The stagnation of UFO Research

This article titled "Extra-Terrestrial Base on Earth Sanction by Officials Since 1954" states that President Eisenhower had a meeting with the extraterrestrials and they requested that he make the public aware of their presence and he said no because we were not ready for it.

ET Base on Earth

... in April, 1954, as documented by Gerald Light, President Eisenhower made a secret trip to Muroc Field (now Edwards Air Force Base), in the California desert, accompanied by generals, reporter Franklin Allen of the Hearst Newspapers Group, Los Angeles Catholic Bishop James McIntyre, and others.

While at Muroc Air Field, Eisenhower was present while an extraterrestrial disc landed. Several Star Visitors emerged to converse with the President and the generals. The extraterrestrials requested that Eisenhower make the public aware of extraterrestrial contact with Earth forthwith. The President protested that humans were not ready, and needed time to be prepared for adjusting to this stupendous reality.

I say we tell them... "Hey!! we're ready!! We're ready!!"

Thats the real trick, any conclusion you reach has to be verifiable by anyone else. Any experiment you do to support or dethrone any case has to be duplicatable. == jritzmann

Thats the real trick to the meaning of "empirical methods". Even a non-believer performing an experiment with light and a prism will get the "colors", but still may not
admit it. But most will. Doesn't make the task any less difficult, just establishes the parameters for AGREEMENT.

Credit to annestacey for a fine example to work with.

Phrase one.
"... in April, 1954, as documented by Gerald Light, President Eisenhower made a secret trip to Muroc Field (now Edwards Air Force Base),
in the California desert, accompanied by generals, reporter Franklin Allen of the Hearst Newspapers Group, Los Angeles Catholic Bishop James McIntyre, and others. " == source not identified

The way I have quoted it, phrase one is hear-say and by the tentative definition in previous post, is worthless. That would be the STRICT interpretation. But lets say the source is somehow,
legitimately anonomous, if there is such a thing. Does it contain observations of facts, documents, etc. YES. It names names, places, people and a date, all of which can be researched. This
statement, even as hear say can meet the criteria for credible testimony. To become evidence would require some form of legitimate records ( and I would immediately suggest looking in the Eisenhower Presidential Library first) for validation.

Phrase two.
"While at Muroc Air Field, Eisenhower was present while an extraterrestrial disc landed. Several Star Visitors emerged to converse with the President and the generals. The extraterrestrials requested that Eisenhower make the public aware of extraterrestrial contact with Earth forthwith. The President protested that humans were not ready, and needed time to be prepared for adjusting to this stupendous reality. " == source not Identified

Lets assume the sources are the same. It is hear say. Does it contain observations of facts, documents etc. NO. By association with the prior statement, the implication is made that the latter statement can be
equally validated. Unfortunately, the statement contains a non-valid paradox. The two "direct" testimony sources to be investigated, Eisenhower conversing with extraterrestrials, and the extraterrestrial's
themselves are the paradox. Neither condition can exist UNTIL there is PROOF of extraterrestrials. This statement is not CREDIBLE. I will grant that I believe it is INCREDIBLE.

Originally posted by Access Denied
Thanks for the suggestion [of using Tinwiki] but personally if I were to go to that much effort only to see it potentially wiped out in a single edit by say someone who considers any view contrary to their own as “disinformation”, I'd rather invest my time and energy defending my work on a mainstream site like Wikipedia… or post it on my own site for that matter.

Hi Access Denied,

It's up to you, of course.

I just wanted to make sure that you, and others in this Forum, were aware of Tinwiki and at least _think_ about whether using it suits their purposes.

I've done very few entries on Tinwiki myself, partly out of the concerns you mention, but mainly because it's not going to be worth the effort unless more people use it and edit it...

All the best,

Isaac

Originally posted by jritzmann
I think one thing to vastly help newcomers is a sort of "Hall of Shame" as was done at UFO watchdog. Although it might be harsh to some, and may take some time to build. It starts with accountability.

I'll help any way I can.

Hi Jritzmann,

Okay, how about we start rolling up our sleeves and naming names?

Personally, given the interest of ATS members in UFO videos, I think the obvious place to start is by identifying the hoaxed videos which keep cropping up on ATS on a regular basis.

So, which videos appear on ATS most frequently?

Which of those videos are hoaxed?

I've got my own list of such videos, and am working on turning that list into a series of articles.

While I'm not ready to share the complete list until I finish investigating a few points, I don't think many people would have a problem with a list that starts with:

(1) The World Trade Centre UFO video, featuring Barbara Sicuranza in a helicopter, which formed part of a SciFi advertising campaign.

(2) The Siberian ice giant video, which formed part of the viral marketing campaign for Sony’s “Shadow of the Colossus”.

Who wants to guess the next few videos which are on my list, or suggest ones that should be added?

Anyone?

Also, if anyone has seen such lists already, please post relevant links or references.

All the best,

Isaac Koi


[edit on 5-9-2006 by IsaacKoi]

I think one thing to vastly help newcomers is a sort of "Hall of Shame"

An excellent idea, such as a stickied thread, with a brief paragraph about each topic, then links to some of the more substantial posts on the subjects...

i.e.

Billy Meier
George Adamski
Project Serpo
Mantell Case (though there is one in my sticky on this one)
Prophet Yahweh
Alien Autopsy Video
etc., etc.

It's funny as this thread continues, the same ol' posts continue to flock to the page.
A sticky won't do it. You almost need to create Key catagories to keep it all from getting all muddled together in one lot.

With that, there needs to be a way to prompt individuals to be accountable for any personal claims, images, vids that they put forth. If I claim to have contact with Aliens, seen/held evidence first hand, or some other extraordinary circumstance - shouldn't I be held responsable for presenting all supporting proof and evidence for making such statements? Currently I can write any outlandish claim such as I am a reptilian or alien of some sort with complete impunity.



[edit on 5-9-2006 by nullster]

It's funny as this thread continues, the same ol' posts continue to flock to the page.
A sticky won't do it. You almost need to create Key catagories to keep it all from getting all muddled together in one lot.

Good point, and what I get for not reading each page, hehe...

Originally posted by IsaacKoi
Hi Jritzmann,

Okay, how about we start rolling up our sleeves and naming names?

Ok.

Billy Meier/Michael Horn/Wendelle Stevens/Lee and Brit Elders
Adrian/Sean David Morton/Randolph Winters
Jim Dilettoso/assorted cases such as:
-Phoenix Lights (and only part of that case therein)
-Billy Meier
Steven Greer
Jaime Maussan

These are in my opinion, some of the more nefarious UFO figures. The last 2 to a lesser degree, in that Greer I believe thinks he's doing something right, but has made many unsubstanciated claims...some of them laughable. Charges 800 bucks for "training courses", which you have to sign a "participation agreement" (non disclosure) to get into. It's made clear any video you record at such "training" courses belongs to you *and* CSETI, and you cannot publicly show it without their permission. I'll tell ya what, my camera and my 800 bucks? I'll do what I please with my damned tape if it was me. I think this is why we dont see any footage of "vectored in craft" as Greer constantly claims.

Maussan, I dont think is really a con man, as much as he's a "I want to believe" type personality. I have read where he's given the Meier case support, but I believe that may be due to his association with Lee and Brit Elders. Also promoted the 1997 CG Mexico City hoax. Publicly broadcast the video...then asked for witnesses. Bassackwards.

Witnesses before broadcast? 0 After broadcast? 100

As I said, a very nice man, but not exactly swift and with a penchant to believe just about anything given the history.

If ya like I can write up on any others I listed. Some are a no-brainer.

Originally posted by jritzmann
These are in my opinion, some of the more nefarious UFO figures.

But these are all, I think, covered by ufowatchdog.com.

I had in mind identifying things which are frequently discussed on ATS that _aren't_ covered in depth on that website - hence my comments about ufo videos which keep reappearing on ATS.

I'm not discouraging your efforts (and would be more than happy to contribute to them), but am trying to clarify what you have in mind so that we can make progress as efficiently and effectively as possible.

Originally posted by nightwing

The way I have quoted it, phrase one is hear-say and by the tentative definition in previous post, is worthless. That would be the STRICT interpretation. But lets say the source is somehow,
legitimately anonomous, if there is such a thing. Does it contain observations of facts, documents, etc. YES. It names names, places, people and a date, all of which can be researched. This
statement, even as hear say can meet the criteria for credible testimony. To become evidence would require some form of legitimate records ( and I would immediately suggest looking in the Eisenhower Presidential Library first) for validation.

I think in Ufology often we are dealing with History and often little known History.

There are established principles that can be applied to complex topics like History and that is the Scholarly Method. Where Primary Sources carry much more weight than Secondary Sources and Tertiary Sources carry almost no weight on their own.

Scholarly method

Originally posted by IsaacKoi
Don't forget the TinWiki part of ATS...

For anyone that doesn't know about the Tinwiki, see:
tinwiki.org...:Aliens_and_UFOs

A very good choice for our Compendium! A Natural.

Originally posted by IsaacKoi
Having seen the amount of determination, initiative and research put into the current competition on ATS (Alltheufoanswers), perhaps ATS should have a competition for the best new entry on Tinwiki as a means of generating interest in the Tinwiki?

Even if a competition did not involve a prize which costs real money (e.g. if the prize were just the award of some points) it would at least raise the profile of the Tinwiki and make members think about creating an entry.

I really like this idea and am going to get with my fellow admins to see what we can come up with. Rest assured that if we do a competition there WILL BE valuable prizes. Your humble "ATS Biz Dude" recently arranged a new "Strategic Partnership" whose products would be a natural for this competition.

Originally posted by IsaacKoi
I think the competitive instinct of members of ATS would mean that a competition generated quite a few good entries on Tinwiki.

I agree completely. The TinWiki's core is collaboration and our Members have shown in our "ATS Games" they are very collaborative, intelligent people I don't see how this combination can miss.

For those worried about "crass edits" in the Wiki:
One of the benefits of being one of the owners of the site is the ability to LOCK an article down and or limit who can alter it. THIS would definately be one of those articles with very limited access. I see this as a resource work NOT a "typical" Wiki exercise. William One Sac, our E.I.C. and"Wiki Lord" is very sensative to the quality of the Wiki and he's one of my best friends in RL, this a golden opportunity for those who truly want to create something excellent. :up



I will update this thread with what we come up with.

Springer...

[edit on 9-5-2006 by Springer]

Originally posted by nullster
It's funny as this thread continues, the same ol' posts continue to flock to the page.
A sticky won't do it. You almost need to create Key catagories to keep it all from getting all muddled together in one lot.

I fear you may misunderstand what's happening here. We haven't started yet this is going to take time, lots of time, and lots of effort and the "same ole posts" will definitely continue to "flock to the page" until we are finished, and probably quite a while after that. The goal here is create a resource we can cheerfully and very politely point the Members to who have not realized their "discovery" of the "Phoenix Lights" is not new to ATS...

Originally posted by nullster
Currently I can write any outlandish claim such as I am a reptilian or alien of some sort with complete impunity.

Not in this forum you can't, at least not if staff is notified of it or sees it. Those claims NEVER last long and the minute staff discovers them they are on "put up or shut up" status with generally 24 hours to produce the goods or "fess up".

Failure to either results in the thread being trashed or locked and the Member being banned or "severely talked to".

Springer...

Originally posted by IsaacKoi

Originally posted by jritzmann
These are in my opinion, some of the more nefarious UFO figures.

But these are all, I think, covered by ufowatchdog.com.

I had in mind identifying things which are frequently discussed on ATS that _aren't_ covered in depth on that website - hence my comments about ufo videos which keep reappearing on ATS.

I'm not discouraging your efforts (and would be more than happy to contribute to them), but am trying to clarify what you have in mind so that we can make progress as efficiently and effectively as possible.

I see what you mean, nonetheless we have to list them though. Royce is one of the very few people in UFOlogy I trust, and his site is to me inspirational.

Videos that get brought up on here alot...OMG the NASA stuff has to be the number one. And it's not just the NASA stuff, but the inability of most people to decern what it is the video is showing. Therefore not their fault that they misinterpret the data. Some I do believe dont care to know anything about video, or data transfer, nor compression. They see what they see and thats it.

I think a minor database of stock CG effects available in many packages would definitely help people to identify the CG low end stuff. I've seen light effects used on hoaxes presented here that arent much off the standard setting. A good explaination of camera tracking as well, as most times it's the giveaway in CG hand held hoaxes.

I'd be glad to do a CG hoax and show it, and then do some grabs to show how it was done. We'd water mark it throughout the film so it couldnt be taken from here and claimed real.

I think this is not only a project to identify fakers, but to try as best we're able to equip people with the tools to better identify issues with film or photos.

An opportunity to create a new paradigm! Nay... Perhaps, even better ... A new standard in investigative techniques.

I don't know if I could be of any service. I am old, opinionated, crusty, and told off Springer in an email once, though I doubt it made a dent in the overwhelming amount of mail he probably receives. However, if I can, in fact, help out, I would love to do so.

Yell, if you need me. I may be all the above, but I also love to research, don't mind asking hard questions, and love to hold claimants to a higher standard of truth than is generally alloted by the teeming masses.

Dan

Originally posted by jritzmann


But the reall issue here is accountability...again I come to this point. This would solve many issues, as it pertains to information and who presents it.

Ok I get your point and in few things I totally agree. But... Accountability is an issue coz we're so obsessed with the messengers. Name me one who has not been bashed and ridiculed and "found" with lack of credibility. All those names mentioned in the posts here, all of them have a Damocle sword on their heads. All the guys who came foreward with information "out" of the normal ufo sighting or lights in the sky, have been ripped alive by the so called truthseekers and debunkers. And when I say all the guys I mean all of them.
Let do some reviewing:

Paul Bennewitz --- ridiculed, bashed, ignored till he went nuts. How many people today think he was real and his information genuine?

Bill Cooper (I'm not expressing my opinion) ---- ridiculed, bashed, ingored and killed. Tell me how many people only here in ATS don't wanna even read his name and the thread where he has been mentioned goes down the drain...

Phil Schnedier ----- all of above. How many people takes seriously what he has to say. Tell me how many of them try to read between lines and what he had to say? Tell me how many of all of us only here in ATS think that his death was related with his claimes...

Billy Mayer --- ten thousand versions of his story. Left and right, fights and crap and still nothing is for sure

Bob Lazar ---- Must have iron nerves to handle all what has being said about him.

Dan Burisch --- The same as the above

Steven Greer ---- Still alive but attacked "brutally" recently. So in other words him to is a liar and a froad.


Then before him was Riconosciuto, Casolaro, Boreland (this last two are dead, killed)... and the list goes on forever.

Now you're telling me that the ufo community should stop talking about this and that. This guys or this gal... I can bring you here a list a mile long where all the names can be considered froad, liar and hoax... and what is left? Not even one name. Not even one person who can be taken in consideration and as a point of reference. So were are we at? NOWHERE !!!

But I don't think this is the real picture. I don't think the ufo phenomena is like some are trying to make it appear (despite my desire to be true or my opinion). And that's the sadest part of this situation. We're confused, we don't know who to believe and our paranoia is destroying everything. Even the most "genuine" stories.
Why is happening? Don't know or maybe I have an idea but still not clear enough to articulate it. If is the government's hand in confusing and throwing us totally off then we should admit guys that they have done a great and excellent job. If is our own disbelieve in UFO even though we think we want it to be true but when it comes to the heavy facts like underground bases, aliens living there for centuries, genetic experiments, government interaction with greys or other species, contacties, etc, etc, etc, we step back and say NAHHHHHHH this is to freaking much and we are the first to yell HOAX HOAX HOAX and after that everything goes in ruins like a sand casttle. And the best example is Phil Schenider. (just an example) Some people here went that far to claim that he must have orchestrated his own death to become popular. How sick is that?
Why do I have to go to this extreme or to think that his suicide cannot be related with his lectures but to his paranoia and suicidal tendencie or ....
13 attempts in his life in less then 9 months and people still say he just killed him self to become famous or just because he liked the suicide

Anyway I think you get what I mean. No need to wright pages of pages with what had happend in UFOLOGY.

Originally posted by jritzmann
I'd be glad to do a CG hoax and show it, and then do some grabs to show how it was done. We'd water mark it throughout the film so it couldnt be taken from here and claimed real.

I think this is not only a project to identify fakers, but to try as best we're able to equip people with the tools to better identify issues with film or photos.

Hi Jritzmann,

I think this is one of the best ideas to emerge in this thread.

I've seen your interesting and relatively detailed comments in various threads on CGI (e.g. about the Bulgarian video, and others) and would _really_ like to see you produce (or at least suggest an outline for) a summary of the fundamental tools for generating, and spotting the use of, CGI hoaxes.

The material along these lines on the Internet is just _so_ superficial you'd think no one was really interested in UFO videos...

All the best,

Isaac

Originally posted by sigung86
I don't know if I could be of any service. I am old, opinionated, crusty, and told off Springer in an email once, though I doubt it made a dent in the overwhelming amount of mail he probably receives.
Dan

You did? Well I probably deserved it.

We are looking for ANYONE who is willing to participate at the highest levels of intellectual honesty, civility and ethics.

If nothing else, the discussion threads that lead up to an entry in the TinWiki Compendium(s) should be among the first ever TOTALLY polite, logic based, ZERO preconceived bias/agenda conversations about these subjects.

EVERY SINGLE really exhaustive "debate" or discussion that involves "both sides" I have read denegrates into a worthless bunch of emotional bollocks. This is worth doing of all we ever get out of it is the discussion threads.

I certainly hope we will be able to reach consensus on several, if not all, the cases we decide to tackle though.

More later...

Springer...

[edit on 9-6-2006 by Springer]

So Springer, we talking about a whole new section of the UFO board? Or just stickies of the month type thing?

Like I said dude, whatever help ya need lemme know. I'm up & in.

"I think this is not only a project to identify fakers, but to try as best we're able to equip people with the tools to better identify issues with film or photos. " == jritzmann

I agree that is necessary, but why limit ourselves to ONLY film or photos ? Take a look at all the threads in here "about my personal UFO experiance", for example.
The ONLY thing these have in common is descriptive evidence that NOBODY has a clue how to be a "trained observer". If you do "observe" something,
it is not hard to put FACTUAL MEASUREMENTS into your observations. I am from the old school. If you cant measure it, then it aint real.

"....should be among the first ever TOTALLY polite, logic based, ZERO preconceived bias/agenda conversations..." == Springer

I could use an example. I havent seen one yet.

"...at the highest levels of intellectual honesty, civility and ethics." == Springer

Did you intend to eliminate all of us there ?

"So Springer, we talking about a whole new section of the UFO board? " == jritzmann

Or maybe content for "All the UFO Answers". Certainly will need some stringent rules to compensate for human flaws.

Originally posted by nightwing
"I think this is not only a project to identify fakers, but to try as best we're able to equip people with the tools to better identify issues with film or photos. " == jritzmann

I agree that is necessary, but why limit ourselves to ONLY film or photos ?

Hi nightwing,

Personally, I wouldn't suggest that we _limit_ ourselves to issues relating to film or photos, but I do think it is worth _starting_ by focusing on those issues.

Have a look at how many of the photos on ATS start by posting links to videos or photos. Quite a lot.

The amount of material already on the Internet discussing tools for identifying issues with videos or photos is extremely low _relative_ to the number of posts about individual videos or photos.

Also, it is possible to identifying particular individual videos and photos that keep reappearing on ATS (and certain other forums).

All the best,

Isaac