Believers gather for 24th UFO Congress

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

I have been saying the very same thing here for years, I suggest you do a search and look for yourself seeming as I am this evil debunker that will lead you astray, and keep you from meeting aliens.

What you personally define you should keep to yourself. If you say "UFOlogy" to me, I'll refer to the dictionary for the meaning as the tie breaker.

you lose.

I do feel you rather tenuous grasp on the english language might be the problem here. <SNIP>

See above. Its having a refusal to take your defimnition over actual english dictionary definition.

Professor Erling Strand would be a good start for you.

LOL, you have not ever seen a MUFON UFO chasing session have you?? It is hilarious. They shine torches at the sky, and imagine dark UFO's that only the torch bearer can see!! Yeah, real professional Alien Chasing there. That is your idea of serious research is it? LOL!! Maybe you could also consult Thor Templar Lord Commander of the Earth Protectorate. Yes, he is a real person that hunts down aliens for us, and keeps us safe. Just ask him.

LOL, tireless MUFON workers, scouring the Interwebz for any third hand story of a light in the sky!!

UFOLogy is dead, UAP is an interesting study that is beyond the childish pop culture monster aliens of the 60's horror movies. Should you ever catch up, I am sure you would agree.

UAP deserves better than UFOlogy.

What you claim to often "know", never eventuates as fact to date.

In the meantime, UFO threads are amongst the most voluminous here at U-M.

UFOlogy is *far* from dead.

[S2F]

UFOlogy is *far* from dead.

The horse they are beating has long since expired. Ufology really needs to distance itself from the ETH and take a more objective approach. It's the only way they will ever be taken seriously yet they simply can't or won't. I'm leaning toward won't as atmospheric phenomena won't draw nearly the crowd nor have much juicy material for book deals. There is too much incentive to sensationalize stories and too many people who eat it up for UFOlogy to ever turn legit.

[Derek Willis]

The horse they are beating has long since expired. Ufology really needs to distance itself from the ETH and take a more objective approach. It's the only way they will ever be taken seriously yet they simply can't or won't. I'm leaning toward won't as atmospheric phenomena won't draw nearly the crowd nor have much juicy material for book deals. There is too much incentive to sensationalize stories and too many people who eat it up for UFOlogy to ever turn legit.

It seems to me that in the almost 70 years since the Kenneth Arnold sightings, UFOlogy - in terms of ETs being here in spacecraft - has evolved into a form of faith. If that is the case, then like all faiths it is the belief and not the evidence that matters to the people involved.

[DONTEATUS]

Well first we need to stop all the religions on this Planet, Then start having Faith in Science and exploration of the universe. Maybe then we can Move on to better things !

[badeskov]

<snip>

In the meantime, UFO threads are amongst the most voluminous here at U-M.

Mostly because of the voluminous amount of garbage being posted in this section of UM and that regular posters are rather adverse to that and will counter it. And it is garbage whether you like it or not.

UFOlogy is *far* from dead.

Oh, it's dead alright, UFOlogy just hasn't realized it yet. And that is very sad.

Cheers,

Badeskov

[psyche101]

What you personally define you should keep to yourself. If you say "UFOlogy" to me, I'll refer to the dictionary for the meaning as the tie breaker.

you lose.

What I said was:

Real people looking for alien contact are not called UFOlogists Earl, that's the playtime name for hobbyists who make crap up. Astronomers, astrobiologist's, meteorologists and physicists are the real UFOlogists.

Dictionary Definition:

Ufology is the study of reports, visual records, physical evidence, and other phenomena related to unidentified flying objects (UFO). UFOs have been subject to various investigations over the years by governments, independent groups, and scientists.

Please show where that is at fault. One studies the phenomena, one runs around spreading rumours about the phenomena, MUFON belongs to the latter. It's a hobby outfit, not capable of much more than speculating upon wild claims. One makes up silly stories about aliens based on anecdotes, the other has projects like Hessdalen directly observing UAP.

You looked up Thor, self claimed commander of the earth protectorate yet? I suppose you consider him a UFOlogist too? Reminds me of you a lot he does.

See above. Its having a refusal to take your defimnition over actual english dictionary definition.

It's simply a more accurate definition. How you see the sham side of UFOlogy as valid is bewildering.

In the meantime, UFO threads are amongst the most voluminous here at U-M.

And that means we are seeing more UFO's? I think not, half the threads pertain to old stories from the 50's and 60's.

UFOlogy is *far* from dead.

In your eyes being so ignorant of the subject perhaps, but you failed to offer examples that compare to the claims of the 50's and 60's in modern times. That shows you have nothing to back your loose claim.

Edited February 27, 2015 by psyche101

[psyche101]

Well first we need to stop all the religions on this Planet, Then start having Faith in Science and exploration of the universe. Maybe then we can Move on to better things !

UFO religions too, a clean slate is what we need.

[spacelizard667]

I think there is some real problem when UFO speakers and scientists gather together to spin off their own theories about UFOs. Each speaker there eagerly tends to hone the listening crowd toward their own narrow way of thinking and, might ambiguously reject anybody else's contrasting UFO ideologies or theories, simply because that idea was not their own.

[badeskov]

I think there is some real problem when UFO speakers and scientists gather together to spin off their own theories about UFOs. Each speaker there eagerly tends to hone the listening crowd toward their own narrow way of thinking and, might ambiguously reject anybody else's contrasting UFO ideologies or theories, simply because that idea was not their own.

Indeed. However, the means used to do so are vastly different. While the typical UFO speaker uses obfuscation, misrepresentations, the deliberate use of outdated information and so on, the scientists will use facts. Interesting how that works, eh?

Cheers,

Badeskov

[spacelizard667]

Indeed. However, the means used to do so are vastly different. While the typical UFO speaker uses obfuscation, misrepresentations, the deliberate use of outdated information and so on, the scientists will use facts. Interesting how that works, eh?

Cheers,

Badeskov

If you are so certain that a scientific monologue depends only on facts, and if any of these in particular are memorable, feel free to share them. If there were any of some real interest this escapes me. Scientific banter is monotonous dialog which often leaves me thinking this jerk really doesn't know what he's talking about. It is only a matter of time until his audience will discover that no matter how long they have listened to this scientific con artist they still don't really know what the devil he's talking about. It only leads on and on to nowhere.

[psyche101]

If you are so certain that a scientific monologue depends only on facts, and if any of these in particular are memorable, feel free to share them. If there were any of some real interest this escapes me. Scientific banter is monotonous dialog which often leaves me thinking this jerk really doesn't know what he's talking about. It is only a matter of time until his audience will discover that no matter how long they have listened to this scientific con artist they still don't really know what the devil he's talking about. It only leads on and on to nowhere.

Have you tried reading books?

Might help with your conundrum there.

[Derek Willis]

Well first we need to stop all the religions on this Planet, Then start having Faith in Science and exploration of the universe. Maybe then we can Move on to better things !

The vast majority of humans seem to like faiths, by which I mean religions. But then again, pretty much everything is based on faith. For example, I believe there are rovers trundling around on Mars because I have faith that NASA is being truthful. But I have no direct evidence of that.