Time has come for "Anti-Hoaxing" Measures

My brother saw a UFO and he will not report it to a UFO organization because he thinks their members are often off the deep end. He was embarrassed to find out that I had even mentioned his sighting on the net. (He was very angry, to be honest.)

In my opinion, the original poster's suggestion is a valiant attempt to end the religious profiteering that is a world wide phenomena, but would quash people who really see things and who don't trust the agencies to which one would report.

I've said it before and I will say it again. Sightings will never make a science.
If we want to get to the bottom of this we will need to arm civilian aircraft with probes and confront the phenomena in question.

The military did this, and it is clear that they are not interested in telling us what they found. A civilian effort will be required. And then **gasp** we will have to face the truth that is out there, whatever it turns out to be in a FINITE AMOUNT OF TIME. This directly contradicts the never ending future of not-quite-discovery that permeates and feeds today's UFOLOGY and is radically different from the pre-religious military flights of the past.

[edit on 30-5-2007 by Ectoterrestrial]

Well, I'm a relative "newbie" here, but have been interested in the UFO/Alien phenomenon for many years.

In all that time I have seen many hoaxes and even more unexplained cases.

With the seemingly increasing amount of these hoaxes, I bear one thing in mind...technology has also improved and peoples knowledge and skills of it must run relatively parallel.

Although this fuels the capability of producing a hoax, we must not forget that OUR abilities in revealing them has increased too.

The problem seems to be a lack of centralised information at our fingertips, giving us the ability to deal with it efficiently and professionaly, relieving the pressure on very busy experts and educating ourselves and newcomers in the process. Think of the fun, think of the sense of achievement.

One idea I had was the creation of a brand new forum for those who wish to do this, which acts as a database with all methods, tools and proven examples on offer, right at our fingertips in one place.

Proved hoax threads could be edited and placed there to provide the timeline and processes that were involved. It's all in here right now, but as people keep mentioning, it's difficult searching, and wading through endless posts looking for the important facts and "revalations" that have lead to the proving of the hoax.

I also believe this would define some of the purposes of what I think ATS is about. Denying Ignorance and revealing the truth. Not so much "ooh, cool vid", and "nice pics, I hope this turns out to be the real thing". New evidence could be "pounced" on by all, thus weeding out the weaklings before they got out of proportion.

With a forum like this, anyone and everyone can actively contribute, endlessly refining techniques and expanding on tools and sources.

It would also act as a deterrent to those who think we can be so easily fooled.......(nobody likes to be embarresed)...........HA!

Maybe, if not a whole forum, then some seperate posts.

Just an idea....................... any comments?

Yeah I get fed up with all the hoaxes too.

I see the continued long threads on "alleged" or "unconfirmed" hoaxes as half a dozen of one and six of the other. On the minus side the hoaxers looking through these threads can see where they are going wrong and adjust techniques accordingly.

To the plus a lot of people are learning a bit of what to look for. Although sometimes I despair that people seem to still continue their belief in a picture / video, when the consensus is "fake"

So I suppose its kind of an ongoing course in "Ufology" for white and black hats!!

It has got to the stage where I give little credence to "evidence" with no other verification or means of cross-examination. I just ask myself "Why would you take some pictures of something and not volunteer further information?" Personally I am suspicious if they don't give time, date, location and a ruddy name.

There is hardly ever any account detailing the event itself. Sounds...Was there a hum? Were the birds quiet?
Smells...Was there a smell like ionisation from a laser printer? Was there a smell of poo as you cacked your pants?

OK, I can understand that in some circumstance's people may be concerned of ridicule. But personally if that were the case I would not submit them in the first place. I feel sure that if I were to see something and had decent proof, that I would consider it a life changing experience.
I would be so up that at last here it is...we are not alone!!

As good as it is to see the taking apart of some "sightings" I do wonder that as educational as it may be...are we wasting resources debunking? I mean is it possible in the future that we miss something because we are looking elsewhere debunking?

I do feel sad sometimes though that the hoaxers are having a ruddy good laugh at these boards because some here want to believe so much that their judgement is clouded.

One thing I have picked up from this thread though:

Originally posted by Springer
I have said many, many times I don't want to "believe" anything, I want to know.

Splendid stuff. This is how I feel. I think sometimes peoples belief clouds their judgement. Knowing is the prize. Belief can be a delusion

Just caught up with the thread here. Wow, a lot of great stuff, and of course, some not so great stuff.

A few mentioned some basic "standards" of UFO reporting. Great idea!

A few stated "What would we do with our time if we didn't allow anyone and everyone to post, well, anything"

Look, I agree that our community carries the "kook" curse. Unless you've witnesses a UFO, which I have, you really don't understand why people take the topic so seriously.

I'm tired of people making a mockery of the whole subject. I mean, after everyone said the C2C drone was fake, we start a thread to "decipher" the writing on the thing !?!?! Hey, to each his own. Wouldn't that thread be better on a "TV and Movie CGI" web site?

I'm not here to start a fight, or put down anyone, or tell anyone they are wrong.

The purpose of my post was simply to get us thinking in the direction of the future. With CGI and photo editing at an almost perfect and undetectable level, unless we take a new stance and do not tolerate BS, we will continue to spiral into the hoaxers playing field, which, by the way, is limitless. I'm not pointing fingers at this site either. If you go to any UFO related sites, you will find material that is real and verifiable, along with the unreal laughable and embarrasing reports that the site management seems to not care if it posts.

What is the answer? Don't know, but the more we think about it, the more we have the courage to address it, and the less tolerable we become to subjecting ourselves to hoaxes, is all in the right direction.

It's like a child that has a temper tantrum. They only have a tantrum because they get attention from it. Remove the attention, or replace it with negative results (spanking, time out, etc) and problem solved.

I agree with you. But I think the problem isn't photos now versus photos from 10 years ago. I think it is that we rely on photos, rather than actively pursuing the things we keep taking crappy photos of.

I feel that we could set up 'standards' and other things and it might help, but the state of the science would not advance. We'll just get another 100 years of far-off photos, fuzzy action shots, and shakey handcam videos.

What I really wanna see is someone say "Ooh! A UFO!" And then launch their remote controlled plane with a camera on it straight at the thing. Now that would be new evidence!

If we continue to repeat the same data collecting techniques then we are doomed to get the same results we always have.

Now, who has got the money, time, and coverage to pursue these things? I guess thats why we are stuck?

So I am all for standards. But I do worry that by expending the energy to better filter photo data we are only putting a bandage on the fundamental problem, which is that we never get close enough to the stuff we need to see.

In a way, all the hoaxers are just teaching us an important lesson. Our fundamental recorded data isn't capable of providing enough detail to determine reality from fantasy. We gotta get closer!

[edit on 1-6-2007 by Ectoterrestrial]

Originally posted by Ectoterrestrial
I agree with you. But I think the problem isn't photos now versus photos from 10 years ago. I think it is that we rely on photos, rather than actively pursuing the things we keep taking crappy photos of.

I feel that we could set up 'standards' and other things and it might help, but the state of the science would not advance. We'll just get another 100 years of far-off photos, fuzzy action shots, and shakey handcam videos.

What I really wanna see is someone say "Ooh! A UFO!" And then launch their remote controlled plane with a camera on it straight at the thing. Now that would be new evidence!

I don't think any group discussion about pics that people post will advance Sceince. I do like the idea of R/C Planes, but in the meantime I think Science will be advanced by efforts like that of Eamonn Ansbro and Catherine Overhauser at Kingland Observatory.




"At Kingsland Observatory in northwestern Ireland, Eamonn Ansbro and Catherine Overhauser (2001) are developing instrumentation that builds on the findings of the Hessdalen and EMBLA research projects. Their remarkable surveillance system employs 11 cameras covering the whole sky hemisphere, with sufficient intelligence to recognize and track targets, and to trigger a video tracking system. They have also proposed ULF-VLF radio spectrum coverage, radar, magnetometers, and other instrumentation, as well as a 30mW, 532 nm laser "for reaction tests on the target"."

www.newfrontiersinscience.com...

I only accept saucer photos taken of me from inside their crafts.

Originally posted by lost_shaman
I think Science will be advanced by efforts like that of Eamonn Ansbro and Catherine Overhauser at Kingland Observatory.

www.newfrontiersinscience.com...

Interesting paper LS, thanks for the link!

Sounds like they’re on the right track. There’s some additional info on the SETV (setv.org) site but I couldn’t find any results?

Originally posted by scrapple
I only accept saucer photos taken of me from inside their crafts.

Who could really blame you. Unfortunately UFakery has turned into a HUGE money machine, and no one wants or cares to do anything about it. As soon as a new documentary or book comes out, we all go out and buy into it hook line and sinker. I'm as guilty as the next guy in that dept.

I'd love to find a site or an organization that is straight up no BS, hoaxer "un-friendly" and that only deals with verifiable info. Until then, this is by far the best site around. If only I had a optional "BS" filter I could turn on!!!

Originally posted by Access Denied
Interesting paper LS, thanks for the link!

Sounds like they’re on the right track. There’s some additional info on the SETV (setv.org) site but I couldn’t find any results?

Hey AD,

Project Hessdalen and the EMBLA 2000 and 2001 Optical missions have published some of their preliminary results.

In an interview in 2003 with Graham Birdsall, Ansbro likened Boyle, the location of his equipment, as being basically a 'hot spot' similar to Hessdalen and that the phenomena was basically the same two types of phenomena seen in Hessdalen. Part of that interview is online here, but you'll need to translate it from Dutch.

Here is another Paper by Ansbro that is relevent and he makes a really good case for ESA funding for SETV projects in light of the sucsesses of the various European SETV projects and their preliminary results.

SETV: opportunity for European initiative in the search for extraterrestrial intelligence

Also in 2003 at the Third International Optical SETI Conference Ansbro announced that his plans to test Dutton's Astronautical Theory (form of testing the ETH).