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 dplum517
reply to post by karl 12
I notice your thread hasn't gotten that much attention.... you know why?
You're probably telling people something they don't want to hear...especially on the debunker side of things.
A few members who frequent this forum could stand to take this advice.... *cough cough* ..Drucsilla
Originally posted by Screwed
ATS has its share of terminal debunkers / psuedo sceptics to be sure.
As you pointed out, it just doesn't sit very well with their pre-packaged beliefs.
I liken it to trying to tell someone their spouse is cheating on them with their best friend.
If you've ever tried to do that then you know what I'm talking about.
It doesn't turn out at ALL how you'd think it would.
I live in a world and with a mindset where ALL truth is welcome.
No matter HOW disturbing it may be.
Not everyone has this mentality.
Alot of people THINK they have this mentality only to realise they don't later down the road.
Still others live their entire lives thinking they are open to ALL truth when nothing could be further from the truth.
I have learned to have a certian amount of compassion for these people.
The same kind of compassion YOU would have if you tried telling someone dear to you that their spouse is cheating on them with their best friend. They are going to cuss you out, "how dare you" "How could you" "why are you lying to me" "you are ruining my life". They will do anything and EVERYTHING they can to avoid coming to terms with reality for as long as they can because once they DO come to terms with it.... well....it will totally uproot all of their deeply held firmly planted beliefs and forever change the way they view the world.
So, you have compassion for them and understand how difficult it must be for them to come to terms with something so life changing. Yes, YOU were able to do it with style and grace but, it was still uncomfortable when you came to terms with this knowledge. Some of us react differently than others when faced with life altering information.
These people are in a very very deep form of denial and you kow what?
Deep down inside, WAAAY deep down inside.....They KNOW it!
They KNOW the truth. They will come to terms with it in their own time.
Until then, we try not to violate their free will to NOT know.
They deserve that much don't they?
Do you want to be the one who has to tell a child that mommy and daddy died in a car crash?
Would you want to interupt them playing in the sand box to tell them that?
Or would you give 'em just a few more minuites in the ol' sand box and let them have just a few more minutes
of their innocence because once you tell them, they will NEVER get it back.
Let them bury their heads in the sand for just a few more minutes. It won't be long now, and ALL will be known.
edit: thanks for bringing up a well needed discussion.
edit on 1-8-2012 by Screwed because: (no reason given)
1. Either stay away completely or do your homework first. This is a very complex subject, and "doing your homework" will not be quick, easy or painless.
2. Do not imagine that training in physics provides you with any relevant credentials that enable you to pontificate on the problem. Expertise in forensic science would be another matter.
3. Read the Condon report from cover to cover preferably from back to front so that you can better judge the extent to which Condon's conclusions and recommendations follow from the work of his staff. (E.U. Condon, D.S. Gillmor, Scientific Study of UFOs, Bantam Books, 1969)
4. Learn something about the history of the subject. An excellent summary of the early days of the controversy can be found in The UFO Controversy in America by D.M. Jacobs (Indiana University Press, 1975).
5. You might also wish to learn what a nongovernmental scientific review panel had to say about the subject by perusing my own book, The UFO Enigma: A New Review of the Physical Evidence (Warner Books, 1999).
6. Finally, bear in mind that although most scientists treat this subject as a joke, the public does not, and we would do well to treat their concerns with respect.
2. Do not imagine that training in physics provides you with any relevant credentials that enable you to pontificate on the problem. Expertise in forensic science would be another matter.
The same advice could be said here in multiple forums looking into other things which are total BS. Like dragons, ghosts, unicorns, bigfoot, the Loch Ness monster...
Sometimes faith in science can lead brilliant men to believe things that are not true, because they haven't seen everything that science - or the universe - has to show them. Lord William Thomson Kelvin
Originally posted by TDawgRex
reply to post by karl 12
UFO's, and other strange stuff originally brought me here to ATS. Even though I rarely stray when replying from the forums that I am familier with.
So many links to look at concerning UFO's and other things...is that considered research, or just a curious mind?
I believe that we are not alone, but am always looking for proof.edit on 29-11-2012 by TDawgRex because: (no reason given)
Of possible critical significance is the emergence in 2009 of documented evidence that confirms the dubious nature of the 1969 Condon report that has so sidetracked the interest of mainstream science in UFOs. Documents found in the papers of the late Roy Craig, confirm that the report chairman Dr. Edward Condon had drafted his negative conclusions about the UFO subject “without benefit of prior reading of the other sections of the report which were by (then) near completion.” The Craig papers also reveal that despite publicly reporting over 30 % “unknowns” in the final report (and astonishingly reporting that there was nothing of scientific worth to the UFO subject) the reality was that more than 50% were “unknown.” A confidential 3 page memo to Condon dated 5 September 1968 from Joseph Rush, a National Centre for Atmospheric Research physicist and Condon UFO project investigator revealed that despite growing more sceptical in the Condon study environment, the irony was so many of their investigations had ended up as unexplained cases. Rush wrote, “This may seem an anomalous conclusion, since more of the C-cases (Colorado University cases) are unexplained than explained.”
link
Originally posted by gguyx
Especially the advice to read up on the history and the deep thinking from such folks as Vallee, Sturrock, Haines, Sanderson, Hynek, Hill, Hall, Hastings, Feindt, Druffel, Chalker, Schroeder et al....and of course all the early studies, Sign, Grudge, Blue Book, Condon, McDonald's testimony before Congress--all this material is mandatory for the 'Ufology 101' course.
Q. What can a single individual do?
A. Decide to be an honest seeker-of-the-truth rather than an emotionally driven questor for concepts which "feel profoundly meaningful" to one's personal hopes and desires.
B. Read the few scholarly books available which present the history & most incisive, rational thinking in the field; and keep up with the most scholarly journal literature.
C. Find, if possible, one of the few scholars, & learn & help & make a personal effort to actually contribute something rather than just talk.
D. Don't expect an abduction under each bed, nor a true UFO hiding in every black helicopter.
E. If something serious, like CUFOS or BAE, still exists, make a commitment to joining its circle actively.
F. Try to resist the temptation that you have found the final answer, & that no one else makes any sense.
Q. Advice for newcomers?
This isn't easy. Aristotle told Alexander the Great that "there was no Royal [easy] road to Mathematics". The same is true for UFOs. There are a few essential books:
Jacobs, The UFO Controversy in America;
Ruppelt, The Report on Unidentified Flying Objects;
Hynek, The UFO Experience;
NICAP, The UFO Evidence.
Others recommended:
Keyhoe's 1st 2 books;
Vallee's 1st 2 books;
Hall's Uninvited Guests;
Michel's 2 Books;
Clarke's Encyclopedia;
Greenwood & Fawcett's Clear Intent;
the 2 volumes of CUFOS scientific symposia;
a collection of the papers of James McDonald;
Bullard's large papers on CE4's etc.;
The Journal of UFO Studies;
Gotlib's BAE;
Paul McCarthy's thesis on James McDonald;
Alan Hendry's UFO Handbook;
Symposium on Unidentified Flying Objects by 1968 House of Representatives;
Rodeghier's catalog of E-M effects;
Phillips' catalog of landing traces
CUFON Interview with Michael Swords
Originally posted by Imtor
The thoughts presented by this man described in the OP is what I am trying to say and what in my sig below is about.
"I propose that true skepticism is called for today: neither the gullible acceptance of true belief nor the closed-minded rejection of the scoffer masquerading as the skeptic. One should be skeptical of both the believers and the scoffers. The negative claims of pseudo-skeptics who offer facile explanations must themselves be subject to criticism. If a competent witness reports having seen something tens of degrees of arc in size (as happens) and the scoffer -- who of course was not there -- offers Venus or a high altitude weather balloon as an explanation, the requirement of extraordinary proof for an extraordinary claim falls on the proffered negative claim as well. That kind of approach is also pseudo-science. Moreover just being a scientist confers neither necessary expertise nor sufficient knowledge. (I wish it did, sigh.) Any scientist who has not read a few serious books and articles presenting actual UFO evidence should out of intellectual honesty refrain from making scientific pronouncements. To look at the evidence and go away unconvinced is one thing. To not look at the evidence and be convinced against it nonetheless is another. That is not science. Do your homework!"
Dr. Bernard Haisch - Director for the California Institute for Physics and Astrophysics
UFO Sceptic
Originally posted by karl 12
Hola Boonster, how the Dickens are you mate - good to see you on ATS.
Don't know if you've seen this cheeky clip but thought Dr Hynek did a good job of summing up the Condon report.
Video
Cheers.
"Hynek argued that there are at least seven points which appear to argue ill for the Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis (ETH):
1. Failure of sophisticated surveillance systems to detect incoming or outgoing UFOs.
2. The problem that the 'extraterrestrials' seem to have no difficulty with either our atmosphere or the earth's gravity.
3. The sheer statistical consideration of the numbers of aliens alleged to have visited our planet. Hynek likened to our launching of an Apollo space probe every half hour.
4. The elusive and absurd behavior of UFOs and their alleged occupants.
5. The apparent isolation of the UFO phenomenon in space and time, what Hynek calls 'Cheshire Cat Effect', after the character in 'Alice in Wonderland' who appeared sometimes as only a smile or a tail, and sometimes not at all 'The UFO appears spontaneously" said Hynek,'remains visible for a short while, and then like that remarkable cat, is gone... but where to? The UFO seems to have dual existence: physical at one moment, non-physical at the next.'
6. The 'space unworthiness' of the UFO. Things must be a little cramped aboard the average UFO, he speculated. Where is the room for supplies and equipment needed for a journey that might last years? To answer that question satisfactorily, he noted, ETH proponents call in the presence of the "Mother Ship"
7. The great astronomical distances that must be traversed between one solar system and another. 'Let us represent the actual distance that man has traveled in space, from the earth to the moon, by the thickness of one ordinary playing card. How many such cards must be placed back to back to represent the distance to Alpha Centauri, the nearest star to our solar system? The answer: Nineteen miles of cards!'
*According to Hynek in another article: "....points 1 through 6 could be argued, but point 7 represented an insurmountable barrier to the validity of the ETH.