not get clearer videos and photos?

Because people spend 99% of their time looking DOWN at their phones rather than up. In certain countries they have made crossings light up across roads because people are always looking down.

What would satisfy as clear proof of a UFO?

Landing in the street?
Waving at you from their spaceship?

The waters have been muddied so much it's hard to see what's real and what's not. This will only get worse.

originally posted by: Jay-morris
As for witnesess. To me, it's a cop out! Why? Because it's used time and time again to try and explain something no one can explain. I am not saying that witnesess get it wrong, but when you get a witness/witnesess who say they saw a flying disc, clear as day, only to be told that humans are crappy witnesess, then it's a cop out.

Saying that humans are crappy witnesses may be used as a cop out, but it's a fact.

The problem is that people are not expecting to witness a specific event, so, when faced with that event, they do not take notice of the things that could make them good witnesses. For example, some years ago a friend of my elder sister had her store robed while she was there. When the police was talking to her they, obviously, asked how he looked like and how he was dressed, but they also asked her if she had noticed his shoes, as it's easier for a robber to change their coat/shirt/whatever but they rarely remember changing their shoes to avoid being recognised.

In the specific case of UFOs, most people, if they have the time, don't think about moving sideways when facing the UFO, but that would help getting a better idea of distance.

In my case, I know I'm worthless as a witness for some events, as I am not able to describe someone's face, although I can easily recognise people. Some people are useless at calculating distances, others at colours, others at shapes, time, etc., with some being affected by all possible mixes of those limitations. In most cases people do not recognise their own faults, and think they are good at judging all those things when in fact they are not.

Let's say I went outside now, and a saw a silver disc hover about some trees, and then shoot off. What's the bets certain people will saying I miss identified the object. If I say it was in the same direction of Venus, they would say it was Venus.

That's a typical report, and it's a good example of a subjective report, as saying that it "shoot off" is relative and it doesn't help give credibility. If you said that it took less than one second to cover an angle of 180º then it would help recreating the event in the listener's mind.

Can you see what I am getting at here? These people just cannot hold their hands up and say "ok, you may have seen this, but it's not evidence" To say that is fair enough, but to come out with ridiculous explanations tell me that these people just do not want to admit that. Do that tells us that they are using belief as much as the believers sho say these ufos are ET

More subjectivity. What makes an explanation ridiculous?

But it's true that some people are more worried about providing an explanation than in understanding what people saw.

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: Jay-morris
As for witnesess. To me, it's a cop out! Why? Because it's used time and time again to try and explain something no one can explain. I am not saying that witnesess get it wrong, but when you get a witness/witnesess who say they saw a flying disc, clear as day, only to be told that humans are crappy witnesess, then it's a cop out.

Saying that humans are crappy witnesses may be used as a cop out, but it's a fact.

The problem is that people are not expecting to witness a specific event, so, when faced with that event, they do not take notice of the things that could make them good witnesses. For example, some years ago a friend of my elder sister had her store robed while she was there. When the police was talking to her they, obviously, asked how he looked like and how he was dressed, but they also asked her if she had noticed his shoes, as it's easier for a robber to change their coat/shirt/whatever but they rarely remember changing their shoes to avoid being recognised.

In the specific case of UFOs, most people, if they have the time, don't think about moving sideways when facing the UFO, but that would help getting a better idea of distance.

In my case, I know I'm worthless as a witness for some events, as I am not able to describe someone's face, although I can easily recognise people. Some people are useless at calculating distances, others at colours, others at shapes, time, etc., with some being affected by all possible mixes of those limitations. In most cases people do not recognise their own faults, and think they are good at judging all those things when in fact they are not.

Let's say I went outside now, and a saw a silver disc hover about some trees, and then shoot off. What's the bets certain people will saying I miss identified the object. If I say it was in the same direction of Venus, they would say it was Venus.

That's a typical report, and it's a good example of a subjective report, as saying that it "shoot off" is relative and it doesn't help give credibility. If you said that it took less than one second to cover an angle of 180º then it would help recreating the event in the listener's mind.

Can you see what I am getting at here? These people just cannot hold their hands up and say "ok, you may have seen this, but it's not evidence" To say that is fair enough, but to come out with ridiculous explanations tell me that these people just do not want to admit that. Do that tells us that they are using belief as much as the believers sho say these ufos are ET

More subjectivity. What makes an explanation ridiculous?

But it's true that some people are more worried about providing an explanation than in understanding what people saw.

In the cases of ufos, then somehow we are shocking as witnesess, pretty much blind! And it gets brought up time and time again as an explanation. I have stated before thst people missidentify ufos As something else, we all know that, but it has come acceptable now to pretty much use this explanation on all witness cases. It's a cop out basically is certain cases.

No example still stands, and is a good example on how ridiculous explanations are. How many people would say it was Venus once they knew that venus was in the same part of the night sky as the "disc" I saw?

Basically, they will try and explain something that fits their beliefs, hence the reason certain sightings have riduculous explanations.

originally posted by: Jay-morris
If I was true, and I did see a disc shaped ufo hover above some trees and then shoot off, how many people would come forward with stupid explanations for what a saw?

Does that tell you that belief is involved on the skeptics side too?

If you said you saw the disc hover for a while, then suddenly shoot off, you would probably think it wasn't an airplane, because first of all, airplanes don't hover.

But there was a UFO video very similar to this posted to ATS some years back, of a disc that did just that, it hovered, then "took off".

But then someone found a longer video that wasn't edited, and then you could see that the disc was actually an airplane that was too far away to be identified as such, until later in the video, the part that was cut off the end. But you thought airplanes don't hover? Actually they don't, but again people are just unfamiliar with many illusions that easily fool us, which in this case the aircraft was approaching the videographer, and while it wasn't hovering, it did appear to do so. When it "shot off" it simply changed direction and made a turn so it was no longer approaching the observer making the video. That is a documented explanation which is not made up, and very few people on ATS were able to recognize any illusion on the original video. People posting on ATS really thought it was a disc that hovered, then shot off, until the longer video was posted.

originally posted by: Jay-morris
In the cases of ufos, then somehow we are shocking as witnesess, pretty much blind!

The more outside the "normal" things the most likely we are to be bad witnesses, as we are not expecting it.

And it gets brought up time and time again as an explanation. I have stated before thst people missidentify ufos As something else, we all know that, but it has come acceptable now to pretty much use this explanation on all witness cases. It's a cop out basically is certain cases.

Acceptable to whom?

No example still stands, and is a good example on how ridiculous explanations are. How many people would say it was Venus once they knew that venus was in the same part of the night sky as the "disc" I saw?

I don't know how many would say it was Venus, but, in part, that's a reaction to the description of the UFO. If you say you saw a disc shaped object, more or less the width of a thumb at arm's length, only idiots would suggest Venus as an explanation, as it would not fit your description. If your description added that the UFO appeared, for example, south of Venus and slightly above it in relation to the horizon then it would show that it could not have been Venus because you saw it and identify it in the sky, so it had to be something else.

A week report is easier to dismiss, while a detailed report makes it hard for the debunkers to ignore.

Basically, they will try and explain something that fits their beliefs, hence the reason certain sightings have riduculous explanations.

That's why I prefer a sceptical approach.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: Jay-morris
If I was true, and I did see a disc shaped ufo hover above some trees and then shoot off, how many people would come forward with stupid explanations for what a saw?

Does that tell you that belief is involved on the skeptics side too?

If you said you saw the disc hover for a while, then suddenly shoot off, you would probably think it wasn't an airplane, because first of all, airplanes don't hover.

But there was a UFO video very similar to this posted to ATS some years back, of a disc that did just that, it hovered, then "took off".

But then someone found a longer video that wasn't edited, and then you could see that the disc was actually an airplane that was too far away to be identified as such, until later in the video, the part that was cut off the end. But you thought airplanes don't hover? Actually they don't, but again people are just unfamiliar with many illusions that easily fool us, which in this case the aircraft was approaching the videographer, and while it wasn't hovering, it did appear to do so. When it "shot off" it simply changed direction and made a turn so it was no longer approaching the observer making the video. That is a documented explanation which is not made up, and very few people on ATS were able to recognize any illusion on the original video. People posting on ATS really thought it was a disc that hovered, then shot off, until the longer video was posted.

My example was not talking about a disc far away, but o e very close. Close enough so I can see every detail. It hovers and then shoots off. What I am trying to say is this. Let's say I saw this, and came out about it, and let's say people figured out the north star was in the same part if the sky as the object. How many people would say that it was the north star I saw, and we all are terrible as witnesess and misidentification ?

My point is, even though i saw the oh he t clearly, people will not accept thst, hence the reason they would say it was the north star. That's not science, thats belief, plain and sime in my opinion.

originally posted by: Jay-morris
My point is, even though i saw the oh he t clearly, people will not accept thst, hence the reason they would say it was the north star. That's not science, thats belief, plain and sime in my opinion.

I agree, but I have never seen a case like that.

UFOlogy is in a state of being devoured by a psyop called TTSA.

TTSA will fall on its face after gaining massive, relatively speaking, public interest, and they will produce zilch and people will then massively lose interest in ufology.

a reply to: Jay-morris
Hes right nothing has been new in this area. Think everyone has cameras now that decades ago would cost thousands. Yet sightings actually decreased. And before everyone wants to get excited about tic tac the navy did not say it was aliens. In fact they seem to know what it was. O. Analysis turns out it wasnt going that fast at all. And most likely was a drone. Id be willing to bet that somewhere in the pentagon they know exactly what it was just dont want to reveal the project.

Just by the name of the one video i suspect they figured out the movement of the gimbal in the camera caused it in the first place. I cant believe researchers could figure out range and speed and the airforce was unable to do so.