why should you demand evidence from the op ?

Some ATSers set certain limits and rules for threads, and if the thread(OP) disqualifies, the thread takes a whole new(old) twist with great number of posts concerning this.

If you scan through topics that have been in the front page and have lacked evidence, pay attention in the replies and you'll find many posts about lack of evidence, personal insults, and counters to these. Another similar "issue" is the early-conclusion-syndrome. There are threads where ATSer says e.g.: "hoax!", without much of explanation why, and later a noted number of ATSers keeps the case inconclusive. However, I'll go back to "the demander" case.

So if you know what I'm talking about, a 3 pages-thread turns into a long 8 pages thread. This reflects the whole topic and affects the interest what a reader has. For that reason, I sometimes just have to increase my scanning speed or even skip the most of the posts except the OPs. That is shame because in the thread, there certainly could be something I would like to read.

I know that there are people like me posting similar opinions.. I hope we were heard, and these filler posts that we ourselves want to also seed to counter "the demanders", weren't needed and perhaps make these threads shorter, but more interesting.

Who would it hurt that there were threads about sightings without pictures or anything else than the story ? With proper handling, it could go in the archives with one or two pages of replies on questions about details and such. This way you wouldn't find it from the hot topics either.

Thread such as the serbian case though has a unique flavour in it and could well develop to a long thread even without the hard evidence. It is a recent sighting and definetely worth a topic. With a good number of international members, we also might learn more from international stories this way.


So a demander wants to keep a forum in quality, and clean from stories that cannot be supported with good enough evidence. I haven't learned much of what their reasoning for this is, and I would hope some replies to learn more. Below is something that I can come up.

So far I know that at least some have wished these non-evidence topics to non-exist, because they are wasting the readers time. Other motive is perhaps that they think that hoax attempts increases.

The demanders should change their way of tackling this in the first place, otherwise you find them in the hot topics again. DNFTT - "do not feed the troll", - is not far from the truth here. In most cases the only exception is that the OP is only a troll to a demander. As came clear before, try leaving the topic, and see if it gets attention. You can also try convince the mods privately or here on how the forum should work.

In my opinion a thread where even one tenth of the posts are related to things mentioned in this post is wasting the readers time more, than an OP posting a story without evidence. I mean.. you can just read the OPs first post, and often you'll learn whether he will post evidence later or not. If that info is being blurry, you can ask whether he or she is planning to post further evidence and in what time frame. If you are not getting an answer or evidence in few days, the odds for the evidence becomes slim. At this point I wish you would just leave the thread, and not let other people know what you think about people who dont post evidence.

Sorry for making this so long, but I still felt like cutting my text...






[edit on 4-8-2008 by inthemistandfog]

reply to post by inthemistandfog

---

does the word fiction ring a bell?

or someone just trolling for points for god knows what reasons?

yes, this happens, alot of people have joined here and are doing just that

why is that hard to believe

discussing here say is just that

atleast if there is more info it can be researched instead of just asking the OP question after question and esp if the OP wasnt even there

you know about as much as they do know from that paragraph they have posted


just my opinion


[edit on 4-8-2008 by MurderCityDevil]

The problem is that we have been hoaxed at ATS so many times that people are very suspicious of new members with nothing more than a story. Yes, sometimes people call hoax a little early, but isn't that their right? As long as they're not throwing personal insults that's all good.

The bottom line is that without evidence, UFOlogy is nothing more than a collection of good stories - and a collection of good stories will get us nowhere with the MSM and getting wider acceptance of our theories.

Some of the hoaxes have gone on a long time with hoaxers providing so-called evidence before they are discovered (TexasLonghorn, anyone?). As a result people are, understandably, suspicious of anyone claiming that their story is watertight without any evidence whatsoever.

Hence the introduction of the Gray Area forum.

We try to be rigourous here in general, and I don't feel that is a bad thing.

Cheers,

MGGG

reply to post by MurderCityDevil

---

It is possible to tell fictional stories as facts to get ATS points. Anyway, I don't think you can get as much ATS points from a fictional sighting stories as you would get from some abduction stories. For long we have learned to not really require evidence from those. They often work just alright. I think the sighting and whatever stories wouldn't be much different.

Anyway, I don't really care if some of the stories are made up. I guess I just take all the information and keep it kind of inconclusive. Also a users ATS points doesn't affect how I take him. Only effect I can think of is that a user with a lot of points is an active or long-time user, which doesn't really matter


[edit on 4-8-2008 by inthemistandfog]

personally i dont have an issue with people claiming a hoax, however it irritates me when the claim hoax with out providing any counter evidence, it it tends to look more like someone trying to muddy the waters.

on some issues its understandable that the OP may not have evidence, lack of evidence itself however doesnt mean the event never happened, it just makes it harder to believe that it happened. In most cases ill entertain the idea that it possibly happened or i believe that the OP believes it happened, but untill there is evidence one way or the other its a moot point.

It comes down the the individual wether they will/wont believe the story

and i think the burden of proof needs to be as much on the debunkers as it is on the OP's.

Well by that logic pretty much all fiction is actual fact, afterall it's a good story a lot of the time. How about i start a thread claming that pink unicorns ran through my back garden, trampled my fences and destroyed the greenhouse. Oh but i wouldn't be able to provide any proof, so people should just believe me right?



Having evidence helps us seperate truth from fiction, truth from hoaxes or a random insane person. That is why some of us demand proof.



From experience, every year around this time the hoaxes shoot up massively. This could easily be because a lot of kids are off school, here in the UK at least that's true.



Err no sorry a troll is someone who posts the same thing over and over simply becuase they wanta reaction or they think it's funny. Others post that they want evidence because they really do and think it's fair, they are protecting the forum from hoaxes.



Well i usually make a request for evidence and then leave it, what frustrates me the most is that some of these threads go on for 8 pages and the evidence is never provided. After the first person asks for evidence i think everyone else shoudl just wait and leave it, if they did that then we'd probably see less hoaxes because the hoaxers thrive on response.

Maybe we should start getting behind ideas such as this so that the whole HOAX issue can be resolved once and for all.

I am still astounded that ATS are allowing annoying, time-wasting and ATS-devaluing posts from instantly new members and not requiring them to complete a proper sightings template.

There are solutions, the above is but one of them. This place needs to change or we may as well start reading The Sun newspaper in the uk for all of our UFO news.

And that would be sad.

I do own a cell phone. It does not have a camera.

I do have a digital camera. It is a 3MP with a built in flash. I have tried, just as an experiment, to take a picture of the full moon. If I let the flash fire, you can't see anything unless there are some tree branches in the way.. just darkness. If I don't let the flash fire, the shutter stays open for so long that I can't hold the camera steady enough to get much more than a large moonish looking round blur. I suppose if a UFO were hovering less than 20 ft or so above me, I could get a picture, but forget getting a usable picture of "lights in the sky."

I do not own a camcorder, video recorder, or even a web cam. A lot of us "older" folks don't have to have all the latest tech gadgets to survive, you know.

I think every sighting, with or without photo/video evidence, is an addition to the body of knowledge regarding UFO activity and behavior.

I thought that the new "grey area" forum was supposed to be for personal sightings without evidence, and the UFO/Aliens forum is for sightings that do have evidence. Mods? Correct me if I'm wrong?

So if a reported sighting has no "evidence" it should be put in the grey area and, if it is in the grey area, no one should be demanding evidence. If it is in the UFOs and Aliens forum and doesn't have evidence after a reasonable period of time, then it should be moved to the grey area.

Or is that too simple to be a solution?

Shhhh! Don't let them on to what they are doing! Know why? The behavior you talk about, where they immediately scream "Hoax!", "Liar!", "But it's the demoncrats/republicons fault", etc, without any supporting evidence, links, or logical reasoning behind it, is one of the biggest indicators that there is something in the thread TPTB do not want you paying attention to. It's a dead give-away. Now, this isn't true in EVERY case, but nearly every one on here, and on other boards I frequent.

Check it out yourself, and see if what I am telling you is true. But note this: what you are looking for may not be readily apparent. It may not be the direct subject of the thread, but may show up after the thread starts going in a direction that would lead people to information that TPTB don't want people putting together.

Pay SPECIAL ATTENTION when the thread degenerates into immediate name calling or other ad-hominem attacks.

Pay attention also when somehow, the thread gets immediately attached or sidetracked to a very controversial subject (i.e., holocaust, nazis, evolution/creation, religion, angels/demons, any paranormal subject).

All of that behavior, and more, is designed to get you to skip over something that may just cause you to go "Hey! Here's '2', and over here is another '2', why... put them together, and I have '4'!"

They are purposely getting you off-topic by engaging your emotions. "They" in this instance would be paid shills, disinfo agents, and just plain out PR guys.

Once you know what to look for, it becomes fairly easy to spot.

This is true. I won’t pretend to be an expert at calling hoaxes, because I am not. And I won't pretend that I am always courteous. Sometimes I lose my cool too - we all do. We're human. I like to think that I am intelligent enough to realize when a 12 year old kid, is attempting to entertain me with promises of Alien Life, The End of the World, and Bigfoot Sightings in their back yard. I lose interest quickly in a thread, if it has no proof, and if is not well written/organized/presented.



This is true, and this is inappropriate behavior for members of ATS. Courtesy is Mandatory is it not? Don’t get me wrong, there are times when I would LOVE to tell the OP what I think about them, but when it comes down to it – my opinion is just my opinion. My opinion doesn’t really matter all that much. Posting comments like “You’re an idiot who is wasting my time” only deteriorate the quality of the thread – and members here need to realize WE are the problem.

If you don’t want to contribute to the discussion – MOVE ON. Don’t insult the OP, as much as we would like to sometimes – this accomplishes nothing. This just aggravates people and soon you have 15 pages full of back and forth insults. On the other side, some people come to ATS for the sole purpose of posting controversial topics, with the intent to rile people up. We don't need to give into that, we don't need to fuel that fire – we’re supposed to set the example of what we want from ATS. So step up and do it. Some members join with the intent to tell us a story, one without evidence. There is a place for fiction, check out the short-story forum.

The bottom line is that this is a FREE Site, ANYONE can join. These threads are GOING to pop up from time to time - unless of course we want to start paying membership fees, to regulate WHO can join and who Can't. My guess is the hoax threads would be few and far between if people had to pay to access ATS. However, ATS is free at the moment, and I think thats how Springer, Simon, and SO want to keep it....??

As I suggested on another thread started by SO, instating a minimum post requirement, before being allowed to start a thread, might cut down on hoaxes as well. As with a minimum post requirement, you are proving to be a dedicated member. That is how the chatroom (which is down right now) works. 200+ posts, and you can access the chat room. Not before.



The reason it gets put into the HOT TOPICS, is because people flag the posts. The thread gets read, and for some reason unbeknownst to me, it ends up with tones of flags, and then on the front page. Again, we are the problem. WE are the ones flagging.

The problem without proof is that many of us, have other things to do, than waste our time on a thread with no credibility. You don't walk into a court-room without evidence and expect to win. You can’t start a thread with no evidence and EXPECT people to believe you. WHY should we believe the OP, when they have offered us nothing except statements like: “My friend’s brother saw this and seriously he swears on his life that…..” These statements are considered Hearsay in a court of law – and are not taken into account as evidence.

The internet is much worse than a court room, because on the internet, you can be anyone you want to be. You can say anything you want to say. And no one can question you, because no body knows who you really are. As much as I would love to believe all the members of ATS are telling the truth about themselves, the fact remains that this is the internet, and we just don't know each other as well as we think.



High Quality Posts = high quality discussions. High quality discussions = high quality results. ATS takes pride in their topics. We are not a low-grade forum, and it’s really insulting when someone comes in and tries to make it that. However, on the flip of the coin, ATS members who get “heated” and upset with these posts, DO in fact make it worse with their “name-calling” and insults to the OP.

When it comes down to the T, we all just need to pick our posts wisely. If you have something to contribute, say it. If you don’t, move on. If you suspect it’s a hoax thread, and can’t think of a polite way to ask for evidence without the use of name calling, do yourself a favor and give the Mods a heads up. They’re pretty good with that stuff, and you won’t say something you might later regret, in the form of a points penalty, or a temp. ban.

EVERYONE is responsible for the quality of threads on ATS, and we are all accountable for it.

Just some thoughts…

- Carrot


[edit on 8/5/2008 by CA_Orot]

My opinion is that most posts here lack credibility. Some of the posts are genuine though; even when there is lacking evidence. But I don't mind reading a few lines of a BS post. Like the GFL sending a ship to hang out in Alabama.... of all places. ..... but so what.... I read the OP and then rag on 'em like everyone else does. It's fun.... you know you like it just like everyone else does.

The thing that ticks me off the most are the people who label a post, that may be credible, as a hoax immediately; even when there is some evidence (like a blurry image or even more so if it is a clear image). There are some posts where I thought to my self, "self... I think this poster may be telling the truth".... but then the skeptics just jump in and tear the thread to hell.....

Additionally some people make the most asinine skeptical remarks.... in one post I read yesterday some guy said, without any doubt, that the poster misidentified MARS for the MOON.... that's impossible! The size difference alone makes that the most ridiculous skeptical remark I think I've ever read.... no strike that.... I've seen worse here.

Well, I say just let the people post what they will - with supporting evidence or not because the skeptics don't care if the poster has evidence before they cry HOAX or tear a thread up to hell. It's a two way street..... it has to work both ways and in the current state of things it doesn't. The terms of decorum should also be done away with as it has no useful purpose; and what I mean by that is if I can't tell someone that their full of (insert explitive here) but they can call someone a "hoaxer" or accuse them of having more than one account or "politely" imply that they have no credibility then what's the point? Politely degrading someone just because they are recounting some paranormal event in their life and don't have any "evidence or proof" to satiate an arbitary "need" of the skeptic is just plain old fashioned double standard. A person who cries HOAX should be impelled by ATS rules to stay quiet if they cannot offer PROOF that the poster is HOAXing or suffer the same consequences as if they had cussed them out.

Oh well; whatever All of these "issues" could easily be solved if all of us had the ability to "Ignore" an unlimited number of people. Then no one would be forced to read the posts that "get under their skin". Why limit the Ignore list.... open it up. There's at least 50 people I NEED to ignore because everytime I see one of their posts it makes me mad.

-Euclid


[edit on 5-8-2008 by euclid]

if the general rule is going to be to discount a thread from the very beginning for lack of evidence - then we first have to establish what constitutes evidence

I see a problem here

and, does anyone who chimes in with a photo automatically become more credible than someone with just an experience but no photo?

if I have brunch with members of some intergalactic fact finding mission – but forget to ask the waiter to take our photo – do you really just not want to be bothered with the info?

or is it just that it's more fun with visuals?

what are we after anyway?

it sometimes takes days/weeks/months for everyone to analyze and debate a photo - then agree or disagree on whether it's actual evidence - or a hoax - or it's inconclusive

and most of it is at the very least inconclusive

as if...

as if there are enough qualified people here to dismiss things at a mere glance

there are people who are professionals in the field of digital forensics who couldn't - or wouldn't - even try

as has been mentioned elsewhere - just saying it's a hoax - doesn't mean it's a hoax

and because you've dismissed it once doesn't mean it's not worth looking over again

not even science does that - if it's really worth analyzing

meanwhile - it seems that eyewitness accounts are no longer even interesting - let alone useful - or worth the time it takes to discuss

because everyone is so very, very busy - and can't be bothered with anything that isn't tangible - and verifiable

because we are all of course professional truth seekers here - on the clock

we're saddled with the awesome responsibility of unearthing this truth - whatever that may be - and cannot be expected to waste our time on eyewitness accounts alone - since we have only enough time to devote to actual, verifiable, indisputable, irrefutable evidence

there are hoaxers, trolls and spammers a plenty to sort through - and it's annoying

and we all do our fair share of eye-rolling – but still

the only real solution is to start a new category where you can't even open your mouth unless you've got something to show

and even then – it had better be good

reply to post by Spiramirabilis

---

We should be fully allowed to discount anything we see without proof. As far as i'm concerned there are a couple of ways of going about it.

Lets say someone provides proof without evidence.

1. We ask for evidence.

2. If no evidence can be given we at least establish their credentials. These could be professional or they might be simply a long standing membership on ATS without a history of fantastic stories.


The second option isn't proof of course, but it would mean i would personally give more credence to the story.

i liked the question of a previous poster i think it was Spiramirabilis, what does constitute evidence?

i could have a genuine video recording of an alien walking around my house, crystal clear i could show it on here and there would still be all these hoax attackers shooting me down.

if i was to post it at a time where there was school holidays going on, that would also go against me as id be viewed as some kid making mischief.

if the video was so fantastic i couldnt believe it myself so i opened it in a video editing program the file will usually be stamped then by that program and that would give more ammunition to the hoax callers.

i suspect that it doesnt really matter what evidence would be presented all claims would be shot down that doesnt conform to current government policy.

this was supposed to be a reply to ImaginaryReality1984 -

I understand what you're saying

but I have to say - proof and evidence - what is that exactly?

you understand what I'm getting at?

it could be anything -

and, if someone has an exceptional, first hand, eyewitness account - but no evidence - I think the information is still useful

credibility is in the eye of the beholder here - and a photo guarantees nothing

photos are dismissed as fast as they show up

so - if we're really interested in getting to the facts - you have to take your facts any way you get them

I don't like the idea of there being some sort of intellectual popularity contest - where one group of people gets to decide what's acceptable evidence - it could rule out a lot of valuable information

I can see that something people tend to forget is - not everyone has the same skills when it comes to describing what they see - but awkward language skills don't mean that that person didn't see what they said they saw

in the end - if we go with a documentation and verification rule - all we'll be left with is a steady parade of photos and videos that are discounted one right after the other

I understand that people take this subject seriously - I take this subject seriously

I kind of wish I took it a little less seriously

so - we all want to eliminate what we consider to be nonsense

but I think it's worth sifting through it all - because information that may have seemed ridiculous over there might seem to fit the situation over here

and people who might otherwise have spoken up won't if they don't have an 8x10 glossy to go with their story

I was pretty snotty earlier - but I'm serious about a separate category

i know we have the Gray Area - and it's great - I think it is the right place for the right info

but maybe we really do need a separate place for just the photos, nothing but photos





[edit on 8/5/2008 by Spiramirabilis]

then there needs to be some kind of credibility indicator, whom one thinks is credible another may not think so.

one ATS case there was a post recently about an ATS member who awoke to find a possible non terristrial being in his bedroom, it was an incredible story and lacked any substantiating evidence, however by looking at other posts the OP has made over the course of his ATS history he has never come across at least in my mind as someone who is given to wild flights of fancy nor making up stories to cause mischief. however there were some who were inclined to believe the opposite of this person.

its a tough ride either way ....

Reply To doesn't seem to be working

this was supposed to be a reply to Demandred

amen to that

you can't win at this - the one place you should feel comfortable sharing what you would never bring up any place else

seems to me - we all have our own scales to work with - and that we are each capable of determining for our own selves what's BS and what's acceptable

trying to create a scale that will separate the flotsam from the jetsam is counter productive - and will never really work anyway

[edit on 8/5/2008 by Spiramirabilis]

[edit on 8/5/2008 by Spiramirabilis]

IF you had such a video you would take it and make several copies and hit the networks and put the original in a vault..

If instead you post it on youtube or here its probably FAKE

reply to post by zorgon

---

lol

/me slaps Zorgon with a giant trout !

i wouldnt go tot he networks with it, they are too easily controlled by TPTB, also id want to protect my anonnimity, plus theres always the possibility of a non legal mind like mine being screwed by their lawyers claiming i handed all rights to the networks and i no longer have the right to distribute the video not like i have the financial ability to challenge them.

but true i wouldnt post it on you tube and with the current climate here on ATS id be very reluctant to post it here either

I second The OP's idea! But we can do better...

Perhaps a "RedAlert" function could be made available that allows members issue a Preliminary report/alert to ATS about possible terrorist and criminal activity aswell as possible hoaxes - which may constitute a potential act of Fraud


ATS would then have the responsibility of deciding their threat level/potential for criminality and which of these incidents is to be referred to Crime Stoppers or Homeland Security, possibly even Immigration and Naturalization or The National Security Agency.

In this age of Global terror where our Freedoms are at stake - can we really afford to take such chances?

A person's online dishonesty and acts may denotes the possibility of them being a criminal, con-artist or a terrorist when they are offline.

We all must keep a close eye on each other - any one of us could be the bane of all of us.