It makes me wonder, how many times the same conversation can be had? Then.., the outcome of that conversation will vary depending on those participating.
This leads nowhere fast.
In my short time here personally, I have seen some biased “sceptics” talk with such authority on a subject.., stating their opinion as fact. So convincingly that it made others believe them.
This is something I worry about when I don’t log onto this website for a while. The same also applies to biased “believers”.
So based on these two issues, I’ve been thinking about making some kind of wiki database, or passing the idea along to someone who has the time and ability.
Perhaps a website which simply shows the progression of UFO conversations.
Starting from the claim being made.., then its rebuttle. This is then followed by counter-arguments/claims till a result is found.
OR at the very least, provide newcomers with a nice structured discussion to review, without having to start it all over again.
So, its pretty much like a forum where people can say anything, but there is more control from everyone over rating the comments. Similar to whirlpool (I think) where the best answer is upvoted over the nonsense.
Each off-topic post will only create its own thread (so to speak). So if CK wants to come in and say it was Tolec’s ship.., as an answer to (eg. What the Phoenix lights were).., then other posters would see this as a direct response to the OP.., which is then challenged (thus making its own sub-section).
I’ll try and draw up an example of what I’m on about, and post it later.
There are always complaints about Ufology being unscientific. This may be caused by a lack of structure.
This could be a place for open “peer-reviewing” on the UFO subject.
A place where facts are checked, verified and shown.
I can be having a great discussion about UFOs.., then all it takes is someone to jump in saying “It was Tolec, or the Adromeda council you idiot.., wake up. LOL.” to ruin everything.
With this system.., BS stories can finally be eliminated.., and not brought up again. (Similar to Wikipedia’s “Citation required” system. People can post, but its not fact until proven then verified)
It would be great if the AU forum could work some changes like this into their website.., but there seems to be more focus on allowing freedom of speech, regardless of content.