Hi...i was sad to see te previous thread about this subject close, as it was getting very interesting.....NOT including the disgusting attitude of mr annonnymous of course.
I dont see wy, just because of oneperson a thread should be closed for rthe main inquiry which is important for others.....? 'why couldn't he have been warned? i saw another member gety barred for a week for less...!
please mr annonymous. check out what you can be like if you are contradicxted. it aint pretty. and you end your foul mouthed rants wit 'peace'...?

so. look. i spose you will say your bit after tis, but from then on can you chek yourself, raelly??.....Gustav did not deserve such abuse. NO one deservews such abuse, and quite frankly it's you who should have been reprimnded not tread shut down....however i've said before, i wouldn't moderate such as that myself. i would deal with it in oter ways


OK. hiving said all tat. can we now PLESEfocus on the subject....? and not how many swearwords we can aim at each other. it is SO immatyure dont you think?

duendy,
You probably should have sent this in PM.
Starting a thread out with a confrontation like this will likely steer it in the direction you are trying to avoid.
Not only that, it serves to make people talk about the confrontation (like it is doing to me right now :)) rather than the subject, which you actually said nothing about.

There is evidence for alien abductions, it's just that the bulk (perhaps all) of this evidence is of poor quality.

Duendy castigates science and scientists for failing to take claims of alien abduction seriously, or to investigate them. Let's examine that complaint for a moment.

Science has a set of rules which have been developed over centuries. If we don't follow these rules it isn't science. If Tim Henman decides to pick up a tennis ball and throw it over the net at his opponent in the Wimbledon Men's semi-final it may be entertaining, it mat even creat a new sport, but it is not tennis.

In the same way one of the requirements of science is that it be repeatable - how are you going to repeat an alien abduction - or that you can analyse the phenomenom with repeatable precision and methodology. When that is done it does seem that there are so often much simpler explanations to account for the observations: explanations that have been validated by the scientific method.

Why then would a scientist choose to investigate a topic for which there are perfectly reasonable explanations? Only if there was something compelling in the evidence. Every time someone like Duendy places less than a very high demand upon evidence quality they encourage the scientists to walk away from the problem. Those wishing a proper investigation of these phenomena need first to subject them to highly critical examination themselves - that is what will generate valid scientific interest - if there is anything left to see after such rigorous examination.

In the same way one of the requirements of science is that it be repeatable - how are you going to repeat an alien abduction - or that you can analyse the phenomenom with repeatable precision and methodology.
Do you not consider psychology science?

Some of it is, some it is very flaky. Almost as flaky as string theory.

i thought the same thing raven, the study of phycology doesnt really rely on expeciment so much as opsivation and clinical studys. You cant duplicate someone with for example bipola or multipul personality in a lab

But psychologocal problems can't be reliably and precicely reproduced.
There isn't a single objective measurment that can be made in psychology.
Similar trauma afflicted upon mulitple people will have starkly different reactions and lasting effects on them.
There isn't even such thing as identical trauma.

Granted, but we are talking about events relating to physical interactions and sightings, are we not? Doesn't that mean that we need to see some evidence? The thing is, we can aquire evidence of things.

What I'm saying is, when we talk about something like trauma, which isn't really based on repeatable, testable experiment, we can look at facts; there are symptoms of trauma which coincide with what would be considered traumatic events, correct? (I know this is oversimplification to the Nth power, but my understanding of this subject is limited)

When talking about something like alien visitation, something which is physical and visible, would it be fair to accept it without some solid evidence?

If I'm wrong, tell me.

JD (It's actually nice to start this thread fresh, at least we don't have to wade through a million flames to get to the posts we want...yet)

I agree with you JDawg.
I was just making a pedantic point about what "science" is.
That side comes out of me when I come down here into the basement. :p

I don't think it is fair to say that there certainly is no such thing as aliens visiting because there is no physical evidence, but it is also not fair to say that anyone SHOULD believe without physical evidence.
That said, i would like to jknow what is included in the "etc" in the thread title.
If psychic phenomena, for example (or possibly one or two other common subjects down here) is included, then the pedantic point stands against that.

On alien abductions, psychology, and repeatability, such experiences _can_ be induced in the lab, and those who undergo such experiences reliably report the exact same sensations as those who think they have been abducted for real.

Temporal lobe epilespy accounts for many abduction cases. Night terrors, and hypnogogic dreams some of the rest, with plain old fibs narrowing it down even further. If only people would accept the cause of their experience was mundane where it can be demonstrated to be, there would be a lot less other cases to look at, and that would be beneficial. But while people shout 'abduction' when we have an explanation, the whole thing becomes discredited.

Time for the believers to be far more stringent in what they will accept as evidence, if they ever wish to be taken seriously.

Asking two people what they experienced in their heads is by no scientific standards an objective result.

No, but you can calculate how many people you have to ask.

On alien abductions, psychology, and repeatability, such experiences _can_ be induced in the lab, and those who undergo such experiences reliably report the exact same sensations as those who think they have been abducted for real.

me::I would be interested to knowif there ha ever been any abducteeswho reorted actual abductions having had the lab-version and reporting if itis indeed the same?....any sources phlo?

Temporal lobe epilespy accounts for many abduction cases.

me::again. where is your proofs/sources, that temporal lobe eplepsy accounts for many abduction cases?

Night terrors, and hypnogogic dreams some of the rest,

me::well you personally had 'sleep pralysis' didn't you? please tell me a full account of your experience can be found? can you provide a direct link to it?......i in no waydiscount 'sleep paralysis' and'hypnogogic dreams', but do question the overused explanation of these expriences to explain away the MAJORITY of abduction accounts

with plain old fibs narrowing it down even further.

me:: am curious. which of the abduction cases can you point to that have definately been proven to be 'fibs'?

If only people would accept the cause of their experience was mundane where it can be demonstrated to be, there would be a lot less other cases to look at, and that would be beneficial. But while people shout 'abduction' when we have an explanation, the whole thing becomes discredited.

me::look phlo. take that family--the mum, gran, and two boys--who all experienced an abduction. what exactly do you want them to say to themselves? tat they have had sleep paralysis, suffered group hypnogogic dream, have all gt temporal lobe epilepsy......? what exactly?

Time for the believers to be far more stringent in what they will accept as evidence, if they ever wish to be taken seriously.
time for sceptics to be far more accpting of such as they may be not SURE about.

phlo.....may i ask you a question......?
do you believe in the scientific explanation for 'mental illness'. believe me, this question IS relevant

time for sceptics to be far more accpting of such as they may be not SURE about.

phlo.....may i ask you a question......?
do you believe in the scientific explanation for 'mental illness'. believe me, this question IS relevant

Hello, Duendy,

I'm not here to flame or curse anyone, just want to ask a question and also present a little example.

First off, the question. What do you mean "scientific explanation" of mental illness? There are many different types of mental illnesses - for example, chemical induced ( mercury and other heavy metal poisonings), physical trauma to the head, birth defects, failure of parts of the brain to develop, and many others.

Next, the example.

A child runs in yelling, "Mommy, mommy - there's a ghost in the back yard!" What is mommy to do? Just believe the child? Go look?
If she goes to look and finds nothing, or perhaps a shadow cast on the wall, is that evidence of a ghost? If repeated attempts to find something turn up nothing, is the child to be believed?

My point is that that far too many believers in abductions are pretty much like a child. They hear about things theywant to hear and believe it to be true but when the "mommies" of the world look for the evidence there is nothing there BUT what someone has said.

You are very much aware that simply saying something does not make it true. So why is it that you and others who believe in abductions are so ready to believe when someone runs in with one of these stories? It's almost a child-like faith in ghosts, goblins, and banshees. Just take the story itself and run with it. It gives all the appearances of straining at the gnat and swallowing the camel. And that's why we - the "mommies" of the world have such difficulties in taking you serious. To us, it seems you will believe almost anything as long as it's weird enough. Yet you reject reasonable answers - more of the gnat and camel approach.

Hey Deundy, I reckon you already know the answer, you know if you click on 'Members', all you simply have to do is type in 'BARON MAX, then click on 'all posts' by max, and you have 2,588 counts of evidence for alien abductions!!! :D :m:

Hello, Duendy,

I'm not here to flame or curse anyone, just want to ask a question and also present a little example.

First off, the question. What do you mean "scientific explanation" of mental illness? There are many different types of mental illnesses - for example, chemical induced ( mercury and other heavy metal poisonings), physical trauma to the head, birth defects, failure of parts of the brain to develop, and many others.

me::there is in fact no scientific proof of mental illness--ie behaviour beein g deemed by mdical scince to be an organic disease. none. te cases you sight like brain truama ARE actual organic disease and damage. I ask tis quite cleary sos as to expose the blind faith in 'science' and its 'evidence'. think it quite an appropriate illustration

Next, the example.

A child runs in yelling, "Mommy, mommy - there's a ghost in the back yard!" What is mommy to do? Just believe the child? Go look?

me::first. WHY do you suddenly presume child is lying and mama needs to expose te 'lie'? children hav troughout the world been known to be quite senstive to seeing things many adults may not see, nor believe. who are we to say tat ALL children are making it up?

If she goes to look and finds nothing, or perhaps a shadow cast on the wall, is that evidence of a ghost?

me::if you lose a purse, maybe that procedure is more fitting. but a ghost? what if it was a momentary occurence? whats te use of lookin for it?

If repeated attempts to find something turn up nothing, is the child to be believed?
me;:surely yu'd carefully question te kid. mybe it WAS just a shadow tat freaked her out, or etc. but if you openmidedly question te child witout making out they are a liar or in need o 'medication'--ten you are collating information aren't you?

My point is that that far too many believers in abductions are pretty much like a child. They hear about things theywant to hear and believe it to be true but when the "mommies" of the world look for the evidence there is nothing there BUT what someone has said.

me::no. dont get that reasoning at all. from what i have seen of it. potential abductees and ones tat have serial abductions, tey do NOT ask for it, or hear of it and want it. it happenes. and ten they are truamatized by it usually. due tto now knowing what it is. it fuks up teir entire tunnel reality or worldview.....look Light. you have seen te hostility unleashed from talking about this. let me ask you......why do you think that is? dont be too quick to answer. think bout it?

You are very much aware that simply saying something does not make it true. So why is it that you and others who believe in abductions are so ready to believe when someone runs in with one of these stories? It's almost a child-like faith in ghosts, goblins, and banshees. Just take the story itself and run with it. It gives all the appearances of straining at the gnat and swallowing the camel. And that's why we - the "mommies" of the world have such difficulties in taking you serious. To us, it seems you will believe almost anything as long as it's weird enough. Yet you reject reasonable answers - more of the gnat and camel approach.
that is you'll underestimation is all. WE...the errr opposite camp..heehee---dont see it tat way. at least i dont. i cant speak for others....how i experienc the 'sceptical approach' as i've experienced here, is tat is is FEARful. that it seeks to explain away cause of utter contempt for even the possibility.....tis is why i am trying to also bring into this about so-called mental illness. as the belief in
te speudoscince of thaat major evil scam is THE very foundation of the present paradgim!...see the irony here?

Gustav did not deserve such abuse.

lordy
i am traumatized
i am seeing a shrink
i do not know if i will ever recover
i was advised to confront my demons head on in order to gain closure
i have made a little progress....the demons have been named :mad:

please pray for me
peace and love
gustavio

that said.....

duendy

i find you refreshingly honest with a genuine quest for knowledge.
i also appears as if you have some familiarity with abduction cases

give me a few
some notable cases
we should look into the details
generalizations are not productive and resolve nothing
for instance......

Avoid examining the actual evidence. This allows you to say with impunity, "I have seen absolutely no evidence to support such ridiculous claims!" (Note that this technique has withstood the test of time, and dates back at least to the age of Galileo. By simply refusing to look through his telescope, the ecclesiastical authorities bought the Church over three centuries' worth of denial free and clear!)

Adopting a prejudiced stance against a theory or an observed phenomena without first investigating the details, then using this as justification for refusing to investigate the details.

Practice debunkery-by-association. Lump together all phenomena popularly deemed paranormal and suggest that their proponents and researchers speak with a single voice. In this way you can indiscriminately drag material across disciplinary lines or from one case to another to support your views as needed. For example, if a claim having some superficial similarity to the one at hand has been (or is popularly assumed to have been) exposed as fraudulent, cite it as if it were an appropriate example. Then put on a gloating smile, lean back in your armchair and just say "I rest my case."

you have to get into to the details

Next, the example.

A child runs in yelling, "Mommy, mommy - there's a ghost in the back yard!" What is mommy to do? Just believe the child? Go look?
If she goes to look and finds nothing, or perhaps a shadow cast on the wall, is that evidence of a ghost? If repeated attempts to find something turn up nothing, is the child to be believed?

debunkery by association
the issue is abduction not ghosts

then....


My point is that that far too many believers in abductions are pretty much like a child. They hear about things theywant to hear and believe it to be true but when the "mommies" of the world look for the evidence there is nothing there BUT what someone has said.

STUPID, CRAZY LIARS: This trick consists of simple slander. Anyone who reports anything which displeases the skeptic will be accused of incompetence, mental illness or dishonesty, or some combination of the three without a single shred of fact to support the accusations.

all the while insisting


I'm not here to flame or curse anyone, just want to ask a question and also present a little example.

lordy
i think i am relapsing ;)

Temporal lobe epilespy accounts for many abduction cases. Night terrors, and hypnogogic dreams some of the rest, with plain old fibs narrowing it down even further. If only people would accept the cause of their experience was mundane where it can be demonstrated to be, there would be a lot less other cases to look at, and that would be beneficial. But while people shout 'abduction' when we have an explanation, the whole thing becomes discredited.

Time for the believers to be far more stringent in what they will accept as evidence, if they ever wish to be taken seriously.

ok
you appear to be familiar with abduction cases
what are the...."a lot less other cases to look at"?
do you have any particular ones in mind?
thanks

do you believe in the scientific explanation for 'mental illness'.

There is no such thing as mental illness. That is just a just collection of rather different afflictions.

debunkery by association
the issue is abduction not ghosts
I clearly stated it was only a simple example of expecting people to believe what someone said - just because they claim it to be true.
then....




STUPID, CRAZY LIARS: This trick consists of simple slander. Anyone who reports anything which displeases the skeptic will be accused of incompetence, mental illness or dishonesty, or some combination of the three without a single shred of fact to support the accusations.

No trick or slander intended. Just asking for facts, evidence, proof. I've not attributed it to ANY of the qualities you listed above!!! Not a single one of them. Sorry, but you are the one without a single shred of fact to support what you just said above.

All I'm asking for is something beyond "he said..." or "she said..." since I've never met and do not know the people who've made claims of abduction, how can I possibly simply accept what they say as evidence? They could be scholars of high acclaim, or poor demented souls, or very trustworthy individuals, or town drunks, or someone you would never doubt if you knew them. I cannot possibly judge their credibility based on their story alone.

There is no such thing as mental illness. That is just a just collection of rather different afflictions.

pointless exercise in semantics
what is really noteworthy tho is the obvious contradiction
on the one hand the concept of "mental illness" is denied.
on the other, it is acknowledged

why?

I clearly stated it was only a simple example of expecting people to believe what someone said - just because they claim it to be true.
then.....

my point stands. you avoid the issue


No trick or slander intended. Just asking for facts, evidence, proof. I've not attributed it to ANY of the qualities you listed above!!! Not a single one of them. Sorry, but you are the one without a single shred of fact to support what you just said above..

it is just a matter of semantics


My point is that that far too many believers in abductions are pretty much like a child.

i know your intent. an adult that is like a child is a retard. retards are incompetent. mental illness could be a cause of the retardation


All I'm asking for is something beyond "he said..." or "she said..." since I've never met and do not know the people who've made claims of abduction, how can I possibly simply accept what they say as evidence?

nothing wrong with that. yet..............

..........we have to specify what constitutes evidence in alien abduction cases.

lets look at what skinwalker has to say...


I think the quality of evidence in science depends upon a few things: that it be potentially falsified, that it be testable, and that it be reproducible. In science, evidence that doesn't live up to that is of low quality and should always be suspect. My field is archaeology, so I encounter evidence that is questionable all the time, but it is usually presented clearly as provisional. Often, several hypotheses exist to explain a given set of data and, over time, one hypothesis will emerge as a favored one as new data is discovered.

can we do this? there is nothing wrong with ending this topic with nothing more than a few hypotheses. there is no need to indulge in any definitive conclusions if unwarranted and unsubstantiated

There is no such thing as mental illness. That is just a just collection of rather different afflictions.


The point is that alien abduction is an event singular in its cause, mental illness isn't.

Can you live with that distinction?

absolutely :)

Science has a set of rules which have been developed over centuries. If we don't follow these rules it isn't science....

In the same way one of the requirements of science is that it be repeatable - how are you going to repeat an alien abduction - or that you can analyse the phenomenom with repeatable precision and methodology. When that is done it does seem that there are so often much simpler explanations to account for the observations: explanations that have been validated by the scientific method.


i find this extremely shortsighted

In the same manner, insist on classes of evidence that are impossible to obtain. For example, declare that unidentified aerial phenomena may be considered real only if we can bring them into laboratories to strike them with hammers and analyze their physical properties. Disregard the accomplishments of the inferential sciences--astronomy, for example, which gets on just fine without bringing actual planets, stars, galaxies and black holes into its labs and striking them with hammers.

ophiolite insists on repeating a supernova. anything less than that negates the phenomena and could probably explained away.....say hallucinations

You cannot deny that there are many, demonstrable, explanations for so-called alien abductions. The models that Phlog listed are probably very comprehensive. We can say, with certainty, that sleep paralysis exists; that people intentionaly lie; that people become deluded. These are all things that many of us have encountered first hand in ourselves or others (by the way, delusion need not be a complex audio-visual hallucination - it can simply be a trick the mind plays on us when it cannot properly process information).

What we don't have any demonstration for is actual "alien abduction." There is no real, tangible evidence for the hypothesis. There are those that would say, "look at the mountain of reports," but this wouldn't be evidence it would be hypothesis for an unexplained mental condition. I use mental "condition" not in the clinical sense, but in the sense that this event is not a part of anyone elses experience but the individual in the vast majority of the cases that are reported.

Sleep paralysis has been verified in laboratory studies of patients with sleep disorders, etc., liars get exposed every day, and delusions have also been clinically proven to exist. But no verification exists with paranormal and mystical concepts such as alien abduction.

Now I realize that the believer in alien abduction is imediately offended by the association with "paranormal" and "mystical," but to the non-believer, there really is no distinction. We're talking about an alleged event that defies all normal and natural laws of science as it is currently known. I'm not above remaining provisional on the subject. Much in the same way many religions tout their doctrines and miracles as "factual," the alien abduction believers consider their "doctrine" as factual. And, interestingly enough, mainstream religion objects to association with the supernatural, paranormal, etc in the same way alien-abductionists do.

Scientific method is quite clear, if the examination of the alleged event doesn't lend itself appropriately to testing or the hypothetico-deductive process, then it is summarily discarded as a hypothesis until such time tests are devised that can be potentially falsified.

Alien-abductionists cling to the significance of anecdote (as do religions and cults around the world in "testimonials"), hypnosis (demonstrated to be highly unreliable), and alleged artifacts recovered from the bodies of alleged adbuctees (artifacts which have yet to be submitted for any impartial analyses as far as I know).

Alien abductions might be occurring, but there simply isn't legitimate evidence to believe it. You can't discredit the scientific method as a means to investigate the alleged phenomenon simply because it doesn't give the results you want. And if it *is* giving the results, I challenge anyone to demonstrate the data and the methodolgy used to obtain them.

You cannot deny that there are many, demonstrable, explanations for so-called alien abductions. The models that Phlog listed are probably very comprehensive. We can say, with certainty, that sleep paralysis exists; that people intentionaly lie; that people become deluded. These are all things that many of us have encountered first hand in ourselves or others (by the way, delusion need not be a complex audio-visual hallucination - it can simply be a trick the mind plays on us when it cannot properly process information).

i have so far, neither claimed nor denied anything. phlog's models are not being disputed because i understand that most et cases do have a mundane explanation. for instance, i have experienced sleep paralysis. i notice the symptoms are akin to those reported in typical abduction reports. yet i will not take a leap into the unknown by claiming this or that without attempting to understand the mechanisms that underly the experience.

the scientific explanation works in my particular case. it makes a lot of sense. regardless...it would be presumptous and irrational to assume that this is indeed the case across the board.

are there abductions reports that do not include phlog's models? he seems to think so. lets consider them if presented

We're talking about an alleged event that defies all normal and natural laws of science as it is currently known.

elaborate. what normal and natural laws of science? what would be abnormal and unnatural laws of science?

perhaps it would help if the players and activities that occur within this"alleged event" be fleshed out. then give me the alleged violations of natural laws.

lemme share
i fantasized about demon rather than et
i indicated that i would kick it's sorry ass if i could have moved

/cackle ;)

Therer is a conundrum in mainstream science . it is the mind/body problem and the Hard Problem. a problem--not being patronizing i am just trying to simplify what i see is complex--is something NOT understood......so in other words it's a problem about 'what is consciousness in its entireity?'....notjust what can be measured such as neurons, electrical activity, checmicals etc, but the INNEr feeling, and/or more philosophicaly put 'qualia'....such as how do i FEEl/perceive the redness of a rose, and so on

Along with this is the rather very taboo subject of the Mental Health...Industry. There again we see the limitations of the scientific model big style. how its modus operandi can lead to such an unprecedented scam!

UNTIL we begin facing that etc, we cant be utterly reliant on the scientific method to solely help us understand in a deep way what all of the abduction and parnormal phenomena, etc., is/means...

What we don't have any demonstration for is actual "alien abduction." There is no real, tangible evidence for the hypothesis. There are those that would say, "look at the mountain of reports," but this wouldn't be evidence it would be hypothesis for an unexplained mental condition. I use mental "condition" not in the clinical sense, but in the sense that this event is not a part of anyone elses experience but the individual in the vast majority of the cases that are reported.

are you just acknowledging that the initial or perhaps the only report of an alien abduction is almost always anecdotal in nature? :)

Therer is a conundrum in mainstream science . it is the mind/body problem and the Hard Problem....

those are decent points yet irrelevant to this discussion. the topic post could probably be resolved within the constraints of the scientific method so artfully presented.

philosophizing can only muddle the issue at hand

again, can you present me with a few abduction cases that you find compelling?
i must confess i have absolutely no familiarity with these kind of cases

Occasionally, people claim to be snatched from public places, with witnesses, or even in groups. This provides the potential for independent corroboration, but physical evidence is extremely rare. A few examples of stained clothing have been brought back; and some of the implants have reportedly been removed from abductees' bodies, but they usually mysteriously disappear. Skeptical Inquirer Magazine, May/June 1998 (http://www.csicop.org/si/9805/abduction.html)

so i must ask the experts here, what cases are being referenced?
is blackmore acknowledging there is physical evidence? if so, what?
thanks

There is no such thing as mental illness. That is just a just collection of rather different afflictions.

Oh, really? Then just what would you call this:

"ATLANTA - A woman accused of helping her husband kill their 8-year-old to rid her of a demon pleaded guilty to murder Tuesday.

Valerie Carey, 29, was sentenced to life in prison for the Jan. 19, 2004, stabbing and strangling of Quimani Carey at a downtown Atlanta motel.

Carey and her husband, Christopher, were found walking down busy Piedmont Avenue naked in freezing temperatures with their two other children, then 6 and 2, on their shoulders.

Police discovered Quimani on the floor of their motel room. Pages ripped from the Bible were thrown on and around her body, and her arms were broken.

Prosecutors said Christopher Carey had stabbed her with a knife until it broke, while she tried to fight back.

Valerie Carey held the girl while her husband broke her arms, and then she strangled Quimani.

Valerie Carey believed that her family would be transported to a planet inhabited by red dragons after Quimani was killed, and spread out her arms waiting to fly off, according to one of her attorneys, Susan Wardell.

Mother had a troubled history
After undergoing treatment while in prison, Valerie Carey, who has a long history of mental illness, said she now understands what happened and mourns Quimani's death, blaming it on her husband.

"He kept us isolated and trapped in a different world," she told the judge. "That was my baby. He took her from me and ruined my life."

The family kept moving into cheap motels and homeless shelters, where the children were deprived of food and bathing, Fulton prosecutor Anna Green said.

She added that Christopher Carey also beat the children, especially Quimani, who asked to go to school.

As part of a plea agreement, Valerie Carey, agreed to testify against her 31-year-old husband.

He remains jailed without bond and faces a possible death penalty unless he agrees to plead guilty."

hmm
the primary symptom appears to be delusionary thought processes that are obviously psychotic
therefore i diagnose the bitch to be suffering from schizophrenia

think of it like this

ice cream = mental illness

rocky road = depression
vanilla fudge = schizophrenia

easy enough? :D

Oh, really? Then just what would you call this:

I'll quote myself for a change then:


The point is that alien abduction is an event singular in its cause, mental illness isn't.

jdawg

did you just report my post?
you think valerie aint a bitch?

/rotfl :D

I don’t know if this constitutes “evidence” of alien abductions, but a few years ago I went to a bachelor party and got so wasted that the next morning I woke up with my pants around my ankles, my hands tied behind my back and a sticky substance on my butt-cheeks.
My asshole ached as if I had squeezed out a constipation log.

I asked my friends about it.
They told me some weird shit had happened the night before. I remember very little of it, except me screaming in painful ecstasy and a sock being pushed in my mouth.

Wadda you think…should I go to Oprah with this? :confused:

those are decent points yet irrelevant to this discussion. the topic post could probably be resolved within the constraints of the scientific method so artfully presented.

Gustav:: i like yer style.....reminds me a bit of like rapier logic.......and thanks for the compliment a post or two ago where you congratulate me on my honesty etc. ....BUT, my way of discussing hre is my way. no where have i challenged your way of trying to get throught the sceptics hard rind. i personally feel WEHAVE to approach tis problem in a multidisciplinary way, as we have to ote subjects suchas Ecology etc......so i am gonna continue wid it

philosophizing can only muddle the issue at hand

me::no, being unCONSCIOUS of the philosophical premises muddles the issue

again, can you present me with a few abduction cases that you find compelling?
i must confess i have absolutely no familiarity with these kind of cases
well a biggie tat apparently seems to have suddenly ben forgotten about, which was mentioned at the end of te closed thread all bout this, was th NYC adbduction where it WAS seen. The sceptic JDawg seemed initially imprtessed and called on others to offer some feedback aboutit. ten we got te thang between you and mr annonymous

so i would like to look at that case for now. mainly cause JDawg and others are always presuming this shit is NOT observed by others etc

well a biggie tat apparently seems to have suddenly ben forgotten about, which was mentioned at the end of te closed thread all bout this, was th NYC adbduction where it WAS seen.

Allegedly seen, but we haven't got many names to follow up. That's more allegation, not evidence duendy. If it's the story I think, some top brass official allegedly saw this from their limo, and the story was verified by the driver. There are lots of problems with this story, largely that the woman involved provides all the information, and the witnesses turn up much, much later, when the 'facts' of the case are widely published, and the 'witnesses' are probably just some teenagers pulling Bud Hopkin's chain.

Allegedly seen, but we haven't got many names to follow up. That's more allegation, not evidence duendy. If it's the story I think, some top brass official allegedly saw this from their limo, and the story was verified by the driver. There are lots of problems with this story, largely that the woman involved provides all the information, and the witnesses turn up much, much later, when the 'facts' of the case are widely published, and the 'witnesses' are probably just some teenagers pulling Bud Hopkin's chain.

Nothing satisfies you'll does it?......for example, 'you' suggest that ALL bduction cases aren't observed....not even being AWARE of this famous case........SO, i find it andpresent it, and yet it still isn't enough. before you discount single abductees.........then you discount FAMILY abductions.........then you discount OBSERVED abductions.....

let me then ask you just WHAT would you need to conivnce you someting odd's going on. seriously just give us a clue what would make you think there was something to this abduction thingy?

Duendy try to discuss the evidence and forget the attacks on sceptics and scientific method. It seems that your goal is to discredit science and sceptics therefore somehow proving that the paranormal is more likely.



Anyway here is a discussion on the same case. Still reading it myself although it does appear there are some questionable aspects to the case..

http://www.tricksterbook.com/ArticlesOnline/LindaCortileCase.htm

Don't worry duendy it's not from the evil csicop.

Duendy try to discuss the evidence and forget the attacks on sceptics and scientific method.

me:;hahaaaa. ta's rich. 'attacks'..?? the main big style attack regarding this whole debate has come from te 'scepics'.....have you checked out what closed tis treads predecessor? go check out and you will really SEE attacks...not on sceptics but on people trying to explore about this. dpnt be so htporitical and short sighted.
As for te 'scientifi method'......wonder, do you do any symbol, similar to crossin yerself when you say tose terms?. I am explorin the possibility that the criteria of te 'scientific metod' for trying to understand the pheomena we are deabting may besomewhat limited?......for as i am more and more sensing--CONSCIOUSNESS is most definatly involved, and the po old scientific metod doesn't seem to be able to fatom te 'problem' of 'what IS consciousness'. in fact its mode of operation--at least as applied by the subjective users of it--seems to HAMPER any radical developments regarding what we are discussin

It seems that your goal is to discredit science and sceptics therefore somehow proving that the paranormal is more likely.

me::'paranormal' --your use of that term
implies that you KNOW what is 'normal'...? yet, you dont know what consciousness is do you? as neither does science in its present state.......you terefore interpret m imput here as 'discrediting and 'attack' rather tan being open to a more radical form of inquiry. your prob not mine!


Anyway here is a discussion on the same case. Still reading it myself although it does appear there are some questionable aspects to the case..

http://www.tricksterbook.com/ArticlesOnline/LindaCortileCase.htm

Don't worry duendy it's not from the evil csicop.
well it is kinda like he said she said etc etc.....how do i know author aint makin it up........?...haha, wheres ze evidence??

what i would like is him etc round a table talkin sos i can watch and observe and listen....Getting things on the table so to speak

btw. scince dosn't even take tis subject SERIOUSLY. hence expriences here in 'pseudo'science...?

Gustav, I reported your post because you constantly attack people. You obviously won't stop, so I reported you. Continue this in a thread I am trying to participate in, and I'll report you again.

This thread, as did the last, will degenerate into flames because duendy refuses to see why anyone would be dismissive of UFO reports, and anytime anyone says something Gustav doesn't like, he will call them a fucking asshole or something to that effect--even when he's not participating in the thread! That's called trolling and stalking, my man.

Anyway, the point is that duendy doesn't want to discuss this, she just wants to tell us all we aren't soft enough or open-minded enough; none of us will gain anything worthwhile from this thread, so why don't we just give it up? I know I am.

Peace
JD

Gustav, I reported your post because you constantly attack people. You obviously won't stop, so I reported you. Continue this in a thread I am trying to participate in, and I'll report you again.

me::well i just hope the moderator who you snitched to has enough savvy to realize what a complete and utter hypocrite you are, and totally ignore it.....yu mate have refered to me in te past as a shit bag and gondknowswhat else, but i didn't go snitchin on you. even though your pretended use of logic and is not in te same league as Gustav who also has some WIT too. also did you find mr anonymous's attack on Gustav NOT a snitchable offense? of bleedin course not, he's on yer side isn't he?

This thread, as did the last, will degenerate into flames because duendy refuses to see why anyone would be dismissive of UFO reports, and anytime anyone says something Gustav doesn't like, he will call them a fucking asshole or something to that effect--even when he's not participating in the thread! That's called trolling and stalking, my man.

me::no its called you being a sad case who cant see whats goin down. if you cared to review the ongoing debates, you woulld see quite clearly it is the scepticcamp who have been te most abusive, patronizing' condescending' obscene, humourless, hostile, nonesensical, beligerant, obfrggin noxious.....But you seejadaaawg, we, or i, anyhowm can DIG this. i can accomadate how tis debate might be hot. case it is a kind of clash of worldviews. but you go runnin to report to sir is fukin pathetic. you contribute all te fukin time to flaming but dont even acknowledge it which is pathetic. you are pathetic......what you seek mate is some dead forum where you will just spout yourshit an noone will contradict you. what a bore

Anyway, the point is that duendy doesn't want to discuss this, she just wants to tell us all we aren't soft enough or open-minded enough; none of us will gain anything worthwhile from this thread, so why don't we just give it up? I know I am.

me::pleas dude. YOU give it up. why ...do you think tis forum/universe? revolves round what you are presenly feeling. dont you even know it will pass. take a break. go on vacation....here..here's the fukin money already. now go and let the adults continue huh??

Peace
JD
peace my arrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrssssssssse!

just like to add. it is glaringly obvious whose the first on to try and flame war this 'new' thread....whyyy old jdaaaawg

i thus urge you'll to not follow suit and go right off sebject about whose dissn who blabla, and tus get THIS fukin thread closed.
TRY and stick to te subject even if it disturbs. its not only sceps that get disturbed ya know. all explorers do!

poor lil jdawg

go see a shrink
do something
you are obviously traumatized
anything is better than the incessant whining and temper tantrums

if you do not intend to make any meaningful contribution to the thread, please fuck off

Hello to you all ,
I`m new here ,could someone direct me to the rational side?

Take the 3rd exit on the highway of pseudoscience. Make a full left turn and go on the highway of science.

BUT, my way of discussing hre is my way. no where have i challenged your way of trying to get throught the sceptics hard rind. i personally feel WEHAVE to approach tis problem in a multidisciplinary way, as we have to ote subjects suchas Ecology etc......so i am gonna continue wid it

very well
i can respect that

so i would like to look at that case for now.

excellent. nyc it is

I`m new here

troll :D

[QUOTE=Gustav]debunkery by association
the issue is abduction not ghosts

...is it abduction...or rescue

If aliens KNOW th planets going up in a big smokey explosion in the near future, perhaps they are being graceful and kind enough to offer a lifeboat, a chance to get off it before it all goes up.

Take the 3rd exit on the highway of pseudoscience. Make a full left turn and go on the highway of science.

Thank you , your apeness ,may all your bananas ripen in the sun of enlightenment. By the way ,which side of the road do you drive on? I

Take the 3rd exit on the highway of pseudoscience. Make a full left turn and go on the highway of science.

Thank you , your apeness ,may all your bananas ripen in the sun of enlightenment. By the way ,which side of the road do you drive on? I`d rather not have a head-on with the other drivers here, rather difficult types it seems. All this fuss over a simple subject like abduction by aliens, tut,tut.

The left side is the correct side to drive upon as it is god's will, and driving on the right is merely a blasphemous notion by the Directorate of the French Revolution ands spread around the world by the evil of Napoleon and the scum backing the trecherous Washington and his army of traitors.

God made it that way as he made our right hand our sword hand, so, it is necessary to mount a horse on the left side of the street facing left, as only one leg can be brought up into the stiirrup to mount the horse due to the restriction of the sword.

Well awdsci,
do you mean the science side of it, or just serious talk about aliens. talk about aliens seems to end up as a rgument rather than a disscussion, mainly because you get people that say nothing exist, but just as well you get the creative imagination type that got scared in the night or something. really i dont know, i think looking at the possiblies of alien life is worth the effort of disscussion.

[QUOTE=Gustav]debunkery by association
the issue is abduction not ghosts

...is it abduction...or rescue

If aliens KNOW th planets going up in a big smokey explosion in the near future, perhaps they are being graceful and kind enough to offer a lifeboat, a chance to get off it before it all goes up.

your hypothesis is not supported by any of the typical abduction scenarios in which humans are picked up and dropped off..

...right back here on earth

duendy,

allot of jive in this thread, don't take it personal and try to get some sleep.

maybe you were just to close to the truth which triggered the wrong thoughts.

OK, here is a start, first how did aliens get here accross the vast space. and why would they even think of such, it is actually a long way to travel. getting past this question if it can be awnsered then how come humans are not traveling space, certainly a lot of people would like to vist other planets, so why is the goverments not giveing us this how to knowledge, after all we pay them and make even there slights dreams possible don't we, so why hide it from us.
And then there is of course the question of what would alien even wan to do with us, really why not tell us they are aliens and talk to people on the internet.
well you know i have my own views but these are just some coopertive points that could be disccussed on aliens .

quelchie,at the risk of being accused of abducting this discussion ,I must tell you that I now have some serious problems with my lower parts ,which is totally due to your advice regarding the mounting of the horse . Or ,perhaps it`s the way I wear my sword, centrally . Anyway ,I won`t be doing any abducting for a while . Ouch!

Awdbeeb

[QUOTE=quelquechosedautre]

your hypothesis is not supported by any of the typical abduction scenarios
[/b]

...Of course not. That's because there are still a few of us who can think rather than being a sheep with a badge of pride.




in which humans are picked up and dropped off..

...right back here on earth

What a cruel trick that would be! Picking us up to take us to safety and then just dumping us back on earth BEFORE it is devastated. Most people leaving with aliens will stay with them. As in lifeboats, only the real nutters and troublemakers would be trown out back here again.

...Of course not. That's because there are still a few of us who can think rather than being a sheep with a badge of pride.
granted. yet your attempt at thought is somewhat laughable. divining alien motive is pointless. i can just as easily claim et abducts us to fuck then eat us


What a cruel trick that would be! Picking us up to take us to safety and then just dumping us back on earth BEFORE it is devastated. Most people leaving with aliens will stay with them. As in lifeboats, only the real nutters and troublemakers would be trown out back here again.

your offended sensibilities are of no concern to me
share em with someone else

hmmmmmm...looks like le Illuminati done arrived eh Gustav??

me:;hahaaaa. ta's rich. 'attacks'..?? the main big style attack regarding this whole debate has come from te 'scepics'.....have you checked out what closed tis treads predecessor? go check out and you will really SEE attacks...not on sceptics but on people trying to explore about this. dpnt be so htporitical and short sighted....
Riiight, so the naughty sceptics have been abusing the harmless quiet believers..? Are you really that deluded duendy?

There have been some verbal attacks from both sides. The thread was closed because it had degenerated into just insults. Do not pretend there is another reason.

The reason I made the comment that we are discussing is because you hardly ever actually discuss evidence. The sceptics criticise the evidence and you attack the sceptics... Do you understand the difference between criticising the evidence and ad hominem?



As for te 'scientifi method'......wonder, do you do any symbol, similar to crossin yerself when you say tose terms?. Weren't you the one complaining about people being patronising?



I am explorin the possibility that the criteria of te 'scientific metod' for trying to understand the pheomena we are deabting may besomewhat limited?......for as i am more and more sensing--CONSCIOUSNESS is most definatly involved, and the po old scientific metod doesn't seem to be able to fatom te 'problem' of 'what IS consciousness'. in fact its mode of operation--at least as applied by the subjective users of it--seems to HAMPER any radical developments regarding what we are discussin .... Yes yes heard it before. You are just proving my point about discrediting science.




me::'paranormal' --your use of that termimplies that you KNOW what is 'normal'...? yet, you dont know what consciousness is do you? as neither does science in its present state.......you terefore interpret m imput here as 'discrediting and 'attack' rather tan being open to a more radical form of inquiry. your prob not mine!
Don't waste my time. You know very well what is considered to be paranormal. You knew exactly what I meant when I used it. If you want to discuss the meaning of paranormal then start another thread.




well it is kinda like he said she said etc etc.....how do i know author aint makin it up........?...haha, wheres ze evidence??
Unbelievable. If it was someone else I would think they were trying to be funny or ironic but I think you are just being stupid.

You criticise phlogistician because he doesn't believe every aspect of the case.. You are baffled that he doesn't instantly believe an amazing story on the internet! :eek: Then you read a critique of the case and instantly dismiss it all because you don't want to agree with it!

You didn't even address phlogistician's comments regarding the case, you just criticised him. You didn't even discuss the points of the critique, you just dismissed it. You are a hypocrite.

You clearly are not after the truth duendy. You are just trying to reinforce your alien fantasy.




what i would like is him etc round a table talkin sos i can watch and observe and listen....Getting things on the table so to speak
Thats right you are convinced that you can tell if someone is lying by watching them. You are naive..



btw. scince dosn't even take tis subject SERIOUSLY. hence expriences here in 'pseudo'science...?Yer thanks for the clarification :rolleyes:

me::well i just hope the moderator who you snitched to has enough savvy to realize what a complete and utter hypocrite you are, and totally ignore it.....yu mate have refered to me in te past as a shit bag and gondknowswhat else, but i didn't go snitchin on you. even though your pretended use of logic and is not in te same league as Gustav who also has some WIT too. also did you find mr anonymous's attack on Gustav NOT a snitchable offense? of bleedin course not, he's on yer side isn't he?

me::no its called you being a sad case who cant see whats goin down. if you cared to review the ongoing debates, you woulld see quite clearly it is the scepticcamp who have been te most abusive, patronizing' condescending' obscene, humourless, hostile, nonesensical, beligerant, obfrggin noxious.....But you seejadaaawg, we, or i, anyhowm can DIG this. i can accomadate how tis debate might be hot. case it is a kind of clash of worldviews. but you go runnin to report to sir is fukin pathetic. you contribute all te fukin time to flaming but dont even acknowledge it which is pathetic. you are pathetic......what you seek mate is some dead forum where you will just spout yourshit an noone will contradict you. what a bore

me: leas dude. YOU give it up. why ...do you think tis forum/universe? revolves round what you are presenly feeling. dont you even know it will pass. take a break. go on vacation....here..here's the fukin money already. now go and let the adults continue huh??

Duendy can you please suck up to gustav a little more? Please... Its hilarious!

If people are not going to add to the discussion and are just going to insult others then they should be reported (regardless of their beliefs). If you don't like that then go find a computer game forum and trade insults with the 14 year olds....

It's been years since I have heard someone use the term snitch :D

Love this bit at the end duendy - "now go and let the adults continue huh??" Adults!! lol !

WELL...THAt coupla posts was a little bitch-athon wasn't it shaman....i could try and out-bitch you point for point but i anna really be arsed. it will degenerate ti thrad like happened before ...with silly childish behaviour

i am really nt sure if you, or any of your fellow sceptics can share intelligent debate without hurling insults.........?

so....exploring abou this my way....hoping at least someone wit any maturity may seek to challenge without insult.....
i am seeing the abduction UFO phenomena demand we look beyondthe established call for 'evidence'--witin te criteria of what science means by that.......it is used as an IMPASSE. it is used to stop any further
SERIOUS inquiry.....'no evidence?....you are a kook--a woo woo!.....hey, why you attackin us scientists??????'kind of thing. thispattern is repeated ad nauseum.......meanWHILE INQUIRY unhindered by the GESTAPO-evidence-demnds is thwarted

so in te spirit of inquiry, i am saying this: Scince dosn't even know the entireity of consciousness--hence its mind/body problem and Hard Problem. And it has been prety to establishing a major pseudoscience which is bio-psychiatry.

Al of tis is relevant for how science approaches the abduction UFO phenomena. forit is pproaching it from a very limited perspctive. not taking CONSCIOUSNESS into account

i am really nt sure if you, or any of your fellow sceptics can share intelligent debate without hurling insults.........?
You mean like your last post aimed at jdawg? ok.

You mean like your last post aimed at jdawg? ok.
ohhhhhhhhsiiiiiighhhhh you wanna groups dynamic interlude, that it?.........i will b brief about it. know why? cause i am quite passionate about explorin about the wole question of 'wat is the UFo abduction etc phenomena?'....excuuuuse me for being curious, in a forum supposedly aimed for thi person.....but no. you want to inquire who said fuk first last to abfukin c.....ok then kid. ...but i dont want this going on till my pubes go grey

if you care to loook at a first post from jdaaawg to me. he callms me a douche bag, i'm crazy bla bla.......yeah? now. do you aree wit that? why aren't ya whinin on about THAT then??
i told him after his big announcement about how evil Gustav is and how he's reported him, that he is a snitcher, a grass, a rat. fo I didn't do same to him for HIS fukin abuse. ie., hes a hypocrite. he tigs HE can behave like that , yt cant TAKE it.

goddit. good. whant intelligent debate now? why donts ya try it

i am currently looking at this article
hmmmm not sure if it is an http or www, i'll do both
http://homepage.powerup.com.au/~tkbnetw/Simon_Harvey-Wilson_3.htm

http://www.homepage.powerup.com.au/~tkbnetw/Simon_Harvey-Wilson_3.htm

hmmmmmmmmwell i read it. was excited at first couple of paragrphs....then disappontment as it all goes slopdge into new age mystical schppeak

i was good to the prt whhere he's talking about Paul Davis' quetioning the 'ghost in the machine' Descartesian propganda, and about how when observed closely 'matter' seem to be a dynamic patterning reaching out.....but then author starts indoctrinating reader wit his metaphyscial assumptions such as platonic dualism.......speaks about Carlos Castenada--a known hoaxer......then about Sai Baba, te Hindu guru, a known fraudster.....unknowing, making his argment ironic

YES, consciousness IS very much a key element to do with the issue of UFo and abduction phenomena, but te whole history of of ideas ABOUT consciousness also has to be made aware of, and tis autho doesn't seem to realize whn he is being dualistic.....for instance when he suggest consciousness can produce matter. tis is idealism and is the polar oppostite of the materialist idea that matter produces consciousnss....!

rather--at the moment, i am agreeing wit Professor Quincey http://www.deepspirit.com where he wartns not to get lost in 'energy talk' when discussing consciousness, as he above author did. That consciousness and matter are always togther yet distinct......consciousness is like the inner FEELING of matter/energy!

There is evidence; you can take it or leave it. Just google "Flight 41 Bermuda Triangle" and read about that. The government has the audio tapes from those planes on file....

SP OOO KY

There is evidence; you can take it or leave it. Just google "Flight 41 Bermuda Triangle" and read about that. The government has the audio tapes from those planes on file....

SP OOO KY

That was a good example for a long time but has been pretty much debunked in the past several years. There's been absoultely no evidence that there were "aliens" involved at all. It appears that the flight commander became disorientated and simply did NOT trust his instruments. Bad, bad mistake. They were clearly telling him that he wasn't where he had made up his mind that he was.

The planes just ran out of fuel and all crashed into the sea fairly close together. You did know that they've all been located, right?

No, when and can you give a website???

No, when and can you give a website???

I just did a quick search that didn't turn up anything helpful. However, it wasn't too long ago that I saw a documentary about it. They talked to the base radio operator, played the recording of the pilots that you mentioned and I believe it was Ballard (same guy that located the Titanic) that found the crash site. They had films taken by the divers that clearly showed the planes. Apparently none of them had attempted to bail out and simply ditched when they ran out of fuel.

yes it's all done and dusted. i saw docu. about it too.........
regardin evidence. noticew how its all gone quiet since i brought in consciousness....why else is it te HARD probelm if it aint hard......it is the Biggie. the Biggie which confounds science in its especially materialistic positivist bias ....But it simply canoot be left out of the equation whatsoever. that IS a FACT!
i must make it clear, i m not trying to turn the debate all amorpus and away from solid evidence neite. i am trying to exploore an understanding of reality which includesphysical and what we see as soild reality.......the impass for the sceptics herer--i feel--is teir adherence to materialistic science. hence their emphasis for solid evidence, and thus their disregard for evidece which isn't 'solid'

however. that documentaryt about abductions...Bud Hopkins says:"Sceptics are fond of saying there's no physical evidence. [what they mean is] they haven't heard of any cause they haven't looked into it. [he shows photographs of 'scooping marks']-These turn up again and again. I may have seen a hundred of these. Why don't the critics recognize it? It's because they don't even KNOW about it. [Bud has collected photographs of abductees who claim theri experience left them with abnormal scars---A little boy of 5, his scar turned up over night. There's one case of 3 women who got te same scoop mark in te same place on the thigh. Docgors have told him that te scars resemble the scars from punch biopsies]. Sometimes [the aliens] will take 2 samples if the prson is reabducted and another sample is taken. One can infer without much difficulty, they are taking a flesh sample--our own DNA, our own physical genetic makeup"

screwed up a crucial sentence

meant...i am rather exploring a reality which both includes physical reality and .....'spirit'? thats a well loaded term ins't it? what shall i say then? physical and....consciousness_in_its_entireity

I actually mentioned some irrefutable evidence for alien abductions in another (proper science) thread.

http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=900655#post900655

Well...too bad about Flight 41...made for good storytelling.

I still think something with Area 51 is going on...and you KNOW the govt. would never make anything public. I saw a documentary on that and it really makes you wonder what exactly happened out there.

I'm sure I'll get pounded for this since I don't see most of the members as being Christians, but the Bible describes several entities that look like they are made of metal and shaped like UFOs...but the average Christian debunks all of that. Disappointing.

I actually mentioned some irrefutable evidence for alien abductions in another (proper science) thread.

http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=900655#post900655
i had this experience too reading your contribution. it was a vision of you all like a big red Cokk struttin about wid yer chest stuck out when yer said '(proper science)'....can hear it in Cock language too...'proooooopersciiiencacoladooodeeddooo!!!'/...hehe

Well, something that (to me anyway) points to alien abduction being real is the fact that so many people are reporting that it's happening to them. Can they all be lying or crazy?

Well, something that (to me anyway) points to alien abduction being real is the fact that so many people are reporting that it's happening to them. Can they all be lying or crazy?

Alot of people also report to be the next messiah of their religion; Napoleon; "God" etc

Some people do suffer delusions caused by particular types of diseases or poor education. Notibly certain "recreational drug" habits also add to the distortion of their reality like Cannabis.

There have even been cases of this mass-delusional types starting alternate religions (lovingly refered to as cult groups) and inventing their own interpretations of both law and religious doctorines. Can anybody work out how or why such people become so deluded in the first place? (No it's not an alien conspiracy, although it's bound to include Hemp.)

The entire concept of alien abductions started with B-Movies, of course if people had truly taken these as factual evidence for abductions and aliens they would also know that flying saucers are held up in the sky by a very fine string.

Alot of people also report to be the next messiah of their religion; Napoleon; "God" etc
me::errrrr...no they DON@T. that is a silly comparison

Some people do suffer delusions caused by particular types of diseases or poor education. Notibly certain "recreational drug" habits also add to the distortion of their reality like Cannabis.

me::wqhen you say 'suffer diseases', i am guessing you mean 'mental diseases'?....and you include taking cxannabis as als giving you mental illness? let me tell you that the whole belief that mental illness is biological disease is a mythbased on pseudoscience, and it is a very huge insult to call peole who have had experiencs seeing UFOs or have had abduction experiencs, mentally ill. It also, ironically. shows up your utter ignorance........also, from what i have seen and heard, many of the abduction reports come from people who dont smoke cannabis. you are just graspin at straws. throwin any old shit in andhopin it'll stick to further yer blind cause!

There have even been cases of this mass-delusional types starting alternate religions (lovingly refered to as cult groups) and inventing their own interpretations of both law and religious doctorines. Can anybody work out how or why such people become so deluded in the first place? (No it's not an alien conspiracy, although it's bound to include Hemp.)

me::whats wit tis Hemp tang? i couod tell you a few truths about HEMP, but haven't got timenow and i've forgot the part of the tread i have done so.....jus this. the State has duped you regarding Hemp.
You are comparing abductions with religious cultic visions now?.......thought that religious cultics really believe in thier cult's belief system. form what i have gathers abduteees dont necessareily follow an alien religion.....these efvents happen out of the blue

The entire concept of alien abductions started with B-Movies, of course if people had truly taken these as factual evidence for abductions and aliens they would also know that flying saucers are held up in the sky by a very fine string.
oh pleeeeassss. this is like going back to fuin kindergarten , please don drag the debate back to ground zero. please go make the effort to read this threads predecessor thread and all of tis one. abosorb and get back to us

if you care to loook at a first post from jdaaawg to me. he callms me a douche bag, i'm crazy bla bla.......yeah? now. do you aree wit that? why aren't ya whinin on about THAT then??

His post directed at you in this thread? He does not call you a douche bag. He did not say that you were crazy. ?

We have established that you are a hypocrite. Are you a liar as well?

His post directed at you in this thread? He does not call you a douche bag. He did not say that you were crazy. ?

me::look you phony shaman...dont tell me who what when someone has insulted me right? i dont have to wait for you to let me fukin know. i know aready.....not this thread LST thread. this nd that thread are continuous

We have established that you are a hypocrite. Are you a liar as well?
and you are a silly 19 year old makin a complete prat of yerself. now get on wid the debate and stop causin trouble

of course if people had truly taken these as factual evidence for abductions and aliens they would also know that flying saucers are held up in the sky by a very fine string.

LOL, What, they're not? :D

meanwhile

On the contrary. I think it’s one of the most stimulating and engaging trains of thought.

so you have fun cooking up a story line. it still does not negate the pointless and ultimate futility of the exercise.

verify et. establish contact. then set the cia on their ass

Verified according to available known symptoms and brain functions, right? But what if you could tap into the brain? On the one hand, sleep paralysis has its causes—nuts and bolts.

a likely function of atonia is the prevention of the physical enactment of the motor components of dreaming. i find this a rather reasonable explanation.

the nyc abduction has all the trappings of a scam
i cannot give it any serious consideration in light of the question posed by the topic post

So it's not evidence per se; but in a way, it is. Because it brings to light a compelling reason why an advanced galactic society would rather not co-mingle with your terrestrial society.

ok
i'll play

the aliens have mutated to look just like us and are to be found in the highest echelons of govt. this is how actual evidence and knowledge have been witheld from the public by the alien operatives

so my flights of fancy contradict yours (mingle vs isolation)
now what?

/respectfully

perhaps i misunderstand....
we meet tribals, introduce coca cola and teach to pay their taxes

But to take-up on that infiltration scenario: it may not necessarily require actual mingling, like telesurgery. As to morphs, I have yet to experience an inkling to such evidence…I doubt I will… so the visibility of that idea doesn't really exist for me…it has no place in my jigsaw puzzle.

pardon
you are correct. it was unfair to compare your plausible scenario of observation with my rather ridiculous one.

THE SANTA CLAUS GAMBIT: This trick consists of lumping moderate claims or propositions together with extreme ones. If you suggest, for example, that Sasquatch can't be completely ruled out from the available evidence,the skeptic will then facetiously suggest that Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny can't be "completely" ruled out either.

<li> Argue that extraterrestrials would or wouldn't, should or shouldn't, can or can't behave in certain ways because such behavior would or wouldn't be logical. Base your notions of logic on how terrestrials would or wouldn't behave. Since terrestrials behave in all kinds of ways you can theorize whatever kind of behavior suits your arguments.

first, what do you think of that?

Interestng what you say about the craft.....the physicist Jack Sarfatti. teorizes about POST quantum mechanics, anc crafts that are consciousness directed.......ie, he is involving consciousness into the equation:
"The Evolution of Physics:
* Classical deterministic physics is 100% about dead rocklike things (1600 to 1925AD)
* Quantum indeterministic physics is 100% about thoughtlike, but STILL unconscious things that mysteriously "collapse" to 100% rocklike tings (1925 to 1995AD)
* Post-Quantum self-deterministic physics is about co-evolving 50% rocklike and 50% thoughtlike things tat combine into 100% living conscious things (1995 to ?)

also cnsider along with that biological materials, which even is known about in OUR fledging science.......?

tis is what i mean about Imagination........i tend to see your average sceptic not excercizing theirs much..........

Hello,
I believe the most common argument against this idea is the "Non- interference with discovered intelligent species " theory ,which is widely used in popular science fiction ,films etc. AKA `The Prime Directive`:- "An advanced culture meeting a less advanced civilisation should not interfere ,to allow the development of the civilisation on it`s own timescale. " (My paraphrasing of the directive).
This is a fairly obvious sentiment , since it could be the case that the technologically superior culture could cause catastrophic social and economic changes in the society.

Awdsci

the nyc abduction has all the trappings of a scam
i cannot give it any serious consideration in light of the question posed by the topic post
can you summarize reasons why you think it is a scam?

Hello,
I believe the most common argument against this idea is the "Non- interference with discovered intelligent species " theory ,which is widely used in popular science fiction ,films etc. AKA `The Prime Directive`:- "An advanced culture meeting a less advanced civilisation should not interfere ,to allow the development of the civilisation on it`s own timescale. " (My paraphrasing of the directive).
This is a fairly obvious sentiment , since it could be the case that the technologically superior culture could ncause catastrophic social and economic changes in the society.

Awdsci
Hi and Welcome....
hah...if it were true that aiens have some kind of galactic communal agreement not to
affect A spcies natrual development, its ironic that at te other end of the spectrum--tyhe powers_that_BE do the exact opposiye. ie., THWARTS deliberately our freedoms!!

can you summarize reasons why you think it is a scam?

Nighteyes, by Garfield Reeves-Stevens

• Cortile was abducted into a UFO hovering over her high-rise apartment building in New York City, so was Sarah,a character in the book.
• Dan and Richard initially claimed to have been on a stakeout and were involved in a UFO abduction in during early morning hours; so were, Derek and Merril, the two government agents in the book.
• Linda was kidnapped and thrown into a car by Richard and Dan; Wendy in the book was similarly kidnapped by Derek and Merril.
• Linda claimed to have been under surveillance by someone in a van; vans were used for surveillance in the book.
• Dan was hospitalized for emotional trauma as was one of the government agents in the book.
• During the kidnapping Dan took Linda to a safe house on the beach; during the kidnapping Derek took Wendy to a safe house, also on the beach.
• Budd Hopkins is a prominent UFO abduction researcher living in New York City and an author who has written books on the topic; he is mirrored in the book by a character called Charles Edward Starr.
• Before her kidnapping, Linda contacted Budd Hopkins about her abduction; like Wendy in the book.
• Linda and Dan had sometimes been abducted at the same time and communicated with each other during their abduction; Wendy and Derek shared the same experiences in the book.
• Dan expressed a romantic interest in Linda; Derek became romantically involved with Wendy in the book.
• Photographs of Linda were taken on the beach and sent to Hopkins; In the book, photographs taken on a beach played a central role.

the number of similarities rule out coincidence. there are other irregularities.....witnesses coming forward well after the alleged event. even as late as 2003......

In a recent French magazine, La Gazette Forteenne, Issue # 2, 2003, Linda gives an interview that does add some new facts about her case. She mentions a new witness, a New York Post truck driver, who saw the abduction from the Brooklyn Bridge. No name is given

fucking ludicrous. i feel sorry for hopkins. he got played by pros

he got griiiifted?...oh myyyygaaaaawd!!




....spoonfeed me a little? what date was the 'abduction', and when was book published?

he got griiiifted?...oh myyyygaaaaawd!!

you gotta calm the fuck down
trust me
it helps


....spoonfeed me a little? what date was the 'abduction', and when was book published?

*Nighteyes (Doubleday Foundation (http://www.locusmag.com/index/j83.html#A543) 0-385-24755-9, Apr ’89 [Mar ’89], $18.95, 452pp, hc) Sf/horror novel about UFOs and alien abductions

the book's date of publication

*In April 1989, Hopkins received a letter from Linda Napolitano, a resident of New York City. Linda wrote that she had begun reading his book Intruders and had remembered that 13 years earlier she had detected a bump next to her nose. It was examined by a physician who insisted that she had undergone nasal surgery. Linda claimed that she never had such surgery, and she even checked with her mother, who confirmed that impression. stefula butler hansen (http://www.skepticfiles.org/ufo2/lindarpt.htm)

now if she claimed that the the bump was an alien implant that occured during an abduction, that would put an intial contact sometime in 1976

*She recalled some pertinent earlier events in her life but believed that she was no longer directly involved with any abduction phenomena. stefula butler hansen (http://www.skepticfiles.org/ufo2/lindarpt.htm)

the wording indicates there was some contact with aliens prior to 1989

*On November 30, 1989, Linda called Hopkins and reported that she had been abducted during the early morning hours of that day, and she provided some details. stefula butler hansen (http://www.skepticfiles.org/ufo2/lindarpt.htm)

a subsequent abduction. this is the event that had been investigated by hopkins and to which there are allleged witnesses.

she thus had about 7 months to flesh out her story incorporating aspects from garfield reeves-stevens's book

please realize this is all conjecture on my part.
however i feel it is quite reasonable.
while i cannot dispute that something might have occurred in the alleged 1976 encounter, the rest is an obvious fraud

well done!!!....it looks decidedly dodgy. am surprised at Bud's gullibility, but we are all human

on the docu. i have been talkin about i have seen Bud for the first time. he looks harmless enough. he is showing photos of abductees who have 'scoop-out scars'--claiming that skeptics have not even bothered searching these out......

is this T R UE skeptics in the house?

that Linda Napolianto is a no good bitCH...i hate hoaxers

btw, you seem to say you conjecture. is there still some doubt you might be wrong..?

the "conjecture" works as a disclaimer
i doubt however if i am mistaken
yet i would like to read first hand, the sources from which stefula butler hansen (http://www.skepticfiles.org/ufo2/lindarpt.htm) use for thier analysis

am surprised at Bud's gullibility, but we are all human

i am just giving the guy the benefit of the doubt. he could very well have been a player

Gustav,

That was an excellent find, my man. I must say, nice detective work! I had no idea, and never would have thought to look in that medium.

JD

i find it fucking absurd that meanwhile deleted his posts.
disrupting the flow of a thread and distorting the historical record is not the done thing

Duendy can you please suck up to gustav a little more? Please... Its hilarious!

If people are not going to add to the discussion and are just going to insult others then they should be reported (regardless of their beliefs).

excellent
another wannabe player
the presumption is that i am being referenced
so...
what was the nature and circumstance of this alleged insult?

Gustav, That was an excellent find, my man. I must say, nice detective work!

pardon, but i did no such thing. i merely followed up on a link, read the contents and reported the findings of stefula, butler and hansen (http://www.skepticfiles.org/ufo2/lindarpt.htm) back here.

they deserve the credit
not i

excellent
another wannabe player
the presumption is that i am being referenced
so...
what was the nature and circumstance of this alleged insult?
I have no idea. I did not report you.

My post was in response to duendy's comments that to report someone was "fukin pathetic". I disagreed.

I'm a 'wannabe player'? Cool.

the "conjecture" works as a disclaimer
i doubt however if i am mistaken
yet i would like to read first hand, the sources from which stefula butler hansen (http://www.skepticfiles.org/ufo2/lindarpt.htm) use for thier analysis
i would like to speak directly with Bud Hopkins about it

i find this extremely shortsighted
ophiolite insists on repeating a supernova. anything less than that negates the phenomena and could probably explained away.....say hallucinationsSupernovae are being repeated all the time. If only a single supernova had been observed it is doubtful any cogent theory would have yet been derived to explain them. We now have detailed examinations of many supernovae across the electromagnetic spectrum and across wide time ranges. I am requiring the same meticulous observations for alien abductions to produce something conistent. What they have produced is a pretty consistent explanation in terms of brain/mental characteristics, with no aliens in sight, or on site; merely, inside.

.....so it is YOUR side who must accomadate yourself to suit the existing evidence. not the other way round which is convenient denial through the continuous demand for evidence whic matches your criteria de imPASSE...!

i would like to speak directly with Bud Hopkins about it

the sheer gall of this statement is breathtaking. it is so obvious that you had not even bothered to research the case utilizing material that is easily retrieved from the net. if you had and were honest in your attempt to resolve the discrepancies and present the controversies here, you would have inevitably reached a similar conclusion

i thus cannot give you even the barest modicum of credibilty with regards to your statement. you may have intent but will not take any practical steps to meet up with hopkins. i am quite sure of this.

now
what is your role in the nyc abduction?
are you complicit in an effort to futher perpetuate this hoax
here in sciforums?

what say you?

Supernovae are being repeated all the time. ........

pardon
i stand corrected and feel stupid. perhaps i was insisting the event be reproduced in a lab setting. :)

the sheer gall of this statement is breathtaking. it is so obvious that you had not even bothered to research the case utilizing material that is easily retrieved from the net. if you had and were honest in your attempt to resolve the discrepancies and present the controversies here, you would have inevitably reached a similar conclusion

i thus cannot give you even the barest modicum of credibilty with regards to your statement. you may have intent but will not take any practical steps to meet up with hopkins. i am quite sure of this.

now
what is your role in the nyc abduction?
are you complicit in an effort to futher perpetuate this hoax
here in sciforums?

what say you?
wht say i? i say: Gustav, dont get yer knickers in a twist

you see....i admit it, tough i never contradicted myself actually.....words can be tough. its hrd enoug most times wondering what a person is meaning face to face....
OK, what i mean by wanting to speak directly with Bud is NOT i am questioning yer detective work, but thati would like to observe his reponse to your evidence.....you say you are in two minds. one says he could be gullible regarding that case, and two, he is an actual player himself. have you decided which mind your in, or are yo not sure?

i am quite content not to bash my head against a brick wall. remember he has written a book on this. he will toe the line laid out in it. you will never get anything from him that will contradict his crap. screw hopkins. i am thru with him.

next case

i am quite content not to bash my head against a brick wall. screw hopkins. i am thru with him.

next case
i feel that a bit harsh. he seems right about the 'scoop marks'.....whatis it about what you have found out that makes you totally reject Bud Hopkins now? after all you also didn't answer myquestion of whether yo think he was duped or a player....?

i did. your inability to comprehend is hardly my problem

next case

This is a fairly obvious sentiment , since it could be the case that the technologically superior culture could cause catastrophic social and economic changes in the society.

How?

i did. your inability to comprehend is hardly my problem

next case
loook, never mind 'next case' already....talk to me like a friggin breathin human. that wuld help tan two to 3 sentence dr spock soundbytes, yeah. wanna fight??

How?
easssy. for a start go check out about the 'technology' of HEMP. seriously, this'll help you understand how certain 'rewvolutionry' things are crushed by the evil machinations of the corporate world. in HEMPS case it was the big players...the Rokerfellahs etc who decided to demonize HEMP be propagaderizing about its HIGH variety. tus via REEFER MADESSfilms demonized the plant in all its uses, for rpe paper oil you name it

now question for YOU. IF they would do that with common plant, what would they do i advanced technology were allowed to be known about. and imagin how tings would change....even if HEMP came to te fore agin

loook, never mind 'next case' already....talk to me like a friggin breathin human. that wuld help tan two to 3 sentence dr spock soundbytes, yeah. wanna fight??

interesting, "talk to me like a frigging breathin human"?

and a example would be this....?


that wuld help tan two to 3 sentence dr spock soundbytes,

funny shit. meaningless garbage but i bet it makes perfect sense to you, ja?

now
fucking focus and get back on topic
next case

interesting, "talk to me like a frigging breathin human"?

and a example would be this....?



funny shit. meaningless garbage but i bet it makes perfect sense to you, ja?

me======thus implying or stating blatantly that in order t be an authentic breathin human you gotta talk like the fukin QUEEN...what?

now
fucking focus and get back on topic
next case
shit. talk abou a short attention span. i thought you were an explorer like meeeee? just cause you may have sussed that case dot go all Queen of the Psudoforums now ya'here

heh
yes i am an "explorer" like you.
for instance.. i want to explore the next case

;)

ps: i'll go any which way i choose.

heh
yes i am an "explorer" like you.
for instance.. i want to explore the next case

;)

ps: i'll go any which way i choose.
yes quite. no need to patronize........i am not that glad how you've binned Bud

itwas the whiteman thatposes as the aliens and tat abucts the black peoples!
I seeen it when ismokes deh CHEEBAA!!

itwas the whiteman thatposes as the aliens and tat abucts the black peoples!
I seeen it when ismokes deh CHEEBAA!!
which means exactly what 'mr normal'?

How?
Hi Glenn,
I can`t quote exact references ,but this is quite a well-known effect in our own global society. The arrival of european immigrants in the americas , for instance ,seriously damaged the native populations in several ways , the most devastating being influenza, tuberculosis,sexually transmitted diseases,smallpox etc., but this is not the most important factor .
All of the nations on earth have their religious ,social ,financial and philosophical differences, which seem to cause friction between us. The appearance of a totally alien culture , technically superior , possibly physically and mentally superior, would cause enormous stress between the various religions and cultures .
For instance , how would the christian faith cope with the fact that their creator has also made other beings ? Are they also in his image ?
Do eastern faiths allow for additional deities not of this world?
The catholic church may raise some objections ,as they have only just come to terms with the acceptance of Gallileo`s view of our solar system (sorry about that any RC`s,but you are dragging your feet a bit on this one) which may make them resistant to aliens from ` outside `.
Another factor which could cause serious financial and social upheaval is alien technology. It`s a fact that if another culture discovers you ,then they are most likely to be more technically advanced. This can be seen in our own history , where expanding cultures like the Romans, vikings ,mongols,persians etc.,having some technical or cultural advantage (military or social )were able to expand into neighbouring states.
In no way am I suggesting the "Alien Invasion" scenario,but with the arrival of advanced technology our major industrial production methods may be made obsolete, by providing cheap transportation or significant mass production methods ,requiring less labour . An advanced culture may have a totally different outlook on the role of it`s citizens, expecting each person to reach their optimum capabilities as a social responsibility.
So, their is a lot to consider, when we meet we must be ready ,so start thinking now!

Whew ,I `m tired ,got to rest now .

Regards, Awdsci

you can also get hints from looking at other fields of inquiry such as the 'war on drugs'-------included are the psychedelics. both the Church and positivis science has persecxuated people who desire to use psychedelics for inspiration!.........we could call psychedelics a technology if ya like....a tool. i am not mad on those terms but for the sake of tis phase of deabte it may be adequate. so we can ee the powers that be are also very fearful and controlling about THAT powerful technology.....so

Well, something that (to me anyway) points to alien abduction being real is the fact that so many people are reporting that it's happening to them. Can they all be lying or crazy?
Yes, see duendy's posts :rolleyes:

Yes, see duendy's posts :rolleyes:
it always disappoints me that the best some so-called members of forums can do is only appear via a one-line put down....you gutless wonder

One line put downs help preserve the nations electrons.

One line put downs help preserve the nations electrons.
wrong. the only thing they preserve are static threads waitng for others with some creative imput to carry on exploring what needs exploring

So why do you even respond to it, duendy? You are right; Snake River Rufus should not step into the conversation without adding something to it, but that said, why validate it with a response? Two, even!

The biggest complaint I have about you and Gustav is that you are so quick to SLAM somebody, and yes, that includes the people who slam you. Avoid it, duck it, ignore it. I have trouble with it myself, but it's best to just ignore somebody who does that.

That way, if you just simply refuse to respond to a post like the one by Snake, then you don't give them a reason to continue responding. Just lighten up and get over it, and they'll go away. Stick to the conversation, and stop being distracted so easily.

This is NOT a slam on either of you. It's just an observation. And yes, I'm violating my own rule; I'm not adding anything to the conversation, but I've added enough to this to say something...anyway, feel free to ignore this, but PLEASE don't justify these people dropping in and insulting you by INSULTING THEM BACK! Ignore it, and do everybody a favor.

JD

although i agree with your wisdom, it also has to be noticed....those bitches didn't reply back..........oooops

wrong. the only thing they preserve are static threads waitng for others with some creative imput to carry on exploring what needs exploringThank you for your one line put down.

Duendy, I gave up trying to communicate with you some time ago: when it became apparent that you were too ready to 'jump to a concussion'; had stereotyped me (quite badly, in fact); refused to entertain an alternative world view, even for the sake of discussion; had an agenda, writ bold in letters of blood, that tolerated no nay sayers. In short, once you had demonstrated that you had no desire to discuss, but merely to pontificate you lost my interest as other than a target of ridicule. Quite reelaxing really.

There are many ways of being grossly rude to a person - my method of choice is to use profanity, curses and an occasional dash of elegance. Yours appears to be to discard as sub-human anyone who disagrees with you. Do have a very delightful Saturnalia.

easssy. for a start go check out about the 'technology' of HEMP. seriously, this'll help you understand how certain 'rewvolutionry' things are crushed by the evil machinations of the corporate world. in HEMPS case it was the big players...the Rokerfellahs etc who decided to demonize HEMP be propagaderizing about its HIGH variety. tus via REEFER MADESSfilms demonized the plant in all its uses, for rpe paper oil you name it

If your suggesting contact with a hostile, superior race, then yes, I should imagine that they could put the boots to us fairly handily. But why would they bother messing around with more addictive drugs (that most of us will never even try) when they could just cut to the chase and wipe us out?

If the aliens are not hostile, then they’d respect our sovereignty. And that would mean submitting their little patents to the Food and Drug Administration, just like everyone else…



I can`t quote exact references, but this is quite a well-known effect in our own global society. The arrival of European immigrants in the Americas , for instance ,seriously damaged the native populations in several ways , the most devastating being influenza, tuberculosis,sexually transmitted diseases,smallpox etc., but this is not the most important factor .

Hunter-gatherer type societies appear to be vulnerable if they the contact group brought diseases and such with them. Cramming superior military firepower down their throats didn’t seem to help either. Also, a lack of resistance to alcohol seems to have adversely effected indigenous groups. But more advanced nations (such as Japan or even China) didn’t collapse or lose their group cohesiveness, and I think this would be the case for aliens at the present time. A big story for 3 weeks, but then it would be back to other stuff.




All of the nations on earth have their religious, social, financial and philosophical differences, which seem to cause friction between us. The appearance of a totally alien culture , technically superior , possibly physically and mentally superior, would cause enormous stress between the various religions and cultures .

Actually, I think it would reduce them.




In no way am I suggesting the "Alien Invasion" scenario,but with the arrival of advanced technology our major industrial production methods may be made obsolete, by providing cheap transportation or significant mass production methods ,requiring less labor . An advanced culture may have a totally different outlook on the role of it`s citizens, expecting each person to reach their optimum capabilities as a social responsibility.
So, their is a lot to consider, when we meet we must be ready ,so start thinking now!

This again implies a certain degree of hostility, or lack of respect of our sovereignty. If this were to be the case, then all bets are off. My comment was only meant for a situation where E.T. was cooperative and friendly.

pardon
i stand corrected and feel stupid. perhaps i was insisting the event be reproduced in a lab setting. :)As a geologist I am accustomed to dealing with the fact that, in many cases, our laboratory experiments took place millions of years ago and we are now in the process of trying to interpret the scattered notes left behind in the ruins of the lab. The hard sciences do have the luxury of setting the experiment up just so, varying one factor at a time. Pity the poor geologist or the field biologist.

Or the archaeologist :cool:

As a geologist I am accustomed to dealing with the fact that, in many cases, our laboratory experiments took place millions of years ago and we are now in the process of trying to interpret the scattered notes left behind in the ruins of the lab. The hard sciences do have the luxury of setting the experiment up just so, varying one factor at a time. Pity the poor geologist or the field biologist.

i like that very much
kinda poetic

can we similarly pity the ufologist?
after all, how hard must it be for the poor sap to reproduce a ufo sighting?

I'd agree, Gustav, but we aren't digging up alien bones or alien ships. We have pictures, accounts, and videos, and so many of them verifiably false, the ufologist is truly at a disadvantage.

The best anyone can do is hope to keep taking the pictures and shooting video and reporting their claims...but until something really major happens, mainstream science and society just won't buy it. It sucks for the ufo enthusiast and avid believer, because everybody who poo-poo's the UFO thing looks like an asshole to them. The fact of the matter is that science doesn't work that way; science is inherently skeptical.

And rightfully so! That is a natural defense to unfounded, false beliefs, such as fairies, deamons and dragons and fantasy creatures and phenomenon as such. If the UFO phenomenon is to be accepted, something has to happen; be it a real signal captured by SETI, a landing covered by major news media, a real crash landing, or some sort of--god forbid--invasion (!) something must take place before anyone accepts the story that intelligent alien life is aware of us.

Let us not forget, either, that extraterrestrials aren't the only theory behind UFOs. Some claim that they are time travelers, former inhabitants of Earth, current inhabitants of Earth via underground establishments, secret military aircraft, an unknown race from the North Pole, ect., ect..

My point is that even UFO believers don't have a decisive, singular theory behind the whole matter.

Anyway, the bottom line is that once something happens (alien visitation) We. Will. Know. There's just no way to hide it, and moreso, no reason to hide it. Despite what some fanatics claim, the world's oil conglomorates won't be filing for bankruptcy if ET lands, and the world's governments won't crumble, and chaos will not ensue.

If they are real, and they were visiting, we'd all know it. There would be no doubt.

JD

I'd agree, Gustav, but we aren't digging up alien bones or alien ships. We have pictures, accounts, and videos, and so many of them verifiably false, the ufologist is truly at a disadvantage.

me))))))who says 'many of them [are] verifiably false'? and if you say 'many of them' do you mean you ae open to the idea tat the others are Unexplainable?

The best anyone can do is hope to keep taking the pictures and shooting video and reporting their claims...but until something really major happens, mainstream science and society just won't buy it.

me)))as i keep saying. maybe this impasse is precisley be caus of te ontological premise of materialistic science?

It sucks for the ufo enthusiast and avid believer, because everybody who poo-poo's the UFO thing looks like an asshole to them. The fact of the matter is that science doesn't work that way; science is inherently skeptical.

me))))))and i also keep saying that i dont count that stubborn possition AS skepticism but as the fundamentalism of materialism

And rightfully so! That is a natural defense to unfounded, false beliefs, such as fairies, deamons and dragons and fantasy creatures and phenomenon as such. If the UFO phenomenon is to be accepted, something has to happen; be it a real signal captured by SETI, a landing covered by major news media, a real crash landing, or some sort of--god forbid--invasion (!) something must take place before anyone accepts the story that intelligent alien life is aware of us.
what i fear.....isssssss. that te powers that be will one day surpise d'youll WITH some kind of 'alien invasion.....which will be the ultimate 'ENEMY' that they have staged.....not meaning to change te subject. just tought i'd mention it

Let us not forget, either, that extraterrestrials aren't the only theory behind UFOs. Some claim that they are time travelers, former inhabitants of Earth, current inhabitants of Earth via underground establishments, secret military aircraft, an unknown race from the North Pole, ect., ect..

My point is that even UFO believers don't have a decisive, singular theory behind the whole matter.

me))))but i dont see why is HAS to be a 'singular issue'?....isn't tere diversity in te life we are familiar wit? so why shouldn't it be so for the pheonomena we aren't thgat familiar with?

Anyway, the bottom line is that once something happens (alien visitation) We. Will. Know. There's just no way to hide it, and moreso, no reason to hide it. Despite what some fanatics claim, the world's oil conglomorates won't be filing for bankruptcy if ET lands, and the world's governments won't crumble, and chaos will not ensue.

me)))))))and how do you know this? explain reasons why it would be like you imagine it'd be?

If they are real, and they were visiting, we'd all know it. There would be no doubt.

me))))))ahhhhhhh some peple very MUCh know, and apparently some havete scars to prove it, and implants, and trauma, ad woner, etc. troble is you'll materialists dimiss all that dont you?

JD
((((((((((((((((((*^*)))))))))))))))

Originally Posted By: duendy
me))))))who says 'many of them [are] verifiably false'? and if you say 'many of them' do you mean you ae open to the idea tat the others are Unexplainable?

I'm feeling pretty patient today, so let's discuss. Who says many are false? Have you read project blue book? Even our famed Roswell crash was proven to be a balloon.

And my only problem with agreeing that some are "unexplainable" is that I feel like I'm walking into a trap; when I say something can't be explained, or hasen't been explained, I mean that I have heard of no means to explain a certain situation. Many others, such as the UFO believer, takes "unexplainable" and instantly places the extraterrestrial/paranormal tag on it. In reality, to say something is enexplainable doesn't mean it's out-of-this-world, it just means that no one reporting or studying the thing/phenomenon/event can immediately explain it.

That all said, I'm sure there are reports of things that are "unexplained" and for simple reasons such as the video is too blurry to tell if the light on it is from a land vehicle or an air craft, or if the craft is legitimate or staged, or if the legitimate craft is military, commercial, or extraterrestrial.


Originally Posted By: duendy
me)))as i keep saying. maybe this impasse is precisley be caus of te ontological premise of materialistic science?

I've seen that you consider yourself a very "earthy" person, and believe in the whole harmony between things, such as Man and his conciousness, and things of that sort, am I correct in that? There is something to be said for people who care more for the planet and their own bodies than they do for national pride or corporate conglomorates, and they are just as valuable as citizens as the rest of us.

But there is a common theme amongst people who think "against the group" and that is one of anti-establishment. Duendy, please don't get angry with my assumptions of you, but they are mine to speak, and they mean no harm. Those who are anti-establishment seem to lean towards believeing next to nothing of what any large, established group says. In this case, duendy, it seems you are dead set against the rules scientific method applies to it's practice.

In all actuality, one would not have to break down the materials found on a supposed alien craft to be positive it was of alien origin. All you would have to do is look at it, I imagine, or watch it move to know that it wasn't from the creative mind of a Human Being. (of course, this is speculation, but I'd imagine that it would be the case) Of course, if we had the chance to take apart a craft and study it, we'd be able to tell certain things about it that the naked eye would not, such as possible scenarios as to how the craft came from where it was to where it landed, but it would not require absolute proof in the sense of a peer review and case study to know that it wasn't from Earth.

But this thing you call "materialistic science" isn't the devil you make it out to be. Simply put, the call for evidence is a sound one, and a neccissary one. If we simply allowed photos and videos which could be easily (or painstakingly) faked into the realm of scientific fact, that would be a foolish way to go about business. It would hinder the search for truth and understanding, wouldn't it? If we simply believed the woman who claimed she was abducted by aliens and had a scar on her leg to prove it, is it impossible to believe that our fascination with the stars would diminish as the mystery would be taken out of it? On top of that, we might never look into the psychological reasons, the pathology, behind someone who would lie about such an experience. We would be losing on two fronts, as I see it.


Originally Posted By: duendy
what i fear.....isssssss. that te powers that be will one day surpise d'youll WITH some kind of 'alien invasion.....which will be the ultimate 'ENEMY' that they have staged.....not meaning to change te subject. just tought i'd mention it

Is that a scenario you believe could happen? I'm curious to know the reason you would even speculate that.


me))))but i dont see why is HAS to be a 'singular issue'?....isn't tere diversity in te life we are familiar wit? so why shouldn't it be so for the pheonomena we aren't thgat familiar with?

You're right, as we broaden the scope from extraterrestrials to the entire paranormal field. My point, though, I admit, poorly thought out and executed, was that the large outcry on this board is that the UFO phenomenon is credited to one or more alien civilizations, nothing more, when in fact the UFO phenomenon has many popular explanations by Johnny Believer, and the quest for truth in the matter (if what we know isn't the truth) is hindered in the fact that there isn't a singular front to the argument against what the government has told us. Basically, if everyone comes at this issue with 15 different "truths" as to what the UFOs are, you all just look like whackos.

Again, my point with my original statement was more of a negative commentary on the UFO believer, and not a well-concieved one at that.


me)))))))and how do you know this? explain reasons why it would be like you imagine it'd be?

Well, it is opinion, of course, and not fact. The world could crumble at the news of alien visitors from Alpha Centrauri, but chances are that it won't.

I don't know...oil is going to run out eventually, and the admission of knowledge of an alien race visiting our planet would do nothing to our world's oil companies. If the current state of alien visitation is as the believers state, then we aren't gaining anything from their presence; in fact, their presence--if as postulated by some is true--then they are the ones doing the research, not us. If abductions and cattle mutalations are real in the sense that they are acts committed by extraterrestrials, then they are obviously experiments by this superior species, not an exchange of information between us.

When you pick up an ant, do you leave a calculator?

JD

[QUOTE=JDawg]I'm feeling pretty patient today, so let's discuss.

me::::which implies your the adult i am the child/pateint? what?

Who says many are false? Have you read project blue book? Even our famed Roswell crash was proven to be a balloon.

me::::::'proven'? by whom was it proven to be a 'baloon'?

And my only problem with agreeing that some are "unexplainable" is that I feel like I'm walking into a trap; when I say something can't be explained, or hasen't been explained, I mean that I have heard of no means to explain a certain situation.

me::::yes a 'trap'.....let me psychoanalyze you for a moment in Duendian terms. you fear engulfment. you feel that if you give one iota to sense that an event could be phenomena that contradcits your materialistist belief-system that tat is an engulfing trap ready to devour you. am i right or am i right?

Many others, such as the UFO believer, takes "unexplainable" and instantly places the extraterrestrial/paranormal tag on it. In reality, to say something is enexplainable doesn't mean it's out-of-this-world, it just means that no one reporting or studying the thing/phenomenon/event can immediately explain it.

me::::ie., in materialistic terms!...tis attitude makes you hostile to evidence which strongly suggests it DOES exactly do that. that' you materilists' impasse. your terrible fear ofthe Unknown, ie., what contradicts your worldview
seee what you started off with. 'yes i am PATIENT today'''implying you are humouring me'....that at ANYtime you may NPT be patient and becme hostile, rude etc cause--after all YOU are justified to do that---case eeeeventually the 'eveeedence' is gonna prove YOU are right right?

That all said, I'm sure there are reports of things that are "unexplained" and for simple reasons such as the video is too blurry to tell if the light on it is from a land vehicle or an air craft, or if the craft is legitimate or staged, or if the legitimate craft is military, commercial, or extraterrestrial.

me:::::::WO....wiat. 'or extratereestrial'?? so you agree it COULD BE?



I've seen that you consider yourself a very "earthy" person, and believe in the whole harmony between things, such as Man and his conciousness, and things of that sort, am I correct in that?

me:::::Yes, and Woman of course

There is something to be said for people who care more for the planet and their own bodies than they do for national pride or corporate conglomorates, and they are just as valuable as citizens as the rest of us.

me)))))i know. where are you in this? are you 'the rest of us'. am not clear?

But there is a common theme amongst people who think "against the group" and that is one of anti-establishment. Duendy, please don't get angry with my assumptions of you, but they are mine to speak, and they mean no harm. Those who are anti-establishment seem to lean towards believeing next to nothing of what any large, established group says. In this case, duendy, it seems you are dead set against the rules scientific method applies to it's practice.

me))))))))why do you think we are a small group?...and cant resist...but what's size gotta gotta do wid it?..........i am against materialistic sciense when i becomes sciencism yes. does that mean i am againstthe scientific method per se..........................errrrrm............... ....em........

there's a very interesting thing R,D. Laing said about its origins:
"Galileo Galilei banned quality from science, restricting it to the study of phenomena that could be measured and quantified. This has been a very successful strategy throughout modern science, but our obsession with quantification and measurement has also exacted a heavy toll. As the psychiatrist R.D.Laing put it emphatically:
Galileo's program offers us a dead world: Out go sight, sound, taste, touch, and smell, and along with them have since gone esthetic and ethical sensibility, values, quality, soul, consciousness, spirit. Experience as such is cast out of the realm of scientific discourse. Hardly anything has changed our world more during the past four hundred years than Galileo's audacious program. We had to destroy the world in theory before we could destroy it in practice. ((The Web of Life: A New Synthesis of Mind and Matter, by Fritjof Capra, page 19)))

In all actuality, one would not have to break down the materials found on a supposed alien craft to be positive it was of alien origin. All you would have to do is look at it, I imagine, or watch it move to know that it wasn't from the creative mind of a Human Being. (of course, this is speculation, but I'd imagine that it would be the case) Of course, if we had the chance to take apart a craft and study it, we'd be able to tell certain things about it that the naked eye would not, such as possible scenarios as to how the craft came from where it was to where it landed, but it would not require absolute proof in the sense of a peer review and case study to know that it wasn't from Earth.

But this thing you call "materialistic science" isn't the devil you make it out to be. Simply put, the call for evidence is a sound one, and a neccissary one. If we simply allowed photos and videos which could be easily (or painstakingly) faked into the realm of scientific fact, that would be a foolish way to go about business. It would hinder the search for truth and understanding, wouldn't it? If we simply believed the woman who claimed she was abducted by aliens and had a scar on her leg to prove it, is it impossible to believe that our fascination with the stars would diminish as the mystery would be taken out of it? On top of that, we might never look into the psychological reasons, the pathology, behind someone who would lie about such an experience. We would be losing on two fronts, as I see it.



Is that a scenario you believe could happen? I'm curious to know the reason you would even speculate that.



You're right, as we broaden the scope from extraterrestrials to the entire paranormal field. My point, though, I admit, poorly thought out and executed, was that the large outcry on this board is that the UFO phenomenon is credited to one or more alien civilizations, nothing more, when in fact the UFO phenomenon has many popular explanations by Johnny Believer, and the quest for truth in the matter (if

Hewy JDawg....notice how my previou reply to you just cuts off? tis is cause my system cant cope with too lon posts when i have to give indepth answers....if poss can you slie you post in two so as i can more easily answer your points?

ok continuuing then: Owill have to trpe quote you--typos are mine--of course)
jdawg: if we simply believed tyhe woman who claimed she was abducted by aliens and had a scar on her leg to prove it, is it impossible to believe that our fascination with the stars would diminish as the mystery would be taken out of it? On top of that we might never look into te the psychological reasons, the pathology, behind someone who would lie about such an experience. We wouod be losing on two fronts as I see it

quite revealingthat jdawg as to your mindset about this......i dont see why investigating in a respectful and scinetific way an abudcutees claims would diminish interst in te stars.....? surely it'd DEEPEN the interest......and as for hr 'pathology' that very term is loaded in our culture and is referring to the accepted MYTH of mental illness
you see the major IRONY jdawg is tis: you people who caount yourselves very serious tinking materialsitc no-nonesense scientists have drastically been taken in by one of te most insidious scams ever. the myth of mental illness which is oppressing people in tis curent paradigm. so along wit everyting else that is an aboslute MUST to invesitgate, because not doing so you already havethe premise about 'mental illness' being a bilogical disease.
This is not to say that people dont have visions that ren't 'actual' as in say actually beng abducted, BUT there is most likely a CONTINUUM...tisis difficultto explain butni'll try, and it'll mean i have to start a fresh post for your other replies.
We are living in A paradigm. tis paradgim is BASED on materialistic science which demands any 'anamalous' experience, and/or vision, etc 'must be' a breakdown in the 'biochemical machine' orrr 'cybernetic-like machine'...right? THAT is the premise. tus ANY reports, or confession os experiences not ACCEPTEDby tha remit is immediately labelled by that materialistic mindset, 'pathalogical'. see he difficulty. but by 'continuum' i am meaning that there is a DEPTH of humanity that tis paradgm--as did previous pradigm of Church-that is suppressed and repressed-.....and this depth will include all the things that are being considered false by materialisticscience. so FIRSTwe have t de-construct the false myth we are under......as people did about te false literalist myth of the Christian faith. it would have been UNTHINKABLEto even CONSIDER such a thing in pevious paradgim as it is now with OUR myth!........phew need a break

last bit seemed vaguer than needs be, so to be more clear. as did the Church suppress and condemn experience not sanctioned by the authority of the Church....terefore such potential experience becoming suppressed and repressed.........SO it is now under sciencism. in fact in te history of materialistic science ANY behviour considered unaccepatable has been severely dealt with by its 'priests'---even 'homosexuality'!

jdawg: Is that a scenario you believe could happen. I am curious to know the reason you would even speculate that? about staged alien invasion

wellllll, we've seen first Atomic explosion, and HIROSHOMA haven't we. i wonder...do we take those events for granted now??.....and we hve seen 9/11.....so anythings possible, once you begin lookin behind the scenes

te people attop of pyramid will do ANYTHING to mintain power....anything. even shit tha might blow our minds if we knoew, so in tis spiri it is WISE TO spculate....so as not t be caught off guard
checkout: 'Cosmic Deception: The Hoaxed Alien Invasion Scenario'
http://www.educate-yourself.org/cn/cosmicdeception04apr03.shtml

& 'PuPPs'-ALIEN INVASION http://www.geocities.com/puppsfreestuff/aliens2.htm

ie., te pupose would be a 'typcial' ploy of power-weilders to create an 'ENEMY'....you know all this State 'war on...' abfukin c?...it is creating an 'enemy' so as o defelct awareess from teir own inherent corruptin and oppression. so tey create enimies--example the Church created their 'Devil'....ten U>S created 'COMMIES' and te war on drugs, and now war on 'TERRORISM'........etceteraaa

jdawg: basically if everyone comes at tis issue with 15 different 'truths' as to what the UFOs are, you just look like whackos

i say. BE flexible. dont specialize. cause if you specialize you may not b open to sudden twists of inquiry, and will also ignore INTERRELAIONSHIP

jdawg

I'd agree, Gustav, but we aren't digging up alien bones or alien ships.

non sequiter

We have pictures, accounts, and videos, and so many of them verifiably false, the ufologist is truly at a disadvantage.

already established. yet one must learn to compartmentalize. i make a sighting. i take pics, record on radar. what relevance do previous cases have on the current one i am investigating? am i not introducing extraneous info by considering unrelated cases at this point in time? especially those cases that have been falsified? should there not be a sequence to the investigation? ie: establish the validity of data collected, formulate an initial hypothesis. if you wish to compare with other cases, formulate another hypothesis.

what disadvantage is it that you speak of?

if any case has merit, it should be able to stand and be considered on its own.

but until something really major happens, mainstream science and society just won't buy it

*When someone produces purported physical evidence of alien technology, point out that no analysis can prove that its origin was extraterrestrial; after all, it might be the product of some perfectly ordinary, ultra-secret underground government lab. The only exception would be evidence obtained from a landing on the White House lawn--the sole circumstance universally agreed upon by generations of skeptics as conclusively certifying extraterrestrial origin!

you are however welcome to define "major" and "mainstream science." you can also tell me what it is not

It sucks for the ufo enthusiast and avid believer, because everybody who poo-poo's the UFO thing looks like an asshole to them. The fact of the matter is that science doesn't work that way; science is inherently skeptical.

And rightfully so! That is a natural defense to unfounded, false beliefs, such as fairies, deamons and dragons and fantasy creatures and phenomenon as such. If the UFO phenomenon is to be accepted, something has to happen; be it a real signal captured by SETI, a landing covered by major news media, a real crash landing, or some sort of--god forbid--invasion (!) something must take place before anyone accepts the story that intelligent alien life is aware of us.

you are now ranting on your soapbox

*Equate the necessary skeptical component of science with *all* of science. Emphasize the narrow, stringent, rigorous and critical elements of science to the exclusion of intuition, inferential, exploration and integration. If anyone objects, accuse them of viewing science in exclusively fuzzy, subjective or metaphysical terms.

*Characterize your opponents as "uncritical believers." Summarily dismiss the notion that debunkery itself betrays uncritical belief, albeit in the status quo.

*Although science is not supposed to tolerate vague or double standards, always insist that unconventional phenomena must be judged by a separate, yet ill-defined, set of scientific rules. Do this by declaring that "extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence"-- but take care never to define where the "ordinary" ends and the "extraordinary" begins. This will allow you to manufacture an infinitely receding evidential horizon; i.e., to define "extraordinary" evidence as that which lies just out of reach at any point in time.

*Practice debunkery-by-association. Lump together all phenomena popularly deemed paranormal and suggest that their proponents and researchers speak with a single voice. In this way you can indiscriminately drag material across disciplinary lines or from one case to another to support your views as needed. For example, if a claim having some superficial similarity to the one at hand has been (or is popularly assumed to have been) exposed as fraudulent, cite it as if it were an appropriate example. Then put on a gloating smile, lean back in your armchair and just say "I rest my case."

adding to that, you assume that simply because joe public has no knowledge of something, that something does not exist. a simple example.... a biotech company is a few months away from releasing its cure for cancer. r&d has extensively tested and pronounced it a success. joe public/mainstream science claim there is no cure for cancer

are they correct?

Let us not forget, either, that extraterrestrials aren't the only theory behind UFOs. Some claim that they are time travelers, former inhabitants of Earth, current inhabitants of Earth via underground establishments, secret military aircraft, an unknown race from the North Pole, ect., ect..

My point is that even UFO believers don't have a decisive, singular theory behind the whole matter.

strawman
why must there be a single theory? why can't the ufo be a balloon/test jet/et ufo/weather? i see a lack of discernment and judgement on your part. an inability to separate the wheat from the chaff. out of your listed "claims," i have discounted all but "secret military aircraft". why? the rest have been falsified in no uncertain manner. (i cannot comment on time travel due to lack of knowledge)

*Hold claimants responsible for the production values and editorial policies of any media or press that reports their claim. If an unusual or inexplicable event is reported in a sensationalized manner, hold this as proof that the event itself must have been without substance or worth.

Anyway, the bottom line is that once something happens (alien visitation) We. Will. Know. There's just no way to hide it, and moreso, no reason to hide it. Despite what some fanatics claim, the world's oil conglomorates won't be filing for bankruptcy if ET lands, and the world's governments won't crumble, and chaos will not ensue.

If they are real, and they were visiting, we'd all know it. There would be no doubt.

strawman
i am really at a loss. i note an emotional outburst and am wondering at my next course of action.
should i bust your balls or let it slide

Gustav quoting someone; caught my attention:


Anyway, the bottom line is that once something happens (alien visitation) We. Will. Know. There's just no way to hide it, and moreso, no reason to hide it. Despite what some fanatics claim, the world's oil conglomorates won't be filing for bankruptcy if ET lands, and the world's governments won't crumble, and chaos will not ensue.

No. You. Would. Not.

What makes [him] think that the alien people would wish to be unhidden? [He] and his ilk always spin from the same vista: their own. It's absolutely obvious that the main feature to this plot -- if true :?rolleyes?: -- is one of stealth. So shouldn't [he] try to extrapolate from that unveiled condition? Or perhaps [he] doesn't like the implication of being a member of a species who is best to be avoided?

And, no one would crumble? Imagine that the alien people wouldn't be using oil to zip across the planet, and that they don't answer to elected officials -- wouldn't people question their own lifestyles then? Humans, after all, are prepared to nuke each other and everything else on this planet simply because of contrasting political views.

Originally Posted By: Gustav
already established. yet one must learn to compartmentalize. i make a sighting. i take pics, record on radar. what relevance do previous cases have on the current one i am investigating? am i not introducing extraneous info by considering unrelated cases at this point in time? especially those cases that have been falsified? should there not be a sequence to the investigation?

Does this not happen already? The United States government itself opened a public investigation from 1951-1969. Was the purpose of said department to bunch these accounts together and dismiss them all at once? They could not find any conclusive--or even circumstantial--evidence that the sightings were of alien origin. What more do you want?


what disadvantage is it that you speak of?

I must clarify that I decided to reply to duendy on a day that I had very little sleep, and I admit that I got a little preachy. The court of public opinion is the one that hangs the claimant of Close Encounters, not the people who research these incidents. I apologize for being so vague.


if any case has merit, it should be able to stand and be considered on its own.

And they do. Again, Project Blue Book investigated such reports for nearly 20 years.


*When someone produces purported physical evidence of alien technology, point out that no analysis can prove that its origin was extraterrestrial; after all, it might be the product of some perfectly ordinary, ultra-secret underground government lab. The only exception would be evidence obtained from a landing on the White House lawn--the sole circumstance universally agreed upon by generations of skeptics as conclusively certifying extraterrestrial origin!

So what is the argument? Are you complaining that we want some sort of definate evidence, such as a public landing or something that can be realistically pointed to and agreed upon. Let me pull out my soap box again and say that people lie, and they lie about things to get attention. It's a fact. I don't dismiss every sighting, and would go to the length that the greater majority of the sightings are genuine and involve things in the sky that aren't normal to our everyday lives.

But that doesn't make them extraterrestrial.


you are however welcome to define "major" and "mainstream science." you can also tell me what it is not

I apologize; that was another broad, vague term with very little basis. I guess what I was getting at was that the scientific community and the general public won't buy into alien visitation without some major event, or a series of them, or something that we can all feel, see and taste.


you are now ranting on your soapbox

A strong possibility. But that's how I get, much in the same way you feel obliged to verbally insult people who's views oppose yours. Not an insult, just an observation; I rant too much and you take this whole thing too personally.


Equate the necessary skeptical component of science with *all* of science. Emphasize the narrow, stringent, rigorous and critical elements of science to the exclusion of intuition, inferential, exploration and integration. If anyone objects, accuse them of viewing science in exclusively fuzzy, subjective or metaphysical terms

Not fair. We currently have no evidence of life beyond Earth. We assume it is there; almost every scientist I've ever seen or read has stated as such. They have reason to believe that intelligent alien life would be less common than simple alien life, and in our neighborhood we'd be more likely to see the simple forms of life as opposed to the intelligent forms.

They base these theories on the fact that the galaxy is unbearably huge, and the universe's size is beyond comprehension. They base these theories on the fact that we haven't encountered an alien craft beyond our planet, be it on the moon (or on the way there and back) by our manned craft, and we haven't encountered them on our space stations, and we haven't encountered them with our probes that go to distant planets within our Solar System.


Although science is not supposed to tolerate vague or double standards, always insist that unconventional phenomena must be judged by a separate, yet ill-defined, set of scientific rules. Do this by declaring that "extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence"-- but take care never to define where the "ordinary" ends and the "extraordinary" begins. This will allow you to manufacture an infinitely receding evidential horizon; i.e., to define "extraordinary" evidence as that which lies just out of reach at any point in time.

Extraordinary evidence would be proof, such as a piece of an alien craft, an alien itself, or something to show that the craft you see is actually out-of-this-world. What makes the evidence cross over from ordinary is the nature of the evidence; if you are trying to prove the existance of rocks, you would have countless exhibits to choose from, whereas with extraterrestrial visitation requires something visibily extraterrestrial.

And if this extraordinary evidence is out of reach, then so is the universal acceptance of the existance of extraterrestrials coming to Earth.


*Practice debunkery-by-association. Lump together all phenomena popularly deemed paranormal and suggest that their proponents and researchers speak with a single voice.

Who does this? The people on this board? They aren't all scientists! They aren't doing the research! They aren't writing the articles! They are merely people who have some free time to post on this board, not representatives of the scientific community.


adding to that, you assume that simply because joe public has no knowledge of something, that something does not exist.

That isn't true. I say that it's entirely possible that aliens are visiting Earth and leaving crop circles and abducting people. I just cannot say that they definately are. I can't say that they don't exist, I can only say that I have not seen them, and the people who do the actual legwork and research of these sightings and events agree with me.


a simple example.... a biotech company is a few months away from releasing its cure for cancer. r&d has extensively tested and pronounced it a success. joe public/mainstream science claim there is no cure for cancer

Maybe so, but they also have not seen any evidence for such a cure. They haven't heard of nor read up on any of it, simply because it hasen't been published (or at least not in anything you'd find on a newsstand) "Joe Public" and "Mainstream Science" is right, because as far as they can see, there is no cure. And just to nitpick, there actually would be no cure in the practical sense. Could "Joe Public" buy this cure? If not, then it doesn't exist for them.


strawman
i am really at a loss. i note an emotional outburst and am wondering at my next course of action.
should i bust your balls or let it slide

Get over yourself, would you please? You're gonna bust my balls? An emotional outburt? That's just rediculous. This isn't life and death; this is a conversation regarding things that hardly matter to our everyday lives, so stop letting it bother you. Go outside, kiss your girlfriend, have some lunch and calm down. The sun will come up tomarrow.

Originally Posted By: Meanwhile
No. You. Would. Not.

Maybe not. But if it's so blatantly obvious that every Joe Nobody "knows" that aliens are visiting us, then one could postulate that if it really, really were true, then it would be blatantly obvious.


And, no one would crumble? Imagine that the alien people wouldn't be using oil to zip across the planet, and that they don't answer to elected officials -- wouldn't people question their own lifestyles then? Humans, after all, are prepared to nuke each other and everything else on this planet simply because of contrasting political views.

Didn't you just say that we wouldn't know of thier existance? Anyway...

What, exactly, would these aliens be using to get here? I would assume it's not oil, but what's to say that we'd know what, exactly, they'd be using? Who's to say that that means of energy isn't twice the cost that oil is, or if it could even be manufactured on Earth? Who's to say that they'd share such information?

People questioning thier own lifestyles? So what? We do it every day, what difference would it make if aliens landed?

You've assumed so much in your comments that I will do my own assuming: I would assume that if we discovered that we had a viable means of producing an alternative energy source that the big business people would have the first dibbs on such a source. Oil companies would have the upper hand in producing and marketing such a thing because they have the resources and funds to accomplish it. Even if someone else got to it first, the vastness of the big energy producers would overwhelm the competition and dominate the market.

JD

it DOES matter to our lives. haveyou no sense of DRAMA????!!!!!!!!!

seriously. of course it does. materilistic science is an exceptionally heavy oppressive burden, and many are suffering, andmany are suffering terribly because of its 'religion' oppressing eveything--all of Nature

this subject is alla bout all that and challenging your materilsitic assumptions about reality. us and the 'aliens' are waiting.....waiting, waiting for you'll to wake UP

jdawg

Does this not happen already? The United States government itself opened a public investigation from 1951-1969. Was the purpose of said department to bunch these accounts together and dismiss them all at once? They could not find any conclusive--or even circumstantial--evidence that the sightings were of alien origin. What more do you want?

strawman
you gotta be kidding me! the point here is: the falsification of previous cases should no bearing on an investigation of a brand new sighting.

And they do. Again, Project Blue Book investigated such reports for nearly 20 years.

strawman

Are you complaining that we want some sort of definate evidence, such as a public landing or something that can be realistically pointed to and agreed upon. Let me pull out my soap box again and say that people lie, and they lie about things to get attention. It's a fact. I don't dismiss every sighting, and would go to the length that the greater majority of the sightings are genuine and involve things in the sky that aren't normal to our everyday lives.

well thats the just the point isnt it? what is "realistically?" would an et rendevous with the space shuttle count? we have anecdotes, radar, visuals, comm logs. no hard evidence yet. would that count?

I apologize; that was another broad, vague term with very little basis. I guess what I was getting at was that the scientific community and the general public won't buy into alien visitation without some major event, or a series of them, or something that we can all feel, see and taste.

nonsense. joe public was quite happy to buy into the moon landing with nothing but visuals and anecdotes as evidence. yet even today there are some pseudo skeptics that say it was faked. the point here is if the president and perhaps the joint chiefs of staff made an announcement of seti communications with et, joe public would buy it. we would have no real reason not to

Not fair. ...........Solar System.

strawman to the quoted text, yet i do not dispute anything you said

Extraordinary evidence would be proof, such as a piece of an alien craft, an alien itself, or something to show that the craft you see is actually out-of-this-world. What makes the evidence cross over from ordinary is the nature of the evidence; if you are trying to prove the existance of rocks, you would have countless exhibits to choose from, whereas with extraterrestrial visitation requires something visibily extraterrestrial.

And if this extraordinary evidence is out of reach, then so is the universal acceptance of the existance of extraterrestrials coming to Earth.

rather misguided. i could not care less about what joe public knows. if we were to base the extent of our knowledge on the lowest common denominator, we would be practically illiterate. going back to the et encounter with the iss, a single pic, astronaut anecdotes, a statement from nasa acknowledging ufo would be adequate enough for any sensible person. the demand that evidence satisfy all or some of our modes of perceptions would remove entire fields of inquiry into the realms of junk science.

Who does this? The people on this board? They aren't all scientists! They aren't doing the research! They aren't writing the articles! They are merely people who have some free time to post on this board, not representatives of the scientific community.

you did. when? the moment you trotted the the patently bogus "fairies, deamons and dragons and fantasy creatures" and compared it with entirely plausible concept of an et ufo. a belief in fairies or the easter bunny is qualitatively different from a belief in et ufos. one is grounded in fantasy, the other in statistical probabilities

That isn't true. I say that it's entirely possible that aliens are visiting Earth and leaving crop circles and abducting people. I just cannot say that they definately are. I can't say that they don't exist, I can only say that I have not seen them, and the people who do the actual legwork and research of these sightings and events agree with me.

you contradict yourself in the very next paragraph

Maybe so, but they also have not seen any evidence for such a cure. They haven't heard of nor read up on any of it, simply because it hasen't been published (or at least not in anything you'd find on a newsstand) "Joe Public" and "Mainstream Science" is right, because as far as they can see, there is no cure. And just to nitpick, there actually would be no cure in the practical sense. Could "Joe Public" buy this cure? If not, then it doesn't exist for them.

speechless

Get over yourself, ............will come up tomarrow.

nothing bothers me pal
appearances do deceive

Originally Posted By: Gustav
you gotta be kidding me! the point here is: the falsification of previous cases should no bearing on an investigation of a brand new sighting.

What says that falsification of previous cases has any bearing on a brand new sighting? I would guess that it did not if even the government sponsored Project Blue Book lasted as long as it did. If they just dismissed each case at hand, then they would not have continued for as long as they did. And who does this dismissing? Again, you are merely blaming the scientific community for what people on this board say.


strawman

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by this, yet you say it with every response. Please clarify.


well thats the just the point isnt it? what is "realistically?" would an et rendevous with the space shuttle count? we have anecdotes, radar, visuals, comm logs. no hard evidence yet. would that count?

We have visual, radar and comm log evidence of encounters with alien UFOs from the space shuttle?

To answer your question, though, a rendevous with the space shuttle would count, as it would with any other craft. I'd even take witness accounts from astronauts as opposed to some hick from Dewberry telling me that "That there thing there shore wuz from outter SPAYSE!"


nonsense. joe public was quite happy to buy into the moon landing with nothing but visuals and anecdotes as evidence.

B.S.
What about the amature radio operators who followed it's progress that night? You call that anecdotal? I'd call that pretty hard evidence.


a statement from nasa acknowledging ufo would be adequate enough for any sensible person.

Absolutely. But that would fall under the realm of "extraordinary evidence," bro. That would be beyond huge if NASA were to say that UFOs existed.


you did. when? the moment you trotted the the patently bogus "fairies, deamons and dragons and fantasy creatures" and compared it with entirely plausible concept of an et ufo

Entirely plausible? Based on what? We dont' even know if intelligent life exists elsewhere, and even though it is imagined to be a probability, who said it is "entirely plausible" that they are covering the vast distances required to reach Earth? And on such a consistant basis?

I would say that while it's possible, it's far from probable.


you contradict yourself in the very next paragraph

That was far from a contradiction, Gustav. I make the point in the first paragraph that nobody can say that they don't actually exist, then state that in a practical sense they don't exist to me. How is that a contradiction? Maybe a poor choise of words, but not a contradiction. In my little world here in Upstate New York, I have no UFOs. No proof, some fuzzy evidence, but no alien UFOs. They could be flying over my apartment right this second, but I am not aware of them.


nothing bothers me pal
appearances do deceive

If that were anywhere near the truth, I'd believe it. But it's not.

JD

JDawg: if it's so blatantly obvious that every Joe Nobody "knows" that aliens are visiting us, then one could postulate that if it really, really were true, then it would be blatantly obvious.

Who's speaking for the majority? You are.
Who's speaking for the individual? Your invented "majority".

But there is no majority—just individuals coming forward on their own accord with their own individual accounts. And the stories are piling up. But since there is no specialised supervision or management in this area (key word: specialised) to sift through accounts for further consideration/determination/classification—and not for the sole purpose of debunking, as was the Project Blue Book's raison d'&ecirc;tre—then all you will get for "evidence" is a huge bulk of stuff, all mish-mashed and incoherent. But I think that's how you like doing things in this area—it makes it simpler to dismiss the whole shebang.


JDawg: Didn't you just say that we wouldn't know of thier existance? Anyway...

I was proposing that "evidence" can also be connoted from the characterisation of a plot. To date, all accounts are consistent with the idea that extraterrestrials do not seek a social rapport with the rest of the human race. They seem to prefer the backstage—or the bar while the opera is being dramatised on stage in front of your audiences.

Several other characterisations: abductees will speak of being processed like guinea pigs. Rarely do we hear of accounts involving conversation. And most abductions occur under cover of night. Now, don't dismiss these simple, prominent characterisations too readily. You [and your ilks] dismiss abductees as liars, attention-seekers, story tellers, crazies, and whatnot. So then, why aren't their stories more hyped up? More spiced up? Where's the intoxication?

So my inference is that the alien people don't wish to contact the whole of the human race. What could be the reasoning behind that? My inference is that the alien people are not interested in socialising with the ego. What could be the reasoning behind that? My inference is that the alien people are laser-accurate when it comes to expediting their objective. What could that mean? My inference is that with some, the alien people will seemingly care enough about their subjects because they will be returned to their homes as though nothing happened, while with others, the aliens will make a sloppy job of returning them as though they were indeed the very guinea pigs they claimed to be—but why the discrepancy?

Why the discrepancy indeed. How is it that on the surface, stories of abduction that are otherwise so similar, also differ, sometimes dramatically? How do the Joe Nobodies differ from one another? What traits do the Joe Nobodies share; what is distinctly different? What is their history, their lifestyles, their skills, and why would alien scientists pick on them?

Such information may not be the quick-fix, instant materialistic evidence you seek, but it begins to put a face on the characters who are not present to reveal themselves.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by this, yet you say it with every response. Please clarify.

you ignore my argument/points and go off on a tangent
i do not say it with every response

But there is no majority—just individuals coming forward on their own accord with their own individual accounts. And the stories are piling up.

They're piled up. And, contrary to the believer position, this "pile" is problematic for the alien hypothesis, not a proof. The very fact that the numbers of alleged "abductees" is increasing and the number of testable, physical evidence remains the same (zero), is indicative that the commonality shared by these people isn't "aliens" but their minds. That is the one thing each of these people have in common: they each believe (or many of them do) that they've been abducted by alien beings.

There's no chunk of metal from the hull of a ship or other piece of material that can be tested to show characteristics that don't exist here on Earth (like isotopic ratios, ductility, conductivity, etc.). Nor are there any nicked items from a space ship. Nor are there any physical traces of unexplained organic matter (alien "dna" -if such a thing exists). Nor are there any interior photos of space ships. Indeed, the number of flying saucer photos is on the decrease in nations where camera numbers & technology is on the increase.

Mack (1992, p.7) says, "Hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of American men, women and children may have experienced UFO abductions, or abduction-related phenomena," yet amateur astronomers rarely report sighting UFOs. One would think that this culture of our population would be in a position to see the most UFOs since they make it their habit and hobby to stare at the night sky.


But since there is no specialised supervision or management in this area (key word: specialised) to sift through accounts for further consideration/determination/classification—and not for the sole purpose of debunking, as was the Project Blue Book's raison d'&ecirc;tre—then all you will get for "evidence" is a huge bulk of stuff, all mish-mashed and incoherent. But I think that's how you like doing things in this area—it makes it simpler to dismiss the whole shebang.

It would be akin to world scientists conducting a major investigation into the claims of people "speaking tounges" in churches. Or that the Holy Ghost was "felt" by parrishoners. I realize that there are UFO believers who are immediately offended at the comparison of the supernatural to extraterrestrial visitation, but it really is the same thing. Indeed, there are many similarities that go far beyond the fact that neither has tangible or testable evidence. The so-called aliens are every bit as elusive as the Holy Ghost and every bit as anecdotal in nature. Who would pay for the investigations of either?

Several other characterisations: abductees will speak of being processed like guinea pigs. Rarely do we hear of accounts involving conversation. And most abductions occur under cover of night. Now, don't dismiss these simple, prominent characterisations too readily. You [and your ilks] dismiss abductees as liars, attention-seekers, story tellers, crazies, and whatnot. So then, why aren't their stories more hyped up? More spiced up? Where's the intoxication?

As I stated earlier, it is the mind which alleged abductees have in common, not actual aliens. You say "plot," and the plot is very similar among abduction cases. However, the details vary widely depending on who you're talking to: what the aliens were wearing, what exactly they looked like, what types of medical devices were used, that kind of thing, all vary greatly. Another commonality is that "alien abductions" begin to occur after they are depicted in movies and popular literature. The Outer Limits had a number of episodes in the 1960's where aliens came to the planet and performed medical experiments. From a cultural anthropological perspective, this is an example of the feedback loop of media culture and popular culture.

That's not to say that people didn't experience problems associated with their minds before the media picked up on the alien abduction theme. Indeed, this is probably the single best explanation for a progenitor for the beginning of a feedback loop that has become the extraterrestrial visitation cultural phenomenon.

But the cultural influences give rise to delusions and false memories about aliens. I realize, too, that the word "delusion" is instantly considered to be offensive and perhaps ad hominem in nature, but it need not be so. Let me offer this quote from a paper that was unconnected directly to the UFO/ETI phenomenon:


Delusions may be defined as anomalies of judgement or belief, commonly revolving around themes of perseuction, grandeur, love, jealousy, and inferiority. They are false and even implausible beliefs that are assumed to be self-evident, and they are held with intense conviction by the believer, who shows a great deal of ego-involvement an preoccupation with them. Although incorrect, and even implausible, delusions are incorrigible in the face of persuasion, counterargument, and counterdemonstration (Kihlstrom & Hoyt 1988, p. 77).

Anyone can have delusions and they are a natural byproduct of our attempts to explain the unusual things that happen to us.

Maher (1974) asserts that delusions are formed in a particular sequence:

An unusual perceptual experience -intense and pervasive but not shared by others.
The conclusion that the experience, because it is not shared, is personally significant.
The arousal of anxiety due to the presence of an unexplained experience.
Explanation of the experience by means of intellectual processes that are essentially normal.
Reduction of hte anxiety after the explanation is achieved.
Persistence of hte explanation as a defense against further anxiety.

There was however, a paper that looked at false memories as they related directly to the alien "abduction" phenomenon. Lynn & Kirsch listed as the steps to false memory creation:



A person is predisposed to accept the idea that certain puzzling or "inexplicable" experiences (e.g. amnesia, paralysis) might be telltale signs of UFO abduction.
The person seeks out a therapist, whom he or she views as an authority and who i, at the very least, receptive to this explanation and has some prior familiarity with UFO abduction reports.
Alternately, the therapist frames the puzzling experiences in terms of an abduction narrative.
Alternative explanations of the experiences are not explored.
There is increasing commitment to the "abduction" explanation and increasing anxiety reduction associated with ambiguity reduction.
The therapist legitimates or ratifies the "abductee's" experience, which constitutes additional positive reinforcement.
The client adopts the role of the "victim" or "abductee," which becomes integrated into the psychotherapy and the client's view of self.

Whether their criteria are accurate or provide a basis for prediction probably remains to be seen, but it provides a place to start that is reasonable in place of the fantastic (a plausible explanation vs. an implausible). A starting point that is measurable and testable until such time as the physical evidence is produced.

As to the "inexplicable" experiences that Lynn & Kirsch suggest, one very likely starting point is Sleep Paralysis. Studies show that somewhere between 25-40% of the population have had the experience of being aware sleep paralysis (ASP) (Fukuda et al 1987). During this condition, people are unable to move with exception of their eyes, they feel increasingly heavy, and have increased heart rates as well as the possibility of difficulty breathing and acute anxiety.

This is almost exactly the symptoms reported by Streiber (1987) in Communion: A True Story.

And of 254 participants in a sleep paralysis study conducted by Cheyne et al (1999), 99 reported auditory experiences and 75 reported visual experiences. This is hypnagogic and hypnopompic imagery. Those that suffer it experience auditory and visual hallucinations as well as a sense of presence or impending evil threat.

Scientists can't investigate UFOs and abductions -they simply aren't any more testable than religious miracles and myths. But they can test the psychology of the human mind.

The problem is, believers don't want to here it. The skeptic can no more convince the believer that aliens don't exist any more than the atheist can convince the theist of the same. But it is still fascinating to study the magical thought of humanity nonetheless.

References

Cheyne, J.A., Rueffer, S.D., & Newby-Clark, I.R. (1999b). Hypnagogic and hypnopompic hallucinations during sleep paralysis: Neurological and cultural construction of the night-mare. Consciousness and Cognition, 8, 319–337

Fukuda, K.; Miyasita, A.; Inugami, M.; Ishihara, K.; (1987). High prevalence of isolated sleep paralysis: kanashibari phenomenon in Japan. Sleep, 10, 279-286.

Kihlstrom, J. F. & Hoyt, I.P. (1988). Hypnosis and the psychology of delusions. In T. F. Oltmanns & B. A. Maher (eds.), Delusional beliefs: Interdisciplinary perspectives. New York: Wiley

Lynn, S. J.; Kirsch, I.I. (1996) Alleged Alien Abductions: False Memories, Hypnosis, and Fantasy Proneness. Psychological Inquiry, 7(2), 151-156.

Mack, J.E. (1994). Abduction: Human encounters with aliens. New York: Scribners.

Maher, B. A. (1974). Delusional thinking and perceptual disorder. Journal of Individual Psychology, 30, 98-113

Strieber, W. (1987). Communion: A true story. New York: Morrow.

Hey Skinwalker....you have got it all worked out haven't you? your materialist dogma that is....'the skeptic can in no way convince the believer that aliens dont exist, as athiests cannot convince theists the same'....what yo meean theists believe in UFOS, abductions...? ....oh right, you mean 'spiritual experieces' or do you mean ;Literalism', an can you tell the difference? just how good is your analytical cap any way? does it only go so far o do you apply it to other fields like the history of religion, and the origins of science and etc

well skin, i happen to anaylyze YOUR behaviour at debate and i notice that you stick in a rut of your presuppositions. For example anyting i have said about science not undersstanding consciousness in its entireity, and materialism.....well, it might have as well of allen on deaf ears with you/or blind eyes. not a mention. what does this ommission say to me? it says that you are not seriously wanting to explore....that you yourself are deluded--as you define it. you just do not want to look outside the box you hav made for ourself. what can anyone do, when te other rfuses to engage with their points?

what can anyone do, when te other rfuses to engage with their points?
So how many of skinwalker's points did you engage in that post duendy?

So how many of skinwalker's points did you engage in that post duendy?
the 'points' are coming from A materialist
PREMISE. which i AM challenging. ie., going for the jugular. you hadn't noticed........? now why doesn't THAT surprise me?

Oooh, so you don't consider any points by people who you value "materialist"?
Good, good, may I suggest that you talk only in the religious section from now on?
Or maybe take a course in Critical thinking.

Oooh, so you don't consider any points by people who you value "materialist"?
Good, good, may I suggest that you talk only in the religious section from now on?
Or maybe take a course in Critical thinking.
may i suggest you mind yer own business where i post?....and, if your general contributions are an example of 'critical thinking' i thinki will pass your advice. thankyaverymuch. good bye, so long farewell

oh. hello agin (sheeeit)

Mack (1992, p.7) says, "Hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of American men, women and children may have experienced UFO abductions, or abduction-related phenomena," yet amateur astronomers rarely report sighting UFOs. One would think that this culture of our population would be in a position to see the most UFOs since they make it their habit and hobby to stare at the night sky.

false
astronomers, amateur or otherwise peer out into space, not the night sky. situating themselves in their backyard, focusing on a distant object out in space would definitely cause them to completely miss out on sighting the klingon battleship hovering above their frontyard


It would be akin to world scientists conducting a major investigation into the claims of people "speaking tounges" in churches. Or that the Holy Ghost was "felt" by parrishoners. I realize that there are UFO believers who are immediately offended at the comparison of the supernatural to extraterrestrial visitation, but it really is the same thing. Indeed, there are many similarities that go far beyond the fact that neither has tangible or testable evidence. The so-called aliens are every bit as elusive as the Holy Ghost and every bit as anecdotal in nature. Who would pay for the investigations of either?

the alleged similarities do not in anyway imply a common causative factor. the psychosocial hypothesis will not suffice as the sole explanation to the et/ufo phenomena. the simple fact remains that there are additional forms of evidence that should be considered and not ignored

We are agreed that the puzzle of what was seen on the radar screens and in the East Anglian skies in 1956 is embedded in a human, political and military-historical puzzle every bit as fascinating, and almost as inscrutable. We hope that our attempt to illuminate this intricate enigma will be useful on several different levels, historical, investigative and scientific. All five contributors, despite having differing approaches and opinions, agree this is an instructive case and its re-investigation has brought to light information that not only overturns all previous accounts, but provides the sort of data that scientists claim has been previously lacking in the field of UFOlogy." bentwaters (http://lakenheath.mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/)

i will not commit myself either way as to the validity of data presented nor do i reach any particular conclusion but the bentwater investigation is a fairly decent example that should debunk the absolutely moronic claim that it would be akin to investigating the holy fucking ghost

i repeat....introducing fairies, deamons and dragons, fantasy creatures, the holy ghost and comparing it with entirely plausible concept of an et ufo is patently bogus a belief in fairies or the easter bunny is qualitatively different from a belief in et ufos. one is grounded in fantasy, the other in statistical probabilities.

skinwalker (the pseudo skeptic), i suggest you stick to conventional formatting. ie: format all of meanwhile's quoted text.

...... it says that you are not seriously wanting to explore....that you yourself are deluded--as you define it. you just do not want to look outside the box you hav made for ourself. what can anyone do, when te other rfuses to engage with their points?

i entirely agree with this.

skinwalker (the pseudo skeptic), i suggest you stick to conventional formatting. ie: format all of meanwhile's quoted text.

... em, Gussy old man? You're still on Skinwalkers ignore list y'know. He can't actually read you. The lucky, lucky bastard...

Hey Skinwalker....you have got it all worked out haven't you? your materialist dogma that is....'the skeptic can in no way convince the believer that aliens dont exist, as athiests cannot convince theists the same'....what yo meean theists believe in UFOS, abductions...? ....oh right, you mean 'spiritual experieces' or do you mean

I mean the supernatural. Alien visitation falls in the supernatural category in the same way the Holy Ghost does. Neither is testable, both are possible, and both must be taken on faith and belief based on hope and fantasy, not evidence. Skeptics cannot convince believers (of aliens or the Holy Ghost) that the evidence is lacking. Believers simply aren't open-minded enough to consider the consequences, though this condition isn't necessarily permanent. I was once a believer in the paranormal. I credit an education and development of critical thought for my current agnostic perspective of both aliens and gods.


Literalism', an can you tell the difference? just how good is your analytical cap any way? does it only go so far o do you apply it to other fields like the history of religion, and the origins of science and etc

It most definately applies to these areas as well. I've been highly critical of religiousity in man and, indeed, I think belief in alien adbuctions/visitations to be yet another manifestation of the human condition to believe and establish religion. Heaven's Gate & Raelian cults lend credibility to this hypothesis, as do cults of personality such as Steven Greer et al.


well skin, i happen to anaylyze YOUR behaviour at debate and i notice that you stick in a rut of your presuppositions. For example anyting i have said about science not undersstanding consciousness in its entireity, and materialism.....well, it might have as well of allen on deaf ears with you/or blind eyes. not a mention. what does this ommission say to me?

What it should say is that I find your criticisms of science, a process, to be uninformed and baseless not to mention unsupported. Though I am fascinated with your anti-science worldview sprinkled with an occasional demand for scientific inquiry. You claim to "anaylyze (sic) my behavior at debate" but refuse to address the individual points I offer for discussion. I offer these provisionally and am willing to side with or against either depending upon how they are rationalized by others. I offer them as prosaic but testable alternatives to the supernatural explanation of invisible aliens.

The answer is in the human mind, not spaceships circling the earth.

gustav and skin....(certain parts of reply will refer to something you said a post ago)
Skin........yousay your fascianted with my anti-scince view yet my wanting to scientifically explore...or words to that effect?..i am not anti-science. i am anti sciencism, as i keep trying to explain. again then: sciencism is a mode of thought which steadfastedly clings...for dear life, to a materilistic worldview
Fritjof Capra--heard of him. he is a scientist. yet his views are not like materialistic views at all

now skin and gustav.......about fairies and things. you must be aware of the research of Jacques Valle?....almost uniquely---? he has looked at certain similarities from pre-modern accounts of 'magical' experiences, and compared them with UF and abduction reported accounts today. Also te late DrMack also recounted how similar were some abduction reports to shamanic experiences, and NDE experiences etc

So, faced with tis research whats the nest step? do we simply throw out te whole lot ...becase we assume tat te previous experiences are whacko, mentally ill, lies......? is that the scientific way to go?....do we divide up the more 'significant UFO/abduction reports' as te ones most likey 'serious' (Gustav)
or just discount them ANDthe other. te whole lot (Skinwalker)?

i am exploring this myself. which means i have not come to any conclusion

Someting you said Skin that i VERY much agree with....ie., your fear of UFO ET interest and belief in can lad to insidious and very dangerous cults like the one you mentioned. YES. some argue that that is actually being manipulated by the Illuminati!!

BUT...hey. over there is this family see. a mum, gran and two kids. real people. can tell just lookinat em. they HAVE an experience of abduction. so what do we do...call them whackos?...that it is all in teir mind?

explore' all in the mind'....and apply it to what i am encouraging exploring to TRY get over a deep impasse--CONSCIOUSNESS

you say you have studied the history of religion right? you do know that the Christian church persecuted peple who claimed to have 'weird' experiences dont you...??

.....further.....i had an experience which was very real, where i interacted wit mythical looking entities. so i go to Skin and tell him...he says 'oh...it's all in yer mind'...thAT VERY STATEMENT IS A METAPHYSICAL assumption. it is really not saying anything. it is DISMISIVE REACTION TO THE UNKNOWN......and that kind of Uncritical thinking cretes an impasse to deep inquiry about other phenomena

i am exploring that there is a contiuum between such experiential encounters with entities and UFO/abduction.....continuum as in interdimensional continuum. and in tis continuum te 'other' an also be 'solid' and leave implants and scars etc

Skin....you confess you used to be a 'believer' in the paranormal but that education got you over it. ...now, how do you KNOW tha eduction hasn't dulled you to it. how?

.....further.....i had an experience which was very real, where i interacted wit mythical looking entities. so i go to Skin and tell him...he says 'oh...it's all in yer mind'...thAT VERY STATEMENT IS A METAPHYSICAL assumption.

Not at all. If you would bother to educate yourself or even read the information I posted above, perhaps even follow the citations to their sources, you might discover that these problems of the mind are testable and verifiable. They are also reproducible in a controlled environment. Sleep disorders are well-understood. As are other disorders and problems of the mind that are very common. Delusion can occur to us all. One doesn't have to be "whacko" as you say to be deluded, have a hallucination, or misperceive an extraordinary experience of his/her mind.


continuum as in interdimensional continuum. and in tis continuum te 'other' an also be 'solid' and leave implants and scars etc

I'd like to see you test this fantasy. Indeed, I'd like to see the evidence of this "implants." People get scars. Shit happens. Nothing extraterrestrial about that.


Skin....you confess you used to be a 'believer' in the paranormal but that education got you over it. ...now, how do you KNOW tha eduction hasn't dulled you to it. how?

Because now I am able to reason and think critically with the benefit of both experience and knowledge. I dare say, that you exhibit little of either, though I won't assume it to not exist.

Not at all. If you would bother to educate yourself or even read the information I posted above, perhaps even follow the citations to their sources, you might discover that these problems of the mind are testable and verifiable.

me))))))))sweeet jeeeesus, you patronizing
materialist you!

They are also reproducible in a controlled environment. Sleep disorders are well-understood. As are other disorders and problems of the mind that are very common. Delusion can occur to us all. One doesn't have to be "whacko" as you say to be deluded, have a hallucination, or misperceive an extraordinary experience of his/her mind.

me)))))))circles and circles and........th 'we can do it in the lab' argument. how clinical and shelved hey?..we have bee waiting. the universe has beeeen awaitin for the whitecoats to twiddle our computeee brains so we can have our spiritual experiences...?
so how come the 'hard problem' then. IFtey are so clever and know how to mnipulate consciousness as you suggest, how come they dont KNOW consciousness? their OWn conciousness. How, for example subjectivity comes from 'dead' matter/energy?...i am aware some claim TO know, but its not convincing. hence HRD problem.....in othe words ---yes , consciousness CANbe changed via chemical substances, wine, psychedelics, scientific twealking, bu what it IS being changed etc is unknown!



I'd like to see you test this fantasy. Indeed, I'd like to see the evidence of this "implants." People get scars. Shit happens. Nothing extraterrestrial about that.

me:::::::see. you haven't even bothered to examine a PHOTO. yet already have dismisssed tem VERY unscientific. unexploratory, and shows signs of 'fundametalism disorder'. here...take these 'meds'. they will make you better.....




Because now I am able to reason and think critically with the benefit of both experience and knowledge. I dare say, that you exhibit little of either, though I won't assume it to not exist.
whayyyy how vewryy daaaare you
seriously. how does one KNOWthey have become indoctrinated by 'educatiion'--a cult. obviously it's very hard cause they dont gotya!....have you studied also the history of 'education'---The intentionsof its founders per chance........critical-thinker-you?

would like to add ---they dont know the source and MEANING of the content either

... em, Gussy old man? You're still on Skinwalkers ignore list y'know. He can't actually read you. The lucky, lucky bastard...

frankie, you old fart. you mean to say you envy skinwalker? i am absolutely sure that you have the very same privileges that skinwalker has on this board. so go on, explore the ignore function and get to be a"lucky, lucky bastard." who knows, you might even get back your normal complexion

you envy skinwalker?

Hey. Who doesn't?

my my
a fanboy
how absolutely pathetic

my my
a fanboy
how absolutely pathetic

Gus, Gussy-babes. Don't be so hard on yourself. Just because he hates you doesn't mean the rest of of us feel the same way. I imagine.

Anyway, where does the time go? It's been real.

Toodles. ;)

Gus, Gussy-babes. Don't be so hard on yourself. Just because he hates you doesn't mean the rest of of us feel the same way. I imagine.

Anyway, where does the time go? It's been real.

Toodles. ;)

running away so soon?
are you that desperate to have the last....the last garrulous fit?
tell me this tho
if you dont feel that way, then why envy him?
would it not be logical to assume that you wish to ignore as well?
and might have similar reasons?

frankie, do stick around. just for a little while
hmm pardon. it just occurred to me that you might be having some pressing problems. incontinence? do you have to change those diapers? or perhaps it is those hemorrhoid flaring up again?

ok then
be on your way
and hurry!

You're still on Skinwalkers ignore list y'know. He can't actually read you.

for the record.... the unchallenged rebuttal remains. for posterity and the historical record.

of course, frankie the hack should not be expected to know anything about that. indeed no. that would really be asking too much of him

:D

JDawg

What says that falsification of previous cases has any bearing on a brand new sighting? I would guess that it did not if even the government sponsored Project Blue Book lasted as long as it did. If they just dismissed each case at hand, then they would not have continued for as long as they did. And who does this dismissing? Again, you are merely blaming the scientific community for what people on this board say.

you did but i am giving up on trying to convince you. go back and read and figure out how i made those inferences from your argument

We have visual, radar and comm log evidence of encounters with alien UFOs from the space shuttle?

i set up a fictitious scenario and ask a question. what is so hard about this?

To answer your question, though, a rendevous with the space shuttle would count, as it would with any other craft. I'd even take witness accounts from astronauts as opposed to some hick from Dewberry telling me that "That there thing there shore wuz from outter SPAYSE!"

*Although science is not supposed to tolerate vague or double standards, always insist that unconventional phenomena must be judged by a separate, yet ill-defined, set of scientific rules. Do this by declaring that "extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence"-- but take care never to define where the "ordinary" ends and the "extraordinary" begins. This will allow you to manufacture an infinitely receding evidential horizon; i.e., to define "extraordinary" evidence as that which lies just out of reach at any point in time.

hopefully now you can see the relevance of this quote

B.S.
What about the amature radio operators who followed it's progress that night? You call that anecdotal? I'd call that pretty hard evidence.

you equate a rather elite group in society with joe public?. sorry, but anyone can generate bogus dialogues and put it on the airwaves. funny that this is now hard evidence

Absolutely. But that would fall under the realm of "extraordinary evidence," bro. That would be beyond huge if NASA were to say that UFOs existed.

i do not see why it would be necessary. extraordinary evidence has usually been passed off as actual physical objects. i think you are right tho

Entirely plausible? Based on what? We dont' even know if intelligent life exists elsewhere, and even though it is imagined to be a probability, who said it is "entirely plausible" that they are covering the vast distances required to reach Earth? And on such a consistant basis?

I would say that while it's possible, it's far from probable.

i'll get back to you on this when i feel motivated

That was far from a contradiction, Gustav. I make the point in the first paragraph that nobody can say that they don't actually exist, then state that in a practical sense they don't exist to me. How is that a contradiction? Maybe a poor choise of words, but not a contradiction. In my little world here in Upstate New York, I have no UFOs. No proof, some fuzzy evidence, but no alien UFOs. They could be flying over my apartment right this second, but I am not aware of them.

still speechless. it ain't important anyway

If that were anywhere near the truth, I'd believe it. But it's not.

gut feeling? intuition? got evidence?

whayyyy how vewryy daaaare you
seriously. how does one KNOWthey have become indoctrinated by 'educatiion'--a cult. obviously it's very hard cause they dont gotya!....have you studied also the history of 'education'---The intentionsof its founders per chance........critical-thinker-you?

You can create red-herring arguments about the validity of epistomology and scientific process all you want, but with regard to the topic at hand, you appear unable to support the title question: is there evidence for alien abductions etc.?

The only there there is evidence for is various mental states of people and their ability to properly interpret what happened. There *is* evidence of sleep paralysis. There *is* evidence that people embellish what they see. There *is* evidence that false memories can be developed. There *is* evidence that hypnosis suggests new memories perhaps more easily than it discovers them. There *is* evidence that people are willing to believe in the fantastic in favor of the prosaic or mundane.

There is *no* evidence of alien abductions. Claims of recovered "implants" are apparent lies, deceptions, or misunderstandings. Claims of "scars" are spurious and show no forensic relationship to any alleged "alien abductions."

Certainly they are possible. But as the number and quality of cameras increase, photos of UFOs decrease. Thousands of amateur astronomers are looking up at the sky habitually every night -few report any sightings of UFOs.

So the answer to the topic title-question is, "no."

So the answer to the topic title-question is, "no."

the only way anyone can say what this pseudo skeptic said, is if he has examined each and every case. we all know that this to be very unlikely.

funny how this pseudo skeptic is so willing to be ridiculed
and so much for the scientific method that he holds so dear

/rotfl

McNally et al (2004) found that relative to control participants in their study, those that alleged they were abducted by space aliens scored higher on their questionnaire in measures of dissociation, absorption, and magical ideation. People who score high in these areas typically have rich fantasy lives, believe they experience alterations in consciousness, and endorse unconventional beliefs.

Clancy et al (2002) found that "those reporting recovered and repressed memories of alien abduction were more prone than control participants to exhibit false recall and recognition [and] [h]ypnotic suggestibility, depressive symptoms, and schizotypic features were significant predictors of false recall and false recognition."

There are thousands if not millions of people who claim to have been "abducted by space beings." We would expect that the most credible witnesses would be amateur astronomers, but this group does not see space ships that aren't of our own planet. This is from Sky & Telescope:
Who are the most credible witnesses for various sky phenomena? Amateur astronomers, of course! So why do so few reports come from this group? Amateurs spend countless hours simply looking up. Logically, they should be reporting most of the UFOs.

But they're not, because they know what they are seeing. A meteor, a satellite, a flash of light off a high-flying airplane, and Venus are well-known objects to amateur astronomers, who spend thousands of hours familiarizing themselves with the sky and its denizens. Amateurs aren't as easily fooled as the average member of the public, who may be smart but lacks experience in observing the sky.

There is evidence for the psychology of people. But none for the abduction of them by space beings. There is evidence that people believe in the supernatural, but none that the supernatural (extraterrestrial space ships & alien visitors) hypothesis is real. There is evidence that humans can fantasize. But none that their fantasies are abducting them in the night.


References

Clancy S.A.; McNally R.J.; Schacter D.L.; Lenzenweger M.F.; Pitman R.K. (2002) Memory distortion in people reporting abduction by aliens Journal Of Abnormal Psychology 111(3): 455-461

Guide to Cosmic Nonsense (2004) Alien Abductions and UFOs. Sky & Telescope, May2004, 107(5), 42

McNally, Richard J.; Lasko, N. B.; Clancy, S. A.; Macklin, M. L.; Pitman, R. K.; Orr, S. P. (2004) Psychophysiological Responding During Script-Driven Imagery in People Reporting Abduction by Space Aliens. Psychological Science 15(7), 493-497

You can create red-herring arguments about the validity of epistomology and scientific process all you want, but with regard to the topic at hand, you appear unable to support the title question: is there evidence for alien abductions etc.?

me))))))))haha...let me add for you something you missed to add...."IMHO"

The only there there is evidence for is various mental states of people and their ability to properly interpret what happened.

me:::::::let me add for you sometin you failed to add...."IMHO"

There *is* evidence of sleep paralysis. There *is* evidence that people embellish what they see. There *is* evidence that false memories can be developed. There *is* evidence that hypnosis suggests new memories perhaps more easily than it discovers them. There *is* evidence that people are willing to believe in the fantastic in favor of the prosaic or mundane.

me))))))right, and all this research has been carried out by an establishment - the mental health movement - which promotes the mental illness myth...? oh, right, i see.......!

There is *no* evidence of alien abductions. Claims of recovered "implants" are apparent lies, deceptions, or misunderstandings. Claims of "scars" are spurious and show no forensic relationship to any alleged "alien abductions."

me:::::::::so you havestudied ALL the known evidence for implants and scars said to be from abductees have you? yes or no?

Certainly they are possible. But as the number and quality of cameras increase, photos of UFOs decrease. Thousands of amateur astronomers are looking up at the sky habitually every night -few report any sightings of UFOs.

me:::::Gustav made a very insightful reponse to your argument. ie., that when people are focussing on a point, then al else fades into the periphery........can you understand? ie., what you say proves nothing

So the answer to the topic title-question is, "no."
Skin....then picks up coat an shuffles out of the door. he doesn't hear all the other interested participants laugh and laugh and laugh, and then continue investigation

According to the documentary Is It Real?:UFOs there are relatively few abduction cases from Mexico. Mexico is supposedly a ufo hotbed so it is interesting if this is the case. Apparently abductions are not part of the popular culture there like they are in the US.

This was just a documentary so if anyone can verify or disprove this I would be interested.

This does not necessarily prove anything but it gives an indication of the influence of pop culture.

What I say demonstrates that there is no evidence for alien abductions but a preponderance of evidence for the alternative explanations. Explanations that the believers, predictably, reject. As to hearing all the other interested participants, you, to date, are the only one that appears to be arguing the believer position in this thread.

You ask if I've examined "all" the evidence for implants/scars etc. I ask you, where is it? How many of these alleged abductees have reported their kidnappings to the FBI? How many of these alleged "implants" have been studied by independent laboratory and what are the citations to the papers that resulted? What do scars have to do with anything? I have scars on my own body. Some I don't know the origin of. Scars prove nothing.

Where is the true forensic evidence that supports this supernatural fantasy of "alien abduction?" Ghost stories are fun, but like all ghost stories, the get more and more believed culturally as the popular media create more and more fictions based on the theme. Alien abductions weren't reported until the 1960s when shows like The Outer Limits had episodes that dealt with that very theme. Then the XFiles came along and re-ignited the theme along with that series of novels by Streiber, a horror novelist.

What I say demonstrates that there is no evidence for alien abductions but a preponderance of evidence for the alternative explanations. Explanations that the believers, predictably, reject. As to hearing all the other interested participants, you, to date, are the only one that appears to be arguing the believer position in this thread.

ME:::::::BUT THERE is EVIDENCE...PEOPLE'S TESTIMONY. which you discount, and condesendingly offer psychobabllish explain-aways to keep your universe nice and safew for you...yes you do. but i know you wiol deny it ad nauseum

You ask if I've examined "all" the evidence for implants/scars etc. I ask you, where is it? How many of these alleged abductees have reported their kidnappings to the FBI? How many of these alleged "implants" have been studied by independent laboratory and what are the citations to the papers that resulted? What do scars have to do with anything? I have scars on my own body. Some I don't know the origin of. Scars prove nothing.

me:::what fuckin chance does anyone have--ie., an experiencer of abduction phenomena--with such an atitude as yourse, hey Skin. they tell you they were abducted----they show you scoop mark scars, or implants, and you yet again treat them like children. telling them wht it 'reaaly means according to skin and ze materialists. it is laughable. just tell me this one question for now. WHEN was the last time yu spoke to an abductee who showed you scoop mark scars claiming they were doen by the abducters?.....and SKn SKIN SKinnnnnnn....are you serious?? you expect people whove been abducted to go to the FBI...????(look of horror). you mean they would be less materialistically bias than you?

Where is the true forensic evidence that supports this supernatural fantasy of "alien abduction?" Ghost stories are fun, but like all ghost stories, the get more and more believed culturally as the popular media create more and more fictions based on the theme. Alien abductions weren't reported until the 1960s when shows like The Outer Limits had episodes that dealt with that very theme. Then the XFiles came along and re-ignited the theme along with that series of novels by Streiber, a horror novelist.
i am not sure about that. i may remember Valle claiming tat stories of aductions strecyhc further back in time. and of course you have the very ancinet shamanistic abductions etc....jeeeez Skin dude. you really are a staunch materi-A'LIST..........say someone had tis experience. they arein a hospital......someone suddenly puhes past them, and the person says 'oh sorry' (as you do) looks at passng person who then walks into a wall and disappears. is she affected by 'folklore' or did she have an experience of a 'ghost'? what do you say?

-duendy ignorelisted-

BUT THERE is EVIDENCE...PEOPLE'S TESTIMONY. which you discount, and condesendingly offer psychobabllish explain-aways to keep your universe nice and safew for you

Testimony is NOT RELIABLE AS EVIDENCE. Even in a court of law, it is well understood that eyewitness testimony without coroborating forensic evidence is nearly worthless. That you consider this to be "evidence" is you greatest failing. People lie. People are deluded. People misunderstand what they see.

We're talking about thousands, perhaps millions, of people who claim to have been abducted. Are you suggesting each and every one was abducted? Just because they say so? Are you suggesting that NONE have been the victim of sleep paralysis (a very well understood event that has been OBSERVED in the laboratory)?

If you can admit that even ONE of these people are victims of sleep paralysis, that even one of them lied, that even one of them misunderstood what happened to them, then you must admit that it is possible that ALL OF THEM can be considered as such.

There are no forensic evidences that demonstrate "space aliens" taking people in the night.

You keep talking about implants and "scoop" marks. The latter means nothing. The very term is spurious. The former DOESN'T EXIST. If it does, point me to the peer-reviewed literature of the examination of one. Otherwise, we can discard it right here.

There's no evidence for "abductions by space aliens" or fairies, goblins, witches, ghosts, or whatever other supernatural kidnappers people believe in the world over.

There is a PREPONDERANCE of evidence for sleep paralysis, delusion, false memories, hynogogic imagery, and even deception among humans.

Its clear what the "space alien" phenomenon really is. Particularly since there are thousands, if not millions, of people who claim it and NOT ONE BIT OF FORENSIC/PHYSICAL EVIDENCE.

I believe it is possible that some people will have something occur, however I don't suggest it's alien in origin but more to do with the medical communities research programs.

To explain it you have to define first "Observation theory", this is where an Experimenter's observation of an experiment can have an actual effect on the experiment itself. If you are trying to do a well Caliberated experiment, observation theory can turn your results upside down. It obviously means to carry out such an experiment you have to limit how your observation can cause uncertainty (or chaos).

There have been many psychological experiments conducted in the past that have been mentioned in the news, on the internet and even within this forum. Such experiments consisted of tests for ESP & Psychic powers while others concerned more with a better understanding of the human psyche or the treatment methods for certain conditions.

Take into account that any experiment involving the psychology of an individual has to be "unbiased", if they enter into a contract and become a guinea pig openly, the likelihood is that they will act in the best interests of themselves towards those they interact with which generates a false result. This is why it can be suggested that utilising clandestine techniques and lieing about who/what, they are they can generate a result closer to the outcome they want.

Afterall if you are studying Psychosis, Paranoid Schizophrenia or potential violent types of psychiatric conditions, such a clandestine method removes the doctors from potential danger and removes them from potentially triggering the person to act irrational in relationship to them.

Is the above statements any less true or accurate than an abductee allogation?

According to the documentary Is It Real?:UFOs there are relatively few abduction cases from Mexico. Mexico is supposedly a ufo hotbed so it is interesting if this is the case. Apparently abductions are not part of the popular culture there like they are in the US….This was just a documentary so if anyone can verify or disprove this I would be interested…This does not necessarily prove anything but it gives an indication of the influence of pop culture.

I for one would guess that a comparative analysis of those claiming to have been abducted vs those who have claimed to see a UFO would show that Skinwalker’s apparent claim of fringe personalities probably does predominate within the abductee crowd.


Testimony is NOT RELIABLE AS EVIDENCE. Even in a court of law, it is well understood that eyewitness testimony without corroborating forensic evidence is nearly worthless. That you consider this to be "evidence" is you greatest failing. People lie. People are deluded. People misunderstand what they see.

Eyewitness testimony in court ranges from worthless to golden, depending upon the motives and reliability of the witnesses themselves. For instance, if two perfect strangers both without apparent motive independently report witnessing X, Y, and Z, then their testimony is probably true. If four family members report a fifth was not at a crime scene, the chances that they are not being truthful are higher.

It is a routine procedure for juries and judges to exercise all forms of discretion when dealing with such testimony.

I cannot disagree with that. I was thinking more along the lines of an independent eyewitness who is alleging a crime that wasn't witnessed by others, particularly not to the degree of the initial witness.

If a clerk at a small store calls the police and states he was robbed, the police will respond. The clerk gives a vague, generic description of the robber and states that the thief wore a ski mask. The till is missing.

Robbery happens to small stores enough in verifiable ways that we can give some benefit of the doubt. However, no other witness is available and, being winter, a person matching the vague description is picked up with a ski mask just a block away.

Do we assume that this person is the theif. Could the store clerk have been lying. Does the store camera reveal information that is useful? Are there fingerprints? Does the suspect have a gun as the clerk stated? If not, is one found in likely locations (mail boxes, trash cans, sewer drains, etc)?

There's a lot riding on a potentially innocent man's life when we know two things: stores get robbed; people lie; and people are greedy. Is the greedy liar the store clerk or the suspect.

If a gun can be found with fingerprints, or fingerprints found on the till, or if the store video camera shows the suspect with ski mask, then there might be a case.

But if this were an abduction by "space aliens," the fingerprints would be missing, the store tape would show nothing, and the people in or around the store would see nothing. The clerk might claim that his "robber" left an implant or "scoop marks," but no implant is found and some random scratches on the clerk reveal little.

A good thread that discusses eye witness testimony and embellishment can be found here: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=45461

Originally Posted By: Gustav
i set up a fictitious scenario and ask a question. what is so hard about this?

What's "so hard about this" is the fact that it is a ficticious scenario, and it isn't real. We don't have these evidences.


*Although science is not supposed to tolerate vague or double standards, always insist that unconventional phenomena must be judged by a separate, yet ill-defined, set of scientific rules. Do this by declaring that "extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence"-- but take care never to define where the "ordinary" ends and the "extraordinary" begins. This will allow you to manufacture an infinitely receding evidential horizon; i.e., to define "extraordinary" evidence as that which lies just out of reach at any point in time.

hopefully now you can see the relevance of this quote

No, I can't. Science has stated what the "extraordinary" evidence would entail, yet none of you can provide it. If this evidence is out of reach at "any point in time" then what are the chances that the thing you claim is true?


you equate a rather elite group in society with joe public?. sorry, but anyone can generate bogus dialogues and put it on the airwaves. funny that this is now hard evidence

So you are willing to believe that NASA put bogus dialouge on the airwaves for the "elite group in society" when that very elite group's accounts would not be considered evidence?

How is it that you are willing to believe that scenario rather than the entirely plausible (and actually true) scenario that we went to the moon? What is so hard to believe about that, and so easy to believe about extraterrestrials swooping down and abducting people from Earth?


i'll get back to you on this when i feel motivated

You'll get back to me after you cook up an answer, you mean.


gut feeling? intuition? got evidence?

Shall I dig up all the posts you've made verbally insulting, trolling and stalking people on this board? If you want, I can do it. I'd like to avoid taking this conversation into that realm, but if you want, I can do it.

JD

hmm
try the stalking for a start ;)

ps: there is something kinda weird about some of your responses. i get confounded sometimes. its like i wanna say...."dude! i never said that!"

hey, i got an idea
since you might be motivated to dig stuff up, perhaps you could find the ones with my woo woo claims and beliefs. yknow.. the aliens are here stuff.

SkinWalker: That is the one thing each of these people have in common: they each believe (or many of them do) that they've been abducted by alien beings.A poll: do you believe you're crazy, or do you believe you encountered extraterrestrials?

I think you're being very unfair, and excessively — or is it desperately? — reinventing the meaning of "belief" as though it unexpectedly jumped out of a hat. Gotcha indeed. If I step into a church, do I automatically "believe" in Christianity? Or do I simply accept the fact that I walked into a church? Precisely: I'm experiencing the church's old architecture, the church's gloomy silence, the church's stale stupor, without having to drag in a whole belief system. Nor would I find myself quizzing over some weird subliminal "intention".

So then, what belief system are you forcing upon the rest of us? • There are people who are impatient and will characteristically expedite snappy decisions, and will likewise decide to "believe" rather promptly, as though skirting a quagmire. • There are people who will hesitate and put "belief" on the back-burner, but will walk around as though in a quagmire. • There are people who will suspect something happened, hence cautiously "believe" something might have happened. • There are people who will attempt to cancel the incredible because nothing so bizarre could possibly strike them, but will nonetheless "believe" in their own astuteness of perception. • There are people who will "believe" in the phenomenon as they would "believe" any viable plausibility because their logic understands that it's all so possible, yet they will never "believe" any of it could involve them. • There are people who will fancy the thought, as a lark, like watching a good horror movie in the dark, and will allow a certain compromise, a certain amount of "belief", so as to pacify the horror of the unknown. • There are people who will deliberately examine the ramifications for openly declaring "belief", as though they were gay. • There are people who know they will eventually "believe", but prefer to procrastinate, as though delaying the inevitable. • There are people who will find shelter in "believing" something they can touch rather than something they can't. • There are people who will "believe" without admitting it, and people who will not "believe" by admitting it. • There are people who will reluctantly "believe", people who will boldly "believe", people who will shamefully "believe". • There are people who will "believe" in small steps until one day they notice that they are sympathising — because they are feeling a strong affinity. • There are people who will suppress their "belief". • There are people who won't acknowledge outright "belief", like disowning the black sheep of the family. • There are people who will tolerate "belief", assume "belief", take "belief" for granted, like, so what? • There are people who will surrender to "belief" without wishing to. • There are people who will simply "believe" because they know they're not crazy.

Note too your impulsive remark: "these people". You unwittingly placed yourself precisely at that point I stated earlier:

Who's speaking for the majority? You are.
Who's speaking for the individual? Your invented "majority".In other words, SkinWalker, you sound very much like a bigot.


SkinWalker: As I stated earlier, it is the mind which alleged abductees have in common, not actual aliens.That doesn't make sense. Are you now faulting people who suspect, who might have good reason to suspect, that something unfathomable has happened to them, but that they must never allude to its cause because the cause isn't what you "believe" in? But to suspect means to start somewhere. And how does one begin to suspect? With one's feet? Of course it's the mind they all have in common — what's so profound about that? However, how many different languages exist to describe the same thing? And each language has a different pitch, a different flavour to describe the same thing. So what?

But I see where you're going with this: a form of collective consciousness that embraces a collective attitude and belief system and poisons itself by a collective voice. Something totally out of proportion. Something wild. Something insane. Like the global marches that unified the whole planet in 2003 and held every government in suspended animation while every man, women and child held their breaths prior to the pre-war invasion of Iraq. They were all of a collective consciousness, right? Are you now saying that these people of differing cultures, citizenry, denominations, political allegiances, economies, professions, status, genders, personalities, were all exhibiting pro-terrorist, closet Al Qaeda tendencies, and were of one collective mind with the extreme Muslim cliques because they opposed the fanatical objectives of the neocon clique? You see, SkinWalker, you can paint a collective religious grin on anything.


SkinWalker: It would be akin to world scientists conducting a major investigation into the claims of people "speaking tounges" in churches. Or that the Holy Ghost was "felt" by parrishoners.Like all those crazy people yelling and prodding and stimulating and stomping and crooning and pounding and chanting together with the spirit of victory… what's the scientific term for football fans?


SkinWalker: but it really is the same thing.I should say.


SkinWalker: The so-called aliens are every bit as elusive as the Holy Ghost and every bit as anecdotal in nature.You can look at it that way if you wish. Or, you can use an alternative breakdown of a logical sequence to explain "elusiveness". Like those stealth bomber aircraft the Air Force are so sensitive about — secret tests and all that. Simply because they never appear on the radar screen doesn't mean the Air Force don't drop bombs. I said it a thousand times already: one of the main features characterising ETs is their stealth. Is stealth an American Air Force invention?


SkinWalker: However, the details vary widely depending on who you're talking to: what the aliens were wearing, what exactly they looked like, what types of medical devices were used, that kind of thing, all vary greatly.Again, how many armies exist globally? Do they all carry the same weaponry, wear the same uniform, fly the same aircraft, wave the same flag? So the conundrum thickens. Perhaps ETs are fashion-conscious after all? Or perhaps different equipment points to different institutions, different bureaucracies, different branches of their science? Add to that the possibility of different alien species with different levels of technology, each with their own fashion-conscious choice of attire to greet their different special guests.


SkinWalker: The Outer Limits had a number of episodes in the 1960's where aliens came to the planet and performed medical experiments. From a cultural anthropological perspective, this is an example of the feedback loop of media culture and popular culture.Or, has it ever occurred to you that the collective consciousness, that you don't quite give full potential for, reverberated globally in the modern collective subconscious, when alien consciousness inadvertently connected with terrestrial consciousness, thereby unleashing a rumble, like the tip of thunderclaps, and striking an incredible screech across the human collective psyche — only to be picked up on radar by the more sensitive and off-the-wall members of the Homo sapiens family, its artists, where the dramatic found expression? Another reason why abductees are best preferred unconscious? No live wires.


SkinWalker: […] a progenitor for the beginning of a feedback loop […]Abduction accounts awaken peoples minds and provides attestation.


SkinWalker: Maher (1974) asserts that delusions are formed in a particular sequence:So? But who asserts that an explanation is a delusional expanation?


SkinWalker: There was however, a paper that looked at false memories as they related directly to the alien "abduction" phenomenon. Lynn & Kirsch listed as the steps to false memory creation:So? Are Messrs Lynn and Nitch not creating the delusion that most abductees don't form ideas and explanations before seeing a therapist? In fact, do all abductees even bother to see therapists?


SkinWalker: A starting point that is measurable and testable until such time as the physical evidence is produced.You are definitely under the delusion that the aliens will put everything on hold until you've satisfied yourselves, for yourselves, that they are real. Meanwhile, until then, they've got the whole playing field to themselves. That is really funny.


SkinWalker: During this condition, people are unable to move with exception of their eyes, they feel increasingly heavy, and have increased heart rates as well as the possibility of difficulty breathing and acute anxiety.And what triggers paralysis? Obviously, I detect an Achilles' Heel somewhere. Hence most likely it can also be artificially induced by simply tapping into the right nerves. Yet, if you look at it from an alien's perspective, you'll notice just how practical such an immobilisation might be. And the bonus part of it is that the symptoms can easily masquerade as being a "normal" neurological disfunction.

Meanwhile, in your sea of non sequitur you pass off as a reply to my posts in this thread, your hypothesis depends on a central theme: that extraterrestrials are here and space aliens are abducting people. That simply hasn't been demonstrated to be factual and, indeed, my posts have demonstrated that the alternative hypothesis is far more plausible. That you choose not to accept it is, of course your perogative, but one that is biased to your beliefs, not of evidence.


I think you're being very unfair, and excessively — or is it desperately? — reinventing the meaning of "belief" as though it unexpectedly jumped out of a hat.

First, I'm not sure how I may have "reinvented the meaning of 'belief.'" Belief is simply the mental action, condition, or habit, of trusting to or confiding in a person or thing. One can have belief grounded in that which is testable and verifiable (consistent with the scientific method) or belief that is grounded in fantasy or delusion (the supernatural). Belief in the UFO-ETI hypothesis is *not* grounded in scientific method but rather the supernatural. I hold this assertion provisionally and am willing to revise given testable, verifiable, and reproducible evidence.

Second, I don't see that you've demonstrated my unfairness at all. Indeed, all you've really done is show that I'm being fair! I've admitted on several occasions in this and other threads that I'm open-minded to the space alien hypothesis. I hold my assertions and hypotheses provisionally. That's far more than I've seen several others admit to on the believer side of the debate. Neither you or duendy seem willing ot acknowledge even one case of sleep paralysis or false memory is possible. That, my friend, is a very close-minded and narrow position. You aren't the least bit willing to revise.

Third, what would be the point in my alleged "desparation?" I have no belief system that I'm beholden to. I would love, more than anything, to see the space alien hypothesis proved. I'm an anthropologist and archaeologist (okay, fourth year, but this is my field), and as such I would love the opportunity to examine a completely alien culture -one that no other anthropologist has. Yet I maintain that the space alien hypothesis is, as yet, quite unevidenced.


So then, what belief system are you forcing upon the rest of us?

I force upon you nothing. If I'm able to do that, then I deserve your worship as a god but, alas, I'm a mere mortal and not a very good one at that. But I do assert. And my assertion is that belief in alien abductions in the face so much evidence for the alternative hypothesis and no evidence for the ETI hypothesis is foolhardy.


Note too your impulsive remark: "these people". You unwittingly placed yourself precisely at that point I stated earlier:
In other words, SkinWalker, you sound very much like a bigot.

"These" people; those people... is there a more appropriate pronoun? I think the desparation on the believer, as is the burdon of proof. Are believer so desparate these days that they now accuse skeptics of being bigots as well as "fake" skeptics? I find more and more humor on this board everyday. Thank you for that.


That doesn't make sense. Are you now faulting people who suspect, who might have good reason to suspect, that something unfathomable has happened to them,

You call it 'faulting' people, but I contend that the research that is being conducted in this field is for the benefit of others. The problem of false memories, suggested memories, and delusions are faced every day by abuse victims or those that allege abuse. These are real people's lives that are affected and the more knowledge that health care professionals have about them the better equipped they are to deal with them.


But I see where you're going with this: a form of collective consciousness that embraces a collective attitude and belief system and poisons itself by a collective voice. [..] Or, has it ever occurred to you that the collective consciousness, that you don't quite give full potential for, reverberated globally in the modern collective subconscious, when alien consciousness inadvertently connected with terrestrial consciousness, thereby unleashing a rumble, like the tip of thunderclaps, and striking an incredible screech across the human collective psyche —

Much of the rest of your post was as incoherent and out of touch as the above, so I omitted it in my reply. I have no idea what you're going on about and which of us you think is suggest some sort of "collective consciousness" -a ludicrous idea that has even less plausibility than the space alien hypothesis.


And what triggers paralysis? Obviously, I detect an Achilles' Heel somewhere. Hence most likely it can also be artificially induced by simply tapping into the right nerves. Yet, if you look at it from an alien's perspective, you'll notice just how practical such an immobilisation might be. And the bonus part of it is that the symptoms can easily masquerade as being a "normal" neurological disfunction.

Fascinating. Do continue. From an anthropological perspective, your beliefs and the extent to which you are willing to go in order to justify them is simply fascinating. I am, even now, making field notes on my participant observation of the natives in their habitat. By the way, had you bothered to take a scholarly approach, rather than a woo-woo approach, you might've noticed the explanations for sleep paralysis and the causes for it in one or more of the citations I provided. If you haven't access to scholarly journals, I'd be happy to email you a copy of the pdf with the appropriate information.

Thank you for your response, however. I'm very happy someone besides duendy is bothering to do so from the believer side of the argument.

I cannot disagree with that. I was thinking more along the lines of an independent eyewitness who is alleging a crime that wasn't witnessed by others, particularly not to the degree of the initial witness.


For either UFO sightings or abductions to have any credence, the eyewitness testimony must conform to the standards that legal precedent demonstrates is reliable and trustworthy. This should pretty much eliminate abduction cases, because as you suggest, they tend to lack corroboration from other independent witnesses.

However, for UFO sightings, I think you’ll find that using demographic and statistical analysis to ‘weed’ sighting cases will actually reinforce the credibility of certain sightings. In this respect I would draw a sharp distinction between abduction reports and UFO sightings.

JDawg

What's "so hard about this" is the fact that it is a ficticious scenario, and it isn't real. We don't have these evidences.

i do not think i was trying to prove anything. i was merely trying to establish whether your evidentiary requirements would be satisfied by the given scenario. i was however a bit clumsy in setting up the scenario. a "rendezvous" presupposes the existence of an et/ufo and as such is illogical. what i meant was the types of data typically available in the usual astronaut sightings (http://www.skepticfiles.org/moretext/apollo.htm) that allegedly indicate et ufos

No, I can't. Science has stated what the "extraordinary" evidence would entail, yet none of you can provide it. If this evidence is out of reach at "any point in time" then what are the chances that the thing you claim is true?

really? and what are these statements? would you differentiate b/w the evidentiary requirements for the various fields of study in science? would you make distinctions b/w the hard sciences such as chemistry and the inferential sciences such as astronomy and their respective methodologies?

again, what specific evidentiary requirements do you have for ufology?

let me illustrate again how unreasonable you pseudo skeptics are with your evidentiary requirements


In the same way one of the requirements of science is that it be repeatable - how are you going to repeat an alien abduction - or that you can analyse the phenomenom with repeatable precision and methodology. When that is done it does seem that there are so often much simpler explanations to account for the observations: explanations that have been validated by the scientific method.


As a geologist I am accustomed to dealing with the fact that, in many cases, our laboratory experiments took place millions of years ago and we are now in the process of trying to interpret the scattered notes left behind in the ruins of the lab. The hard sciences do have the luxury of setting the experiment up just so, varying one factor at a time. Pity the poor geologist or the field biologist.

"how are you going to repeat an alien abduction"]

/speechless

opi then goes on to make excuses for other sciences yet insists that an actual ufo abduction be reenacted on demand
this is to me is an absolute perverted and unrealistic application of the scientific method. i mean, do you pseudo skeptics not understand that deduction would work just fine in cases where reproducibility is unrealistic as an option?

lets go back to school...

3) Test the hypotheses—In some situations it may not be practical to test your hypotheses by experimentation. Instead, you can subject your hypotheses to deductive reasoning. Your reasoning might include how the current situation is different from others. For this imaginary situation, you have not had any previous flyrock problems in that quarry. You have been successfully using the same drilling crew, the same blasting crew and the same explosives. Therefore, engineering issues are unlikely, but should not yet be ruled out. The difference is that you started a new level in the quarry. You do know that the area you previously quarried contained fractured but non-cavernous limestones, but prior to the blast you had not seen many exposures of the bedrock at the new quarry level.?

As you test your hypotheses, it is acceptable to collect more data. Discussions with the driller revealed that small cavities were encountered during drilling. A site visit to the new blast face confirmed that observation. It was further determined that the amount of explosives used was based on the weight of the truck when entering the operation (before filling the shot holes) and when leaving the operation (after filling the shot holes). Exactly how much explosive went into each hole was not recorded. In this imaginary situation, the most likely hypothesis, which becomes a theory, is that cavities were inadvertently filled with excessive blasting agent, and because the blast holes were filled at a fast rate using a bulk loader, the application of excessive explosives was not noticed. The excess explosives generated too much blast, thus resulting in the flyrock occurrence. Fireflies, Flyrock and the Scientific Method (http://www.aggman.com/0502_pages/0502carved.html)

you agenda ridden and disingenuous pseudo skeptics always move the goal posts.

secondly, you pseudo skeptics/scientists seemingly believe that since most cases can be explained away, all have been too

So you are willing to believe that NASA put bogus dialouge on the airwaves for the "elite group in society" when that very elite group's accounts would not be considered evidence?

strawman
i do not. i believe the pseudo skeptics do. i pay scant attention to tabloid journalism so am in dark with regards to the details of the moon landing hoax crap

How is it that you are willing to believe that scenario rather than the entirely plausible (and actually true) scenario that we went to the moon? What is so hard to believe about that, and so easy to believe about extraterrestrials swooping down and abducting people from Earth?]

strawman
you need to focus pal.. you pull stuff out of thin air. justify both allegations of belief. with quotes

You'll get back to me after you cook up an answer, you mean.

no, just gotta get motivated to repeat myself again. it is akin to bashing ones head against a brick wall and who really looks forward to that? besides, i have no doubt you would debunk magnificently, any cooked, baked or stir fried answer

you exhibit hostility. funny.

Gustav, I had taken you to be an intelligent, but aggressive poster. Your latest opus suggests I may have been only half right.

I had earlier noted that:
In the same way one of the requirements of science is that it be repeatable - how are you going to repeat an alien abduction - or that you can analyse the phenomenom with repeatable precision and methodology. When that is done it does seem that there are so often much simpler explanations to account for the observations: explanations that have been validated by the scientific method.

Later I noted,
As a geologist I am accustomed to dealing with the fact that, in many cases, our laboratory experiments took place millions of years ago and we are now in the process of trying to interpret the scattered notes left behind in the ruins of the lab. The hard sciences do have the luxury of setting the experiment up just so, varying one factor at a time. Pity the poor geologist or the field biologist.

To this you gave the thoughtful response,
""how are you going to repeat an alien abduction"
/speechless

opi then goes on to make excuses for other sciences yet insists that an actual ufo abduction be reenacted on demand
this is to me is an absolute perverted and unrealistic application of the scientific method. i mean, do you pseudo skeptics not understand that deduction would work just fine in cases where reproducibility is unrealistic as an option?Listen dumb nuts, read the words. Understand my argument. Stop your provocative, knee jerk reactions. I do not like coming out of self imposed exile from these fora to deal with thoughtless accusations and gross misinterpretation of my words by someone too careless to read properly.

Are you paying attention? I offered two ways in which science can conduct itself properly:
a) By repeatable experiment.
b) By repeatable precision and methodology of the analysis of phenomena.

I then ask the rhetorical question - how are you going to repeat and alien abduction? Obviously, you cannot (unless you happen to be an alien). So that rules out option a) and calls into play option b).
I then offer an example from my own field of geology where option b) is often the only viable option.

In short I am arguing that while we cannot be on hand when an alien abduction occurs we can still follow a rigorous, structured, consistent approach to the analysis of such aspects of the abduction as ar accessible: witness statements, abductee statements and history, forensic data, etc.

Now, was that so difficult. I normally take responsibility for failure to communicate an idea or position to another person, but having read and re-read my post (and assessed your own communication skills) the only justification for your gross distortion of what I wrote, was that you could not be bothered to more than scan my post and take out of it what you expected to see there. Very scientific. Kind of degrades the value of anything else you might write in the future.

Now I'd like to be left in peace, so please accept your admonition with good grace, acknowledge you screwed up and we can all go about our business.

Now, was that so difficult

no
i am suitably chastened. :(
i deliberately misrepresented your post and for that i offer up my most abject apologies. it will never happen again


Now I'd like to be left in peace

i rather you come back and post :)

I'm going to forfeit my option to answer the first part of your post, because I've already told you the requirements for ETs being proven. We've discussed this already, and we've actually agreed that simply having something obvious happen, such as an admission from NASA (for example) would be plenty.

And "Opi" already addressed your gross misunderstanding of his posts.


i do not. i believe the pseudo skeptics do. i pay scant attention to tabloid journalism so am in dark with regards to the details of the moon landing hoax crap

Then why use it in your argument?


strawman
you need to focus pal.. you pull stuff out of thin air. justify both allegations of belief. with quotes


You got it, pal:


i repeat....introducing fairies, deamons and dragons, fantasy creatures, the holy ghost and comparing it with entirely plausible concept of an et ufo

Here, you postulate that UFOs are a plausible scenario, and don't try backtracking out of this statement. You said that ET UFOs were plausible, meaning and encompassing the entire spectrum; from sightings to abductions. This is what you implied with that statement. So, you are saying that abductions are readily believable.


nonsense. joe public was quite happy to buy into the moon landing with nothing butvisuals and anecdotes as evidence. yet even today there are some pseudo skeptics that say it was faked.

I'm sorry, maybe it's the way you try to argue for the side you claim not to believe but the fact is that I believe you are saying that you do believe in these things. To hide behind such a statement as "Some pseudo skeptics say..." is a cop out, and a cowardly way to go about a discussion.

The problem with you is that you won't stand behind any one belief; it allows you to hide and duck and run and stay comfortably away from the situation.

Already, you've backed away from an argument, in the form of the moon landing hoax. If you don't believe it yourself, don't argue for it.


no, just gotta get motivated to repeat myself again. it is akin to bashing ones head against a brick wall and who really looks forward to that? besides, i have no doubt you would debunk magnificently, any cooked, baked or stir fried answer

What? I'm sorry, but is the disbelief in the notion that people are being abducted by aliens a crime? Why is it so wrong to be skeptical? No matter what you say, there isn't overwhelming evidence for the argument that ETs are here, and until there is, I simply won't believe it.

ps. Nobody's moving the goalposts on you. As O pointed out, you merely misread the posts where the "psuedo skeptic" tells you what is expected, or at least the means by which they are attained, and continue your rants.

JD

i rather you come back and post :)

Mmmmm, so y'can actually disable that arse-hole chip you appear to have had implanted and talk actual sense once in a while - this day shall be hallowed long in the annuls of the Psudoskeptics forum.

For generations father psudoskeptics will relay to their pusdoskeptical children how, when push came to shove, G-spot actually treated another forum member with courtesy, consideration and respect...

Of course, psudoskeptic children being as they are want are simply bound to retort "delusional, woo-woo claims, where's your evidence?!" and, in so doing, the punch-up can happily pass to a new generation.

But in the meantime, that was actually a smart, heartening moment.

Not going to last, is it? ;)

i do not see why not
i similarly want to aplogize to you for starting off on the wrong foot. i ask for a truce and perhaps an eventual civil discourse.

consider please
this shit is getting absolutely tedious

Remain true to your word old man, and everything's jake. You even get the kudos for calling the truce, can't say fairer than that and it's an arrangement I couldn't be happier with if y'paid me.

Deal. Done. And thank you.

excellent. thank you

No! Mr. Anonymous is MY best friend!

...Great, whos that leave me with?

...Duendy? Whatcha doin this weekend?

JD

excellent. thank you

Not at all, my abolsute pleasure.



No! Mr. Anonymous is MY best friend!

...Great, whos that leave me with?

Hopefully, with all of us still retaining our respective memberships indefinately for years to come which, considering the degree of disruption we've both managed to course over the past month we'll be lucky to be able to say with any degree of impunity for a lot, lot longer than the fun we've been having has lasted.

Regards to y'both gents,

A ;)

Yeah, that's so true. For as much as Gustav makes me want to pull my hair out, I genuinely like that guy. Same with Duendy, even though she kinda scares me.

Let's not let any of these sometimes heated arguments get in the way of the fact that we all really do enjoy this stuff, and each other's role in it.

JD

[Off of topic]
None of you should have any reason to be "enemies", Discussion in these threads might sometimes seem aggressive however people shouldn't take "hatred" as being implied by peoples posts. Most of the time it's just mearly a disagreement on a subject and perhaps a wrongly interpretted response.

This is why I and other members of the forums do suggest not to bother with all the personal attack rituals that people do, since afterall those that you "upset" might go on to do a das work somewhere where you have to genuinely interact with them.

Imagine they might be the Bank Manager you want a loan from which you've just told are a complete woo-woo (bye bye loan!) or countless other scenarios involving you needing aid/courtesy from them putting them in a bad frame of mind for the day might give you a kick (in the arse, literally)

Let's not let any of these sometimes heated arguments get in the way of the fact that we all really do enjoy this stuff, and each other's role in it.

Well, absolutely. Trick is isn't about winning, it's all about staying in the game...

Speaking of which:


None of you should have any reason to be "enemies"...

I can see why they made you the Moderator around here. ;)

No, seriously. Message read and implicitly understood. Thanks also for not developing an itchy finger in the general direction of the ban button - personally, I'dve had both our arses bounced out of here quicker than even I can blink and, as most of the ladies around here know only too well, I'm quite a blinker...

Seriously, ta.

Right, back on topic - wasn't someone calling me a psudopodia or something?

pseudosceptic darling...

Sorry for this delay—the seas are quite rough these days.


SW: in your sea of non sequitur you pass off as a reply to my postsBe glad you have no seven seas to navigate through.


SW: your hypothesis depends on a central theme: that extraterrestrials are here and space aliens are abducting people.A bit simplistic for my taste—for my nitimur in vetitum.


SW: That simply hasn't been demonstrated to be factual and, indeed, my posts have demonstrated that the alternative hypothesis is far more plausible.But what you "demonstrate" as being factual—conclusive evidence and hypotheses garnered from surveys, lab experiments, psychology, folklore—is reached, firstly, by duplicating said problems satisfactorily, or filling-in gaps with similar adaptations, or improvising with features that are analogous but whose derivatives are clearly at variance. Yet, for all your polished and elegant demonstrations, there is one component in this whole scenario that can not be absolutely substituted for. Hence, your hypotheses never much provided me with much qualification. Not that I dismissed them for others. It's strange though to remark the reverse is true for you too—that for all the "demonstrations" I lack, the one component I don't lack does not qualify for you in the least. Funny that.


SW: That you choose not to accept it is, of course your perogative, but one that is biased to your beliefs, not of evidence.And how would you know from where I base my bias? When does a "prerogative" become a prerogative?


SW: First, I'm not sure how I may have "reinvented the meaning of 'belief.'"Right. A typo. I noticed that too, a few days later. I should have said: I think you are being unfair, and excessively—or perhaps desperately—reinventing the significance of "belief". Then I followed up with a list of examples where "belief" is merely a consequence and procedure instigated from a preceding foreign experience; belief is not the impetus to experience, nor a state of being, but a reaction, like slamming into a glass door.


SW: Belief in the UFO-ETI hypothesis is *not* grounded in scientific method but rather the supernatural. The actuality of experience is hardly of the supernatural—but in this case it can certainly be made to appear as such, or accounted for in a language that also describes the supernatural. But since I'm not at all into the supernatural, I must find other means to describe my experiences. But I've already gotten almost bored with attempting to describe any of it—words can so easily mock and even alter the nascent nature of an experience-come-conscious. So I just let the waves wash over me.


SW: Second, I don't see that you've demonstrated my unfairness at all. Indeed, all you've really done is show that I'm being fair!I was pointing out at how you were treating the word "belief", as though it were linked to an immorally, narrow-minded end in itself. A cul-de-sac. My impression of your rhetoric was that an experience was no longer relevant but had to be smothered before it could breath full consciousness.


SW: I've admitted on several occasions in this and other threads that I'm open-minded to the space alien hypothesis. I hold my assertions and hypotheses provisionally. That's far more than I've seen several others admit to on the believer side of the debate.Well, I could deny myself and have it both ways, I suppose, but my experiences would then accuse me of subversion.


SW: Neither you or duendy seem willing ot acknowledge even one case of sleep paralysis or false memory is possible.What you are shunning is the fact that we are applying our exploration to alien scenarios that involve the other type of paralysis and the other type of real memories; not those that don't.


SW: what would be the point in my alleged "desparation?"It was an impression.


SW: I would love the opportunity to examine a completely alien culture -one that no other anthropologist has. Yet I maintain that the space alien hypothesis is, as yet, quite unevidenced.I understand.


SW: And my assertion is that belief in alien abductions in the face so much evidence for the alternative hypothesis and no evidence for the ETI hypothesis is foolhardy.It's like this: you require certain materials to form a solid perspective. The perspective you seek must proceed from a definite starting point. I require certain materials to form a solid perspective. The perspective I seek must proceed from a definite starting point. Both our requirements and our starting points discharge from different perspectives. Nitimur in vetitum.














.

ok, let's look at 'sleep paralysis'

remember that family i told you about?
it was mum, gran, and two boys travelling in car. they all see a very bright object which moves very fast, and then hovers over teir car. ALL of te family say how they felt tis 'love' comingfrom this UFO

then they later ntoice an hour missing. their journey shoul take only 20mins

now. where does sleep paralysis fit into the scenario, it is a limited explanation in tis scenario that's clear. donthave to ask you for confirmation

lets look at 'false memory syndrome'...i sm suposing you are meaning that te whole family remembered wrong...? well, what about a train crash. would such a dramatic event as that mean that the victim-survivor of it haas false memory syndrome if he later explains what happened..?
David Jacobs:"false memory syndrome is based on te idea that memory is faulty. And memory IS faulty -OBVIOUSLY, I am living proof that memory is faulty. The older Iget. The fact is though tat, memory is not SO faulty that people are going to forget entire events. They might get details wrong. They might get their chronology out of order a litle bit, but fact tet tey were, for example, in a train crash or something like that. They are not going to forget that EVENT.
Without anecdtoal evidence, without human memory, without the ability to retrieve memories we would not have a judicial system and our civilization would grind to a halt."

duendy, lovely story, but it's just hearsay, without some sort of witness statements from those involved.

Otherwise, this story could have mushroomed out of the imagination of just one of the kids, who also dreamed they spoke about the experience.

Without names, places and times, it's far from being evidence.

duendy, lovely story, but it's just hearsay, without some sort of witness statements from those involved.

me)))))))))Phlo...all thru the docu. they were making witness staements

Otherwise, this story could have mushroomed out of the imagination of just one of the kids, who also dreamed they spoke about the experience.

me))))))))HOW you explain away....you know, tis is strraightup, and i spose you feel same towards me. i can figure out your mindset...just cant. yu seem to explian away and then forget. weird.....
Think about it. we have a family ALL sharing about the experience. Gran cries talkin about it, mum cries after being hypnotized. yet you translate it to be one of te boys tellin fibs...? NOT plausible!

Without names, places and times, it's far from being evidence.
IF you had them. beee honest. ou still would not move toward a beginning of open xploration....?

Duendy, what witness statement and document? Got a name, a date, a link? Anything?


IF you had them.

Show me them.

Duendy it is good to see you discussing the subject of the thread.

You have referred to this same documentary many times now. Some details would help the discussion along.

Yet, for all your polished and elegant demonstrations, there is one component in this whole scenario that can not be absolutely substituted for. Hence, your hypotheses never much provided me with much qualification. Not that I dismissed them for others. It's strange though to remark the reverse is true for you too—that for all the "demonstrations" I lack, the one component I don't lack does not qualify for you in the least. Funny that.
.Do you also speak English?

Hello to all, I would like to suggest that anyone interested in this discussion should read the all the posts (quite a lot I`m afraid ) at the start of this section ,without prejudice ,but with their discriminatory senses set to maximum. There are also many,many sites on the net which offer INTELLIGENT reasoning regarding the subject .I appeal to all who have opinions about UFO`s ,abductions , ET ,disclosure etc.,to make themselves fully aware of the existing material to enable a balanced view to be aired.
Thanks.
Awdsci.

This is sound advice awdsci, inspired by noble sentiment, yet it is advice which will largely go ignored for the following reasons:

a) To become fully aware of the existing material on the subject would take a lifetime. Amongst other things it would require interviewing a significant number of alleged abductees after acquiring degrees in medicine, biology and one of the hard sciences.
b) If we take fully to be hyperbole, then it would still require many days of careful reading to absorb the content of even some of the internet sites on the subject. Few people will take up the time.
c) Many who are posting here have already studied this material in at least a cursory fashion and reached the conclusion abductions are false. A majority of these would fail to notice convincing new evidence if it jumped up and bit them.
d) Others, attracted by novelty, or naturally reactionary, believe in abductions. Facts are the last thing they wish to consider.
e) Most of the remainder are just looking for a good argument.

But I applaud and support your appeal. I just don't see much chance of the majority paying it any heed.

c) Many who are posting here have already studied this material in at least a cursory fashion and reached the conclusion abductions are false. A majority of these would fail to notice convincing new evidence if it jumped up and bit them.

i like to modify that and present it
pardon the liberties, ophiolite

f) Many who are posting here have already studied this material in at least a cursory fashion and reached the conclusion that et seem quite plausible. A majority of these would notice convincing new evidence that disproves the previously held assumptions.

case in point was when i went around this board couple of years ago, touting the belgian flap as a highly probable et incident. the evidence, very cursorily examined, indicated a good likelihood.

yet i came across this (http://www.skepticreport.com/ufo/belgian.htm) a couple of weeks ago. i was mortified and embarrassed. (i yet have to examine the latest report in depth)

such are the dangers of jumping into conclusions, tentative or otherwise, with just material found on the net. if anyone is serious about this shit, i recommend an actual field investigation...go to fucking france!

:D

This is sound advice awdsci, inspired by noble sentiment, yet it is advice which will largely go ignored for the following reasons:

a) To become fully aware of the existing material on the subject would take a lifetime. Amongst other things it would require interviewing a significant number of alleged abductees after acquiring degrees in medicine, biology and one of the hard sciences.
b) If we take fully to be hyperbole, then it would still require many days of careful reading to absorb the content of even some of the internet sites on the subject. Few people will take up the time.
c) Many who are posting here have already studied this material in at least a cursory fashion and reached the conclusion abductions are false. A majority of these would fail to notice convincing new evidence if it jumped up and bit them.
d) Others, attracted by novelty, or naturally reactionary, believe in abductions. Facts are the last thing they wish to consider.
e) Most of the remainder are just looking for a good argument.

But I applaud and support your appeal. I just don't see much chance of the majority paying it any heed.

Thanks Ophiolite,
Whilst I agree with most of your remarks ,I can`t just leave people who may be genuinely interested out in the cold . This may sound pompous and silly but I maintain that there IS a subject worthy of study by everybody, even if only a small percentage of the "evidence " has any validity. The fact that governments seem to ignore evidence from their own military sources and personnel, speaks volumes to me. If we are on the verge of the most sensational episode in human history then people should be encouraged to demand the facts.

Bye for now,Awdsci

....This may sound pompous and silly but I maintain that there IS a subject worthy of study by everybody, even if only a small percentage of the "evidence " has any validity.

Hello awdsci, you've made several very well balanced comments. Applause, aplause... :)

Have to say though, thoroughly in agreement with you here, but isn't this really the point about why people should maintain a healthy degree a scepticism regarding issues the subject raises purely because, if there is anything at all behind it, flapping around and arguing the b'jesus about silly bugger stuff that can't be happening in the first place serves only to a distract attention away from issues which might actually prove germane and b constrain everyone associated with the business as all being absolute adherents to all the rest of the stuff the subject on the whole generally seems to concern itself with.

The reams and reams of argument concerning alien abduction, for example, seems to me somewhat besides the point if one can't establish first and foremost that an object conforming to UFO description and behaviour can actually exist in the first place - it's like everyone been reading the same book and everyone decided to skip Chapter's One, Two, Three, Four, Five and Six and just skip to the end and forget about the beginning and middle like its all been sorted and established as absolute fact.

Gustav's point is an excellent one, and the report concerning the facts of the Belgium UFO Flap, good, concise reading. Very typical in my experience - when one actually goes into these things and does a little background research, turns out indeed the story being presented actually isn't the clear cut, certain "fact" people insist on making it out to be.

And sloppy conclusions, wishful thinking and just plain, dumb stupidity proffered as fact actually do matter - they have a deeply negative effect on subject as a whole. Yet time and time again, these spurious claims for alien this and extraterrestrial that become touted by those who simply know extraterrestrials are real as "evidence" of that belief.

It strikes me all ET Believers care about is their belief, the only significance UFO's have for most of them is that they are presumed to facilitate the presence of Extraterrestrials here in the neighbourhood of Earth.

Without proof, absolute and certain that such things as UFO's can actually exist, the question is always going to remain "what Aliens?"

Hello anon, I thank you for the applause ,but it`s actually caused some embarrassment. I bent over to take a bow and being of some age, there was an escape of bodily gases with a decibel rating of 52 db. Please don`t make me laugh again.
Regarding your comments , I agree that scepticism is required but would suggest that by being open to all types of information , no data is left unanalysed. I feel this type of approach , together with discrimination ,tends to provide a greater degree of what may be called "High Strangeness " data.
Of course this type of analytical procedure is already in use in certain scientific disciplines ,but requires a consistent approach to provide useful data. Since no individual effort could be expected to maintain such a comprehensive database of information ,many groups have formed to attempt the task. However, the most detailed and important data is held by government agencies , who are extremely loathe to let information of this sensitivity into the public domain. From details distributed on the internet,it is apparent that the data recovered using the FOI Act is only the tip of the iceberg.
Your point regarding peoples perception of the subject, the ` chapter skipping `, again highlights the lack of insight of many people . If this subject has any importance at all ,then it must be brought out into the light of day , to be discussed openly .
I shall return later,

Awdsci

Hello awdsci, you've made several very well balanced comments. Applause, aplause... :)

Have to say though, thoroughly in agreement with you here, but isn't this really the point about why people should maintain a healthy degree a scepticism regarding issues the subject raises purely because, if there is anything at all behind it, flapping around and arguing the b'jesus about silly bugger stuff that can't be happening in the first place serves only to a distract attention away from issues which might actually prove germane and b constrain everyone associated with the business as all being absolute adherents to all the rest of the stuff the subject on the whole generally seems to concern itself with.

The reams and reams of argument concerning alien abduction, for example, seems to me somewhat besides the point if one can't establish first and foremost that an object conforming to UFO description and behaviour can actually exist in the first place - it's like everyone been reading the same book and everyone decided to skip Chapter's One, Two, Three, Four, Five and Six and just skip to the end and forget about the beginning and middle like its all been sorted and established as absolute fact.

Gustav's point is an excellent one, and the report concerning the facts of the Belgium UFO Flap, good, concise reading. Very typical in my experience - when one actually goes into these things and does a little background research, turns out indeed the story being presented actually isn't the clear cut, certain "fact" people insist on making it out to be.

And sloppy conclusions, wishful thinking and just plain, dumb stupidity proffered as fact actually do matter - they have a deeply negative effect on subject as a whole. Yet time and time again, these spurious claims for alien this and extraterrestrial that become touted by those who simply know extraterrestrials are real as "evidence" of that belief.

It strikes me all ET Believers care about is their belief, the only significance UFO's have for most of them is that they are presumed to facilitate the presence of Extraterrestrials here in the neighbourhood of Earth.

Without proof, absolute and certain that such things as UFO's can actually exist, the question is always going to remain "what Aliens?"

Anon,

Had to return as I`d missed out my response to Gustav`s debunking info on the ` Belgian Triangle `.

Have read a few accounts of this episode ,in various forms ,also watched a TV documentary , with some very interesting contributions from Belgian military personnel which included radar and visual sightings.
My own view , for what it`s worth ,is that this series of sightings represents a distinctively authentic set of characteristics which tend to define it`s differences from previously described similar events.

I would like to point out that various national security organisations have an interest in this type of incident ,as it may affect public morale, etc.
I am quite convinced , by the style of the excerpt, that this is an example of their work. It ignores all the official Belgian Air Force statements ,radar reports, multple-witness sightings and other photographs to concentrate on a single reproduction by a student. Not very convincing.

Awdsci.

It ignores all the official Belgian Air Force statements ,radar reports, multple-witness sightings and other photographs to concentrate on a single reproduction by a student. Not very convincing.

yep. i noticed that too. the new report indicated just one f-15 whereas the military claimed to have scrambled two. perhaps i am too eager to be balanced. lemme dig up the thread

ahh, here (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=31307&page=1&pp=20)

whaddya think
shall we look into it?
afresh?
in this thread?

http://alienresistance.org/ce4casefiles.htm CE4 CASE FILES Testimonies of Stopped Abductions!!

Scripture tells us that it will happen again.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"But as the days of Noah were, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be." Matthew 24: 37. "They will mingle with the seed of men." Daniel 2: 43.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"And there will be signs in the sun, in the moon, and in the stars; and on the earth distress of nations, with perplexity, the sea and waves roaring; men's hearts failing them from fear and
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
the expectation of those things which are coming on the earth, for the powers (Satans) of the heaven will be shaken." Luke 21: 25-26.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOOK WIVES=ABDUCTED
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The strange events recorded in Genesis 6 were clearly understood by the ancient rabbinical sources, as well as the Septuagint translators, as referring to fallen angels. They were engaged in creating angel-human hybrid offspring known as the "Nephalim."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Even the word used in Genesis 6 for "took [wives]" means "capture, seize, to be taken away, be removed, to be taken out of", which is eerily similar to the abduction phenomenon of our time. Sexual acts and experimentation are also commonly reported among abductees.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These bizarre events are also echoed in the legends and myths of every ancient culture upon the earth: the ancient Greeks, the Egyptians, the Hindus, the South Sea Islanders, the American Indians, and virtually all the others. Even the early church fathers wrote and believed this doctrine.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I believe that II Thessalonians 2 refers to the restraining influence of the Holy Spirit that holds the full force of evil back. If indeed that the appointed time has come, and is nearing a point of fullness, then it is not hard to understand what is really happening in the spiritual realm today.

http://alienresistance.org/ce4casefiles.htm CE4 CASE FILES Testimonies of Stopped Abductions!!

From that site, first link;

"The following is courtesy of Charisma Magazine; April 2001 issue pg. 52"

The April 1st story, perhaps? ;-)

Also from that link;

"In October, 1996, we formed CE 4 Research Group, Inc. as a legal entity"

For tax reasons, I presume?

It ignores all the official Belgian Air Force statements ,radar reports, multple-witness sightings and other photographs to concentrate on a single reproduction by a student. Not very convincing.

yep. i noticed that too. the new report indicated just one f-15 whereas the military claimed to have scrambled two. perhaps i am too eager to be balanced. lemme dig up the thread

ahh, here (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=31307&page=1&pp=20)

whaddya think
shall we look into it?
afresh?
in this thread?

Gustav, I don`t want to dampen your enthusiasm but I`m quite sure that this particular event has been researched thoroughly by local groups and individuals over here. Have you thought of joining a local UFO group ?
An investigation of this type requires the researcher to be in close proximity to both the area and the witnesses , "on the ground " so to speak .
I took your link and was pleasantly surprised by the information available and the depth of discussion at that time . I hope that others will also gain more insight into the type of background material which has so intrigued ordinary people .

Regards ,Awdsci

There is no evidence for a race of "nephilim" to have existed. Peddle your nonsense somewhere else.

Drive-by posters that are interested only in advertising their sites are the worst. You could at least have the common courtesy to respond to the things that others have been discussing then slip your website in, but to blatantly copy/paste a bunch of junk and not say one original word is rude.

Besides, the website is full of TESTIMONIALS. No kidding. That's all you ever get with this sort of thing. People LIE! They MISUNDERSTAND events! Some HALLUCINATE! Some are DELUDED! But most likely, all those people are ONE PERSON: the person who created the website and invented the testimonials.

Think about it. One group claims aliens are out to get us and they're enemies; another group says they want us to save our planet; yet another claims they are angels from some god; one says they are demons; now this guy claims they are ancient "giants" that roamed the planet & built pyramids all over the world in spite of clear evidence to the contrary; other proponents of space-aliens claim other "facts" that they "know" from testimonials.

But when you look at them all together, the individual groups often contradict one-another. The individual claims about space-aliens are often contradictory and inconsistent. Thank goodness the movie industry came along and helped standardize it for us all to some degree.

But this guy wants us to believe that god has something to do with it now?

Have read a few accounts of this episode ,in various forms ,also watched a TV documentary , with some very interesting contributions from Belgian military personnel which included radar and visual sightings....

Mmmmm, that the Belgian Airforce scrambled to intercept and ended up chasing an unidentified radar return travelling through Belgian airspace I have not the slightest doubt, though unless I'm personally seeing and can verify that what I'm personally seeing is actually the original tracking data, I'm of the sort of inclination to take with a pinch of salt the testimony of ex- Military Personal going on record regarding these matters - according to such sources, the aliens have landed, done deals with Presidents, roam around Groom Lake as if they own the place...

There's a list of not terribly plausible "information" basically telling UFO Conspiracy nuts exactly what they want to hear exactly how they want to hear it.

But with regards to the case in question, no. I've no doubt something did indeed pull a peek-a-boo where it shouldn't have - with the number of USAF Bases in the vicinity though I find the notion that ET alone can be the only possible means of accounting for the incident somewhat of a reach.

i have additional info that just might debunk way better than the marc hallet link i provided. after i noticed the f-16 discrepancy, i googled hallet and found out he was an ex adamski follower tho i cant find the link anymore.

perhaps i should have some fun first before posting it

question

should i be skeptical about skeptic sites that have stuff like this..........

http://www.skepticreport.com/images/belgian.jpg

But with regards to the case in question, no. I've no doubt something did indeed pull a peek-a-boo where it shouldn't have

You mean, like this episode;

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/military/jan-june99/marines_2-3.html

If jet jockeys have such low regard for human safety, that they'd pull of such a stupid stunt and end up killing people, I've no doubt that they'd take a detour over a small country, and yank their chain.

or should i be skeptical about skeptics that offer such lazy explanations as the one above?

You mean, like this episode;

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/military/jan-june99/marines_2-3.html

If jet jockeys have such low regard for human safety, that they'd pull of such a stupid stunt and end up killing people, I've no doubt that they'd take a detour over a small country, and yank their chain.

Hmmm, seems a bit off-topic to me . Your allusion to the possible cause of the Belgian sighting as a hot-rodding pilot seems to ignore the eyewitness statements of appearance ,height.colour, silence and shape. Not to mention the radar returns , extreme acceleration and manoeuvrability.
Awdsci

"Eye witnesses" are notoriously unreliable. Particularly when faced with an event, occurrance or phenomenon they are unfamiliar with. I once watched a Harrier approach for landing after dusk... until I saw the same thing again later in life, I was convinced this was UFO. The angle of the jet, its VTOL engines, and the lighting produced a very strange experience with a very un-Jet like sound.

that was YOUR experience Skin.....do you judge ALL reported experiences of UFO's thru your subjectve conclusion, like Phlo, via HIS 'sleep paralysis' experience, seems to judge ALL reported abductions??

I did not say that my own, single, experience was the basis for the statement. It was but one example. Obviously there are more or I wouldn't have said "notoriously unreliable."

It isn't abductions by space aliens we're talking about at this point, it is eye witness reliability in general and the reliability of testimonial accounts overall. Are you suggesting that eyewitnesses to space alien attacks are more reliable than eyewitnesses in every other aspect of life?

I did not say that my own, single, experience was the basis for the statement. It was but one example. Obviously there are more or I wouldn't have said "notoriously unreliable."

It isn't abductions by space aliens we're talking about at this point, it is eye witness reliability in general and the reliability of testimonial accounts overall. Are you suggesting that eyewitnesses to space alien attacks are more reliable than eyewitnesses in every other aspect of life?
First of all, i'd suggest losing bias/prejudice/assumptions...in't that the scientific way? that you collate information very very carefully. ie., you wouldn't accuse the reporter of an experience you are not familiar with.....this is how Dr Mack did it. respecting the people he interelated with

for if ou in ANY way hafe te air of ridicule,or comin on like a cold eyed interegator, you will not be really learning.....so as'painful' as it may be to your worldview, surely you must gove over 100% care in what your investigating and particularly the individual(s)

you have confessed--i have it in my files...hehe--that you do not fully understand quantum dimension, nor conciousness. so be humble and realize you dont know everything....who does?

Some know less than other's, as they ably demonstrate on a regular basis.
[you could try turning that around and aiming it at me, but I doubt it would have as much effect.]

You mean, like this episode;

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/military/jan-june99/marines_2-3.html

If jet jockeys have such low regard for human safety, that they'd pull of such a stupid stunt and end up killing people, I've no doubt that they'd take a detour over a small country, and yank their chain.

Mmmm, kind of. Though, as a complete aside, isn't it horrendous reading about that incident? I mean, imagine... there's actually a reporter out there called Philip Ponce?!

Bwhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa! Hardly bears thinking about.

However, basically what I'm getting at here is that the one thing which didn't actually transpire at all at any point throughout the so called Belgian Incident is the principal thrust of the manner in which the story is always presented - that the Belgian Airforce actually scrambled to intercept and investigate a UFO in the explicit sense UFO Believers exclusively view the term, i.e. An Alien Space Ship.

An unidentified radar return of an object corresponding to no officially filed flight plan and bearing no recognised identifying transponder signal - yes, absolutely, no question about it. Upon picking up on a thing like that the Airforce is somewhat honour bound to scramble whatever happens to be handy to give the object in question the once over simply because it happen to be part of the Airforces job to do precisely work of this exact nature.

Hence, I suppose, why they're called the Airforce and not EasyJet.

That being the case the actual scramble itself was actually a matter of simple course. Fly anything into anyones airspace without filing a flight plan first and not identifying yourself and one can guarantee at least one f-16 is investigating ones tailpipe in no short order.

In aviation reporting the name Aurora (http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.bbc.co.uk/southerncounties/community/strange_south/spy_plane/images/330_aurora2.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.bbc.co.uk/southerncounties/community/strange_south/spy_plane/story.shtml&h=223&w=329&sz=17&tbnid=fdo2H4lelo0J:&tbnh=77&tbnw=114&hl=en&start=3&prev=/images%3Fq%3DUSAF%2BAurora%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den% 26lr%3D%26rls%3DGGLD,GGLD:2004-08,GGLD:en) has a long standing history dating all the way back to 1985 when someone in the US Censors Department let slip of the name in regards to the matter of budget appropriations in association with the U2 and SR-17 - what her actual name is, no one knows, she's the most highly classified project the US Military has, but there's plenty of evidence to more than merely suggest she's around.

The linky above should give more information to anyone interested.

Thing with the Aurora though is, or more possibly was (its currently thought she's outseen her day and been retired), she may very well be hypersonic, Mach 6 capable using a pulse-jet engine - putting it into perspective, this is a plane capable of flying at over 2000 mph and, once going, she doesn't stop.

The article above sites a similar incursion event this time taking place over the UK earlier this year. The Military, as far as I've been able to research, weren't scrambled, no "UFO" chase made the headlines, but February 2005 is a long, long time after whatever Aurora actually was came into service - 1989 pegs her as being well within early testing phase.

Since officially Aurora doesn't exist and won't be disclosed as having done so for a good many years yet, stating with impunity that the US's latest new toy of the day more than likely slipped up whilst on trials isn't at all possible to do - however, the claim that an alien space craft is somehow more likely...

Somehow, weird as I must be, I don't buy it and never have.

Mind, before today I wouldn't have credited it possible that a man could go on national television, even if it is 60 minutes under a name like Ponce without at least thinking of changing it first.

So what do I know, eh? ;)

"Eye witnesses" are notoriously unreliable. Particularly when faced with an event, occurrance or phenomenon they are unfamiliar with.

Hello Skinwalker, I don`t agree with this statement unless it refers to a single individual`s uncorroborated evidence.
Events of the type we are discussing are difficult for observers to categorize,because of their unique nature . As you`ve observed yourself, the strangeness of a particular event can cause possible errors of observation.
I seem to recall that in this case the witnesses ,although very puzzled by what they saw, could clearly describe it`s appearance. What is more compelling is that the descriptions by multiple witness groups ,separated by some distances, appear to describe the same object.
I would hesitate to accept this as conclusive proof , but together with other hard evidence provided by Military sources, this event has a high probability of an actual incursion by an unknown vehicle of extraordinary capability.
But of course ,that is only my considered opinion.

Regards, Awdsci

"Eye witnesses" are notoriously unreliable. Particularly when faced with an event, occurrance or phenomenon they are unfamiliar with. I once watched a Harrier approach for landing after dusk... until I saw the same thing again later in life, I was convinced this was UFO. The angle of the jet, its VTOL engines, and the lighting produced a very strange experience with a very un-Jet like sound.

Two questions:

1) Did you ever knowingly lie about what you saw?
2) Did you correct your account upon discovery of an earthly explanation?

is there evidence for alien abductions etc.?


Yeah there is...I am trading some for 200$, deal?
:D


Peace...
Rick

Skinwalker*"I was convinced this was UFO*

Oh my god!!
The Skin was a believer at one time!?You actually jumped to a conclusion?!
NFW!!
Haha, just kiddin Skins.
Peace.