PDA

View Full Version : David Jacobs UFO Abduction Experts



Pages : [1] 2 3

Soulless49er
2010-Feb-19, 08:21 AM
I'm almost done with the book 'the Secret Life' by Dr. David Jacobs. I think he and Budd Hopkins are the most credible researchers for the UFO abduction scene. Not that I'm saying UFO abductions are indeed occurring, but he comes across to me as someone who has tried to remain skeptical throughout his ardent research and now believes what he has uncovered is very possibly real. Has anyone read any books by Dr. David Jacobs or Dr. Budd Hopkins on alien abductions? He even provides physical evidence of radiation findings and tracks found in the ground. His hypnotherapy research reveals startling consistency in his findings - enough to construct a step-by-step guide to alien abductions.

I keep going from skeptical on alien abductions to maybe thinking some of them have really happened to being skeptical again and so on. It's like a cycle. I would appreciate your input. I would like to read well-thought out responses, not ardent believers/conspiracy theorists or on the other hand die-hard skeptics who are sure all alien related stuff is nonsense or crazy people.


Thanks.

Gillianren
2010-Feb-19, 08:57 AM
If it's hypnotherapy to uncover "blocked" memories, it's almost certainly baloney. The process is more more effective at implanting new memories than recovering old ones.

Jimmy123
2010-Feb-19, 09:15 AM
One of Jacobs' subjects has publicly criticized him and says he led her to form false memories under hypnosis. He also put suggestions in her mind under hypnosis that she Multiple Personality Disorder, or MPD, as a tactic to stop aliens from finding out he was a ufo researcher.

The audio of Jacobs doing this is on the UFO Disclose .com site at http://ufodisclose.com/.

The subject's website is at http://www.ufoalienabductee.com.

Hungry4info
2010-Feb-19, 09:39 AM
He also put suggestions in her mind under hypnosis that she Multiple Personality Disorder, or MPD, as a tactic to stop aliens from finding out he was a ufo researcher. Normally I just roll my eyes at people who seriously believe in that sort of stuff... but that is just sick.

Soulless49er
2010-Feb-19, 10:55 AM
In Dr. David Jacob's book 'the Secret Life' he discussed how he tried to start convincing the abductees they had MPD. It was so to protect himself from the alien beings and hybrids. I've already read about his procedures on this in his books. To me it makes it more credible b/c he really felt endangered from these alien and hybrid beings. He goes into some length why he felt compelled to do this and it all sounded really convincing to me. Mainly he did not want the aliens who might later abduct his patients again in the future to know he was discovering what really happened to them through hypnosis. Most alien abductions, according to most UFO abduction researchers, happen to the same people throughout their lives.

Also the link you provided to the woman who was one of Dr. Jacob's subjects still believes she was abducted by aliens doesn't she?

Soulless49er
2010-Feb-19, 11:22 AM
One of Jacobs' subjects has publicly criticized him and says he led her to form false memories under hypnosis. He also put suggestions in her mind under hypnosis that she Multiple Personality Disorder, or MPD, as a tactic to stop aliens from finding out he was a ufo researcher.

The audio of Jacobs doing this is on the UFO Disclose .com site at http://ufodisclose.com/.

The subject's website is at http://www.ufoalienabductee.com.

A excerpt from www.ufoalienabductee.com:

"My Anomalous Experiences

As I appear to have a sleep disorder, a legitimate question is whether it provides an explanation for all of my anomalous experiences. I do not believe that it does, because many of my experiences occur when I am awake, and other people have witnessed aspects of them, including the following:

Another child also saw a short, non-human person who came into my house when we were children, she has talked about it on audiotape as an adult, she does not believe in "aliens", and she has no knowledge of my consideration of the "alien abduction" phenomenon as a possible cause of my experiences (see My Anomalous Experiences - Childhood 1961-1970 - People's reactions to my talking about Derras(1967-1971).)

In my thirties, while with a friend driving across country, we inexplicably found ourselves on a different road to the highway on which we had been. Then, my friend suddenly turned off the highway and drove up a hill without either of us having any idea why. When we eventually arrived at our destination, we were six hours late and, in spite of the unexplained detours, were unable to account for several hours of missing time. My friend has talked about what happened on audiotape (see My Anomalous Experiences - Late Twenties and Thirties 1991-2000.)

Neither of these people would have talked about these events if they had not happened. I sent Dr. Jacobs copies of these audiotapes, and others as well.

There is additional corroborating physical evidence associated with some of my experiences. This includes being given a physical object, and finding unexplained straight cuts on my body that heal within hours and leave no scars. I sent Dr. Jacobs photographs of some of the cuts, as well as statements signed by my former therapist verifying that he had seen them.

Dr. Jacobs told me that the "alien abduction" phenomenon is usually intergenerational. When interviewing my relatives for my record of my anomalous experiences, I discovered that a number of them have also had experiences which are possibly related to the phenomenon (see My Relatives' Paranormal and UFO Experiences.) I sent Dr. Jacobs audiotapes of my relatives talking about experiences that they have had.

Weighing the evidence up, I believe that it points to an objective, external phenomenon around me, regardless of my sleep disorder. However, my sleep behavior does need to be taken into account when assessing events that occurred during periods of time when I was asleep."

So Emma Woods, despite her sleep disorder, still feels something really is happening to her.

Tom Servo
2010-Feb-19, 11:34 AM
I have not read his books.

Could you outline for us what you beleive to be his strongest arguments. Page references and direct quotes so we can follow up on them.

Do you completely agree with his views and want to defend them?
Are there some views or methods that you disagree with?

I have to agree about Hypnotherapy being balony though.

Im also interested to see what others have to say.

gzhpcu
2010-Feb-19, 11:56 AM
Can you show how these abductions can not be explained by sleep paralysis or cryptomnesia (psychological tendency to false memories)?

Strange
2010-Feb-19, 12:16 PM
In Dr. David Jacob's book 'the Secret Life' he discussed how he tried to start convincing the abductees they had MPD. It was so to protect himself from the alien beings and hybrids.

Right. But then he goes and publishes a book, and presumably gets involved in the whole publicity carnival. Perhaps he thinks the aliens can't read.

False memories are incredibly easy to create, either deliberately or accidentally. There was one experiment where researchers interviewed visitors to Disneyland about the characters they had met; when asked about meeting Bugs Bunny , a very large proportion not only said they had but were able to provide details of the meeting - what he was wearing, what was said....

I didn't get it immediately but, apparently, Mr Bunny works for a rival entertainment company.

JayUtah
2010-Feb-19, 02:15 PM
...

I think he and Budd Hopkins are the most credible researchers for the UFO abduction scene.

What do you base that opinion on?

...he comes across to me as someone who has tried to remain skeptical throughout his ardent research...

No reputable scientist believes himself to be above bias and error even if the topic is not controversial. Hence reputable scientists submit their claims for peer review. Has this research been independently reviewed?

...what he has uncovered is very possibly real.

Real what? How can something be "very possibly" real? Why would that be the conclusion of one's research? That's normally the hypothesis you draw at the beginning, and the research is designed to determine whether the hypothesis is false.

Has anyone read any books by Dr. David Jacobs or Dr. Budd Hopkins on alien abductions?

I'm curious what you think Budd Hopkins is a doctor of.

He even provides physical evidence of radiation findings...

And radiation has what to do with aliens? This is no different than "ghost hunters" waving sensitive EM detectors around places under the presumption that it measures ghost activity. You need to have a priori evidence that these measurements are of phenomena that pertain to your hypothesis before you can apply them to research.

There is likely to be measurable egg-white residue on my kitchen counter, but that's not evidence that the Muffin Gnomes have been hard at work.

...and tracks found in the ground.

Known alien tracks? Or simply impressions of an unknown type and origin being attributed to aliens?

His hypnotherapy research reveals startling consistency in his findings...

What did he do to verify that this "consistency" was not simply the consistency of his questionable method?

Hypnotic regression as a means of recovering lost or "suppressed" memories is largely discredited. It has been shown to be far more likely to implant false memories than to recover real ones. Given this knowledge, it is Jacobs' burden of proof to show that he has applied appropriated methodological or statistical controls

...enough to construct a step-by-step guide to alien abductions.

One that he invented unconsciously and implanted via hypnotherapy? Or one that actually emerged from the data?

In any case, why is consistency proof of alien abduction? At best, consistency would demonstrate the likelihood of a common cause, not necessarily the common cause that he proposes.

I would like to read well-thought out responses, not ardent believers/conspiracy theorists or on the other hand die-hard skeptics who are sure all alien related stuff is nonsense...

I'm sure all this alien-related stuff is nonsense, but that doesn't make me a die-hard skeptic: it makes me well-informed about the nature of this "research" and the practices and assumptions it traditionally entails. Just because someone doesn't fall for this hogwash doesn't mean he's biased and unreachable.

Gobligok
2010-Feb-19, 02:21 PM
Most alien abductions, according to most UFO abduction researchers, happen to the same people throughout their lives.

Yeah, and I find that to be a telling clue.

MAPNUT
2010-Feb-19, 03:51 PM
In Dr. David Jacob's book 'the Secret Life' he discussed how he tried to start convincing the abductees they had MPD. It was so to protect himself from the alien beings and hybrids. I've already read about his procedures on this in his books. To me it makes it more credible b/c he really felt endangered from these alien and hybrid beings. He goes into some length why he felt compelled to do this and it all sounded really convincing to me. Mainly he did not want the aliens who might later abduct his patients again in the future to know he was discovering what really happened to them through hypnosis.

This hardly sounds like someone who could be applying any skepticism whatsoever to his research.

Strange
2010-Feb-19, 06:11 PM
Interesting article on experiments done on abductees ... sorry, I mean on the correlation between the ease of forming false memories and the character types who have been abducted: http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2005/09/abducted_or_not.html

Gillianren
2010-Feb-19, 06:29 PM
In Dr. David Jacob's book 'the Secret Life' he discussed how he tried to start convincing the abductees they had MPD.

That is one of the most astonishingly unethical things I've heard of in the history of UFO research. I cannot believe that you would trust any research of his after knowing he would do such a vile thing.


To me it makes it more credible b/c he really felt endangered from these alien and hybrid beings. He goes into some length why he felt compelled to do this and it all sounded really convincing to me. Mainly he did not want the aliens who might later abduct his patients again in the future to know he was discovering what really happened to them through hypnosis.

"Sincerity" is one possible explanation for this behaviour, but it would not be my first option.

Fazor
2010-Feb-19, 06:51 PM
That is one of the most astonishingly unethical things I've heard of in the history of UFO research. I cannot believe that you would trust any research of his after knowing he would do such a vile thing.

Are you alleging that a doctor who would act in his own best interest, rather than that of his patient, in an unethical manner with utter disregard for his patient's health and well being is untrustworthy?

I'd say your standards are too high.

Jimmy123
2010-Feb-19, 08:45 PM
Originally Posted by Soulless49er:
In Dr. David Jacob's book 'the Secret Life' he discussed how he tried to start convincing the abductees they had MPD. It was so to protect himself from the alien beings and hybrids. I've already read about his procedures on this in his books. To me it makes it more credible b/c he really felt endangered from these alien and hybrid beings. He goes into some length why he felt compelled to do this and it all sounded really convincing to me. Mainly he did not want the aliens who might later abduct his patients again in the future to know he was discovering what really happened to them through hypnosis.

I read Secret Life but did not see this anywhere in it. I understand this is a new tactic Jacobs is pursuing since 2006. Not that it is any excuse.

Don J
2010-Feb-20, 05:35 AM
One thing who is still unexplained is about the missing time the abducties have experienced as in the case for Betty and Barney Hill.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betty_and_Barney_Hill_abduction#Missing_time


the drive should have taken about four hours, they did not arrive at home until seven hours after their departure. When Hohman and Jackson noted this discrepancy to the Hills, the couple was stunned, having no explanation (a frequently reported circumstance in alleged alien abduction cases...

One thing interesting about the Hill's abduction is that nobody seem to have been influenced by their extraordinary adventure related in newspapers, book,and even a movie.I mean nobody at that time (1961) rushed to have an hypnosis regression.

jja
2010-Feb-20, 06:25 AM
One thing who is still unexplained is about the missing time the abducties have experienced as in the case for Betty and Barney Hill.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betty_and_Barney_Hill_abduction#Missing_time

I don't know what needs to be explained about this. If they were lying, would it have been beyond their powers to pull off the road for a while and have a picnic? If they were just deluded, would it be utterly incredible for them to have made an error in recounting their convoluted story?

At the end of the linked section, a reference is made to a 'near perfect' circle of warts appearing on Barney. Apparently only aliens can cause satellite warts (http://www.google.com/#hl=en&safe=off&q=%22satellite+warts%22&fp=d95f0d161f018361). Folks tend to remark on semiattached or completely unattached facts such as this when they have a desperate and depressing lack of useful evidence.


One thing interesting about the Hill's abduction is that nobody seem to have been influenced by their extraordinary adventure related in newspapers, book,and even a movie.I mean nobody at that time (1961) rushed to have an hypnosis regression.

It would be nice to think that people at that time were uncredulous and thus not easily amused by rambling, ramshackle fictions, but my knowledge of human nature defeats my hopes.

Don J
2010-Feb-20, 06:58 AM
If it's hypnotherapy to uncover "blocked" memories, it's almost certainly baloney. The process is more more effective at implanting new memories than recovering old ones.
Budd Hopkins write
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betty_and_Barney_Hill_abduction#Interrupted_Journe y


the Hill case bears upon one popular theory which has been widely but uncritically accepted by many skeptics: the idea that such accounts must have been implanted by hypnosis, consciously or unconsciously, or by manipulative practitioners who 'believe in' the reality of such events. Simon, who hypnotized the Hills, was avowedly skeptical about the reality of the Hills' abduction recollections. Yet the Hills stubbornly held to their interlocking, hypnotically recovered accounts despite Simon's suggestions at the end of treatment that their memories could not be literally true. It can therefore be concluded that the bias of the hypnotist had nothing to do with the content of their hypnotic recall." (emphasis as in original; Hopkins, 218)

Van Rijn
2010-Feb-20, 09:37 AM
Budd Hopkins write


And what is your opinion of what he writes? I'm not impressed. From your quote:



the Hill case bears upon one popular theory which has been widely but uncritically accepted by many skeptics: the idea that such accounts must have been implanted by hypnosis, consciously or unconsciously, or by manipulative practitioners who 'believe in' the reality of such events.

This skeptic certainly does not accept that all alien abduction stories must have been implanted by hypnosis or manipulative practitioners. I doubt many skeptics would disagree with me.

Rather, I would say that there are a number of causes for such stories, but the evidence for actual alien abductions is lacking (if you can show otherwise, please do so).

However, I would think it likely that many cases would involve false memories (which are annoyingly common, and can be created in a variety of ways, with or without the help of a "manipulative practitioner").

And, by the way, the specifics of the Hill case aren't relevant to other cases with different circumstances.

Don J
2010-Feb-20, 07:48 PM
And, by the way, the specifics of the Hill case aren't relevant to other cases with different circumstances.

The specifics of the Hill case are revelant because it relate to -locked memory-,the medical experiments and missing time other abducties have reported.

If you are not familar with all the details about Betty And Barney Hill case see this page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betty_and_Barney_Hill_abduction

Garrison
2010-Feb-20, 08:21 PM
The specifics of the Hill case are revelant because it relate to -locked memory-,the medical experiments and missing time other abducties have reported.

If you are not familar with all the details about Betty And Barney Hill case see this page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betty_and_Barney_Hill_abduction


Couldn't some of those common elements be common because of the Hill case, and the way the ideas worked their way into the media?

Don J
2010-Feb-20, 08:35 PM
Couldn't some of those common elements be common because of the Hill case, and the way the ideas worked their way into the media?
That dont seem to be the case.
As I point out in post 17
_One thing interesting about the Hill's abduction is that nobody seem to have been influenced by their extraordinary adventure related in newspapers, book,and even a movie.I mean nobody at that time (1961) rushed to have an hypnosis regression.-

LotusExcelle
2010-Feb-20, 11:13 PM
I spent a week in Connecticut yesterday. Missing time, as it were, is a remarkably poor gauge to judge anything by. You have a fallible recollection of a possibly improperly observed non-event.

manxman
2010-Feb-20, 11:17 PM
yeah but with the hills you have the missing time and event in duplicate at the very same time.
so your analogy is flawed.

i found bettys testimony about the entitity pulling on her teeth and being perplexed by them not coming out as they had took her husbands out and expected hers to do the same intrigueing .. now however i find it just an oddity.

these were respectable people by all accounts.

Garrison
2010-Feb-20, 11:38 PM
That dont seem to be the case.
As I point out in post 17
_One thing interesting about the Hill's abduction is that nobody seem to have been influenced by their extraordinary adventure related in newspapers, book,and even a movie.I mean nobody at that time (1961) rushed to have an hypnosis regression.-

Well yes you've made that claim but it doesn't mean that elements of the Hill story haven't influenced later abduction stories which is is what I was driving at. Doesn't that seem a more likely explanation for the similiarities in later accounts than little grey men from space kidnapping what by some accounts would be hundreds of thousands of people?

manxman
2010-Feb-20, 11:48 PM
do you know that millions of people a year go missing around the world.

over 90% turnup one way or the other, however in america alone 600,000 people have dissapeared from the face of the earth in the last 20 years alone so again your analogy is fataly flawed are you going to come up with something original.

plus betty and barney were the first and nothing to do with copy catting so they do have certian subsidery merit here.

i googled mr jacobs and it leads me to believe he knows full well the weakness of his overall hypothosis.

example.
I wrote most of the information on this web site based on more than 42 years of UFO research. In addition, since 1986 I have conducted over 1,000 hypnotic regressions with abductees. I have tried to be as objective and as "agenda free" as possible. I have no New Age, spiritual, religious, transformational, or transcendent program to promote. I try to stay as close to the evidence as I can. However, there is no possibility that I have avoided error. The majority of evidence for the alien abduction phenomenon is from human memory derived from hypnosis administered by amateurs. It is difficult to imagine a weaker form of evidence. But it is evidence and we have a great deal of it. Still, readers must be skeptical of what I say and of what all others say in this tangled arena of alien abductions, hypnosis, popular culture, and memory. Abduction researchers are mainly amateurs doing their best to get to the truth knowing that objective reality may elude them.

David M. Jacobs, Ph.D.

http://www.ufoabduction.com/

Jimmy123
2010-Feb-21, 03:13 AM
Originally Posted by manxman
i googled mr jacobs and it leads me to believe he knows full well the weakness of his overall hypothosis.

How much trust can you have in a researcher who gives his subjects suggestions under hypnosis that they have multiple personality disorder.

kleindoofy
2010-Feb-21, 04:02 AM
UFO Abduction Experts
This is a serious misnomer.

If one is an expert on ants, it's because he has observed and studied ants.

An expert on UFO abductions would be somebody who has observed or studied UFO abductions. But these "experts" have not observed or studied UFO abductions. They have only "studied" stories about them.

That makes them experts on "Stories about UFO Abduction." Nothing more.

If I wrote an expert book about the stories compiled and edited by the Brothers Grimm*, that would not make me an expert on giants, witches, or sorcerers. It would make me an expert on fairy tales.

In addition, one can't help noticing that the accounts about and descriptions of giants, witches, and sorcerers in the Grimm stories are astonishingly similar to each other and consistent with each other, much like the alledged UFO abducties' accounts tend to be similar and consistent.

Following the logic of the "UFO Abduction Experts," does that make the Grimm's tales real?


*One has to know that the Grimm's fairy tales were not written by the two brothers. They collected existing tales by travelling around and having people relate tales to them.

gzhpcu
2010-Feb-21, 07:53 AM
There is a similarity between the reasoning of alien abduction and ufo (alien spaceship) proponents, namely, if I can't readily explain it, then it must be an alien abduction or an alien spaceship.

Soulless49er
2010-Feb-21, 10:15 AM
The website is full of conspiracy geeks and those who are not going to be skeptical and look at things in a balanced and fair manner. Ignore the website and just look at this case. I think it's compelling and highly fascinating. Although I'm not saying it is legitimate proof for the reality of alien abductions. Physical proof was found too.

Here's a link to Above Top Secret where one of the most compelling alien abduction cases is cited:

Link: http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread519188/pg1

Garrison
2010-Feb-21, 12:49 PM
do you know that millions of people a year go missing around the world.

over 90% turnup one way or the other, however in america alone 600,000 people have dissapeared from the face of the earth in the last 20 years alone so again your analogy is fataly flawed are you going to come up with something original.

plus betty and barney were the first and nothing to do with copy catting so they do have certian subsidery merit here.

i googled mr jacobs and it leads me to believe he knows full well the weakness of his overall hypothosis.



Sorry but since you never quote it's hard to know who you are responding to here. Assuming it was my last post then I am going to ask you two psimple questions; where did you get that figure of 600,000 disappeared from? Secondly are you supporting the notion that some of those people were abducted by aliens?

As for the merit of the Hills, sorry but I simply don't regard unsubstantiated eyewitnesses as having any merit, especially not when their recollection was 'sharpened' by hypnosis.

manxman
2010-Feb-21, 01:29 PM
i cant remember where i got the 600k figure from right this second no. .. however i will get back with the data in a very short time. .. the stats i had were world stats broken down by country. .. they were from mike rupperts site. .. altho im pretty good with numbers in my memory and i think its an average of 36k per annum in america average for the last 50 years .. thats ordinary people that just get up in the morning and disappear from their families for ever without trace.

secondly if i thought they were being abducted by aliens i would have said that thats what i believe. i just dont automatically discount the possibility because its impossible .. as it isnt an impossibility.

however can you prove to me that a proportion of them are not..? so as i know for sure. .. ofcourse you cannot prove that to me as you simply do not know do you.

neither do the authorities or they wouldnt be missing persons would they..?

never said i gave them credit for honesty in the hills case .. i cannot tell just from the written word .. however unlike you i will not automatically call people i never met and never talked to liars even if you didnt directly use the word liars thats one of your key assumptions along with mistaken identity/false memory.
i simply do not believe that out of all the 1000s upon 1000s of eye witness testimony that every single one has either lied or been mistaken or been halucinating.

i do believe that anomalous activicty takes place above our heads .. however its very rare that i find any singular incident intriguing after some research and i
give great weight to motive in my particular interests.

as for the good doctor i go again directly to his motives and to me so far his motive/s can be numerous.

please dont take my words as combative i have nothing invested ego wise or anything else in this subject i only reply to them when i see factual innacurracies used to airbrush the subject matter.

this ofcourse means ive wasted alot of time over the last 30 years researching the written word on similar subject material to this thread but as ive matured
over those years ive realised that the ufo circiut/circus is just one big money spinning outfit and the written word in the great scheme of things doesnt stack upto much.


ps.

quote.
As for the merit of the Hills, sorry but I simply don't regard unsubstantiated eyewitnesses as having any merit, especially not when their recollection was 'sharpened' by hypnosis.


there was corroborative evidence there was the 2 of them.
are you saying if there was independent 3rd and 4th party witnesses you would then believe the incident took place..?

captain swoop
2010-Feb-21, 01:34 PM
where did you get that figure of 600,000 disappeared from?
I agree, If you are going to quote a figure like this then you need to show a source.

Garrison
2010-Feb-21, 02:17 PM
i cant remember where i got the 600k figure from right this second no. .. however i will get back with the data in a very short time. .. the stats i had were world stats broken down by country. .. they were from mike rupperts site. .. altho im pretty good with numbers in my memory and i think its an average of 36k per annum in america average for the last 50 years .. thats ordinary people that just get up in the morning and disappear from their families for ever without trace.

secondly if i thought they were being abducted by aliens i would have said that thats what i believe. i just dont automatically discount the possibility because its impossible .. as it isnt an impossibility.

however can you prove to me that a proportion of them are not..? so as i know for sure. .. ofcourse you cannot prove that to me as you simply do not know do you.

neither do the authorities or they wouldnt be missing persons would they..?

never said i gave them credit for honesty in the hills case .. however unlike you i will not automatically call people i never met and never talked to liars even if you didnt directly use the word liar.
i simply do not believe that out of all the 1000s upon 1000s of eye witness testimony that every single one has either lied or been mistaken or been halucinating.

i do believe that anomalous activicty takes place above our heads .. however its very rare that i find any singular incident intriguing after some research and i
give great weight to motive in my particular interests.

No, saying you won't discount the possibility isn't good enough, you need to provide some good reason why anyone here should entertain the notion. Do you have any evidence bar hypnotic testimony that such abductions have occurred?

I discount the Hills not because they are liars but because eyewitnesses are inherently unreliable, and far more so acting under hypnosis. To what extent were those hypnotic recollections shaped by the questions of the hypnotist?

manxman
2010-Feb-21, 02:32 PM
there is more evidence that they could be happening than evidence they are not.

im sorry saying i wont discount the possibilty isnt good enough for you but thats just me i do not think its impossible .. and i also do not know if it has happened and as long as i dont become a statistic not knowing is where i am along with everyone else to be strictly correct.
you are welcome to your theories on this matter but they are just that theoretical.
you may chose to publish on forums your theorie/s on certain events .. i however do not feel the need.
theres no evidence that would be good enough is there..?

photo film .. faked
personal testimony .. mistaken lairs trick of the mind etcetc
multiple eye witness reports .. mass halucinations
jet fighter lock ons and nose cone footage whilst object being tracked by radar at 13000 mile an hour .. secret technology venus mars etc etc.

i could go on and on but you see my point. .. theres nothing that would ever be good enough for those that passionately discount any anomolous activities thats why i asked you to not take my words as an entrenched view.

ive looked at similar studies on hypnotic regression myself and i agree with your findings.
however none of that research says that the testimony is skewed 100% of the time ..no matter how unreliable eyewitness testimony is it will still leave those that saw what they saw without lying. .. also many many men have been executed on eye witness testimony and it would be good enough to send anyone of us to the chair.

and that small percentage who did actually see what they saw stacks right up over the years in actual numbers .. far too many infact for me to just dismiss the whole thing out of hand just because i refuse to except the possibility.

Orion's Fan
2010-Feb-21, 03:04 PM
i cant remember where i got the 600k figure from right this second no. .. however i will get back with the data in a very short time. .. the stats i had were world stats broken down by country. .. they were from mike rupperts site. .. altho im pretty good with numbers in my memory and i think its an average of 36k per annum in america average for the last 50 years .. thats ordinary people that just get up in the morning and disappear from their families for ever without trace.

secondly if i thought they were being abducted by aliens i would have said that thats what i believe. i just dont automatically discount the possibility because its impossible .. as it isnt an impossibility.

however can you prove to me that a proportion of them are not..? so as i know for sure. .. ofcourse you cannot prove that to me as you simply do not know do you.

neither do the authorities or they wouldnt be missing persons would they..?

never said i gave them credit for honesty in the hills case .. i cannot tell just from the written word .. however unlike you i will not automatically call people i never met and never talked to liars even if you didnt directly use the word liars thats one of your key assumptions along with mistaken identity/false memory.
i simply do not believe that out of all the 1000s upon 1000s of eye witness testimony that every single one has either lied or been mistaken or been halucinating.

i do believe that anomalous activicty takes place above our heads .. however its very rare that i find any singular incident intriguing after some research and i
give great weight to motive in my particular interests.

as for the good doctor i go again directly to his motives and to me so far his motive/s can be numerous.

please dont take my words as combative i have nothing invested ego wise or anything else in this subject i only reply to them when i see factual innacurracies used to airbrush the subject matter.

this ofcourse means ive wasted alot of time over the last 30 years researching the written word on similar subject material to this thread but as ive matured
over those years ive realised that the ufo circiut/circus is just one big money spinning outfit and the written word in the great scheme of things doesnt stack upto much.


ps.

quote.
As for the merit of the Hills, sorry but I simply don't regard unsubstantiated eyewitnesses as having any merit, especially not when their recollection was 'sharpened' by hypnosis.


there was corroborative evidence there was the 2 of them.
are you saying if there was independent 3rd and 4th party witnesses you would then believe the incident took place..?

The idea that the missing people were abducted by aliens has no more substantiation than that they abducted by Big Foot or turned into a tree. Do you keep your mind open to those (and 1000s of other) possibilities?

What are you calling 'factual inaccuracies'?

What makes the Hills credible?

SolusLupus
2010-Feb-21, 03:11 PM
i could go on and on but you see my point. .. theres nothing that would ever be good enough for those that passionately discount any anomolous activities thats why i asked you to not take my words as an entrenched view.

I take it you never heard of Carl Sagan, or his famous quote that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence?

manxman
2010-Feb-21, 03:15 PM
you mean why did i take the hills as credible orion .. their profiles if i remember correctly.

garrisons time loss comparisons and his quote of thousands of people being abducted he intimated that it would be strange no-one noticed 1000s going missing.
quote.
little grey men from space kidnapping what by some accounts would be hundreds of thousands of people?


have i actually said anywhere i give weight to the theory of abuction please orion.?

i merely find some aspects interesting so therefore as explained will not automatically dismiss out of hand.

SolusLupus
2010-Feb-21, 03:24 PM
Just a follow-up:


no matter how unreliable eyewitness testimony is it will still leave those that saw what they saw without lying. ..
At best, they saw an "Unidentified Flying Objects". You'll find that the more individuals are familiar with space objects, including kinds of aircraft (experimental or no), the lower the frequency of reported "Unidentified Flying Objects".



also many many men have been executed on eye witness testimony and it would be good enough to send anyone of us to the chair.

Which can say as much about the court system as it does about eyewitness testimony. Regardless, look here (http://agora.stanford.edu/sjls/Issue%20One/fisher&tversky.htm).


Several studies have been conducted on human memory and on subjects’ propensity to remember erroneously events and details that did not occur. Elizabeth Loftus performed experiments in the mid-seventies demonstrating the effect of a third party’s introducing false facts into memory.4 Subjects were shown a slide of a car at an intersection with either a yield sign or a stop sign. Experimenters asked participants questions, falsely introducing the term "stop sign" into the question instead of referring to the yield sign participants had actually seen. Similarly, experimenters falsely substituted the term "yield sign" in questions directed to participants who had actually seen the stop sign slide. The results indicated that subjects remembered seeing the false image. In the initial part of the experiment, subjects also viewed a slide showing a car accident. Some subjects were later asked how fast the cars were traveling when they "hit" each other, others were asked how fast the cars were traveling when they "smashed" into each other. Those subjects questioned using the word "smashed" were more likely to report having seen broken glass in the original slide. The introduction of false cues altered participants’ memories.

[...]

Memory is affected by retelling, and we rarely tell a story in a neutral fashion. By tailoring our stories to our listeners, our bias distorts the very formation of memory—even without the introduction of misinformation by a third party. The protections of the judicial system against prosecutors and police "assisting" a witness’ memory may not sufficiently ensure the accuracy of those memories. Even though prosecutors refrain from "refreshing" witness A’s memory by showing her witness B’s testimony, the mere act of telling prosecutors what happened may bias and distort the witness’s memory. Eyewitness testimony, then, is innately suspect.


There is a lot of criticism for reliance on eyewitness testimony in court. Why do you think that this kind of argument would be convincing for a skeptic about flying saucers?

manxman
2010-Feb-21, 03:29 PM
I take it you never heard of Carl Sagan, or his famous quote that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence?

no i have never read his works or atleast have no recollection and times to short now im past the 2 thirds mark of my alotted heartbeats.

my main interest in the subject stemmed from my early 20s and getting janes defence through my letterbox for about 15 years they occasionally had editorials on anomalous events and i got an urge to check thurther so it was predominately military/air industrie footage/testimony.

SolusLupus
2010-Feb-21, 03:35 PM
Still not hearing extraordinary evidence there.

I do recommend you reading Carl Sagan, or at least seeing Cosmos, but that's irrelevant. The point was, flying saucers require a lot of proof since they are, indeed, an extraordinary claim.

manxman
2010-Feb-21, 03:38 PM
quote soluslulus.

At best, they saw an "Unidentified Flying Objects". You'll find that the more individuals are familiar with space objects, including kinds of aircraft (experimental or no), the lower the frequency of reported "Unidentified Flying Objects".

i used the term anomolous activicty.


Which can say as much about the court system as it does about eyewitness testimony. Regardless, look here.

i havent looked at the link yet.
but please dont try and convince me that all eye witness testomony is flawed 100%.

There is a lot of criticism for reliance on eyewitness testimony in court. Why do you think that this kind of argument would be convincing for a skeptic about flying saucers?

i didnt try to convince anyone about flying saucers thats you purposely misquoting.
only words i will ever use anywhere is anomolous activity.
i wouldnt try to convince a skeptic one has to be objective to ones self only.

Gobligok
2010-Feb-21, 03:39 PM
however can you prove to me that a proportion of them are not..? so as i know for sure. .. ofcourse you cannot prove that to me as you simply do not know do you.

neither do the authorities or they wouldnt be missing persons would they..?


A significant portion of those persons are drafted by schmuloflops, innowaps (vile creatures), Reptilians and Smurfs to wage space war at the behest of the intergalactic overlords known as Gobligok and the Great Juju. The rest have teleported to another dimension in search of better lives, courtesy of the immortal Light Beings.

You can't prove otherwise.

manxman
2010-Feb-21, 03:45 PM
Still not hearing extraordinary evidence there.

I do recommend you reading Carl Sagan, or at least seeing Cosmos, but that's irrelevant. The point was, flying saucers require a lot of proof since they are, indeed, an extraordinary claim.

i may give him a flick thru thanks.

never claimed to have or seen extrordinary evidence of abuction have i..?

ive seen plenty of anomolous military footage mind and reports/accounts that interested me sufficiently but i re-alise they are anomolous to me maybe not so to others .. and may be described from anything such as marsh gas to instellar mother ships .. unfortunately for the hawks here i only see something strange.

thanks again for the reading material.

manxman
2010-Feb-21, 03:48 PM
A significant portion of those persons are drafted by schmuloflops, innowaps (vile creatures), Reptilians and Smurfs to wage space war at the behest of the intergalactic overlords known as Gobligok and the Great Juju. The rest have teleported to another dimension in search of better lives, courtesy of the immortal Light Beings.

You can't prove otherwise.

you could of replied.


A significant portion of those persons are murdered or start a new life elsewhere or are ill etc.

wouldnt of been half as much fun as ridicule tho would it.

Gobligok
2010-Feb-21, 04:00 PM
you could of replied.


A significant portion of those persons are murdered or start a new life elsewhere or are ill etc.

wouldnt of been half as much fun as ridicule tho would it.

You can call it ridicule if you so desire, but it's more of a reduction to absurdity. The fact remains that invoking Smurfs and intergalactic overlords is no more or less reasonable than invoking any other floating abstraction (e.g. "alien" abduction). As kleindoofy correctly noted in an earlier post, "An expert on UFO abductions would be somebody who has observed or studied UFO abductions. But these "experts" have not observed or studied UFO abductions. They have only "studied" stories about them."

Murder and absconding are concepts that do have real-world referents, so they would not have adequately conveyed my point.

manxman
2010-Feb-21, 04:14 PM
You can call it ridicule if you so desire, but it's more of a reduction to absurdity. The fact remains that invoking Smurfs and intergalactic overlords is no more or less reasonable than invoking any other floating abstraction (e.g. "alien" abduction). As kleindoofy correctly noted in an earlier post, "An expert on UFO abductions would be somebody who has observed or studied UFO abductions. But these "experts" have not observed or studied UFO abductions. They have only "studied" stories about them."

Murder and absconding are concepts that do have real-world referents, so they would not have adequately conveyed my point.

you dont have a point, thats the point.

there was no call for reduction to absurdity the guy who started the thread has done nothing to warrant it.
in my opinion ofcourse.

Orion's Fan
2010-Feb-21, 04:17 PM
you mean why did i take the hills as credible orion .. their profiles if i remember correctly.

garrisons time loss comparisons and his quote of thousands of people being abducted he intimated that it would be strange no-one noticed 1000s going missing.

have i actually said anywhere i give weight to the theory of abuction please orion.?

i merely find some aspects interesting so therefore as explained will not automatically dismiss out of hand.

In the bottom right hand corner there is a button that you can use "QUOTE" that will allow you to quote the poster that you are responding to.

What about their profiles made them credible?

Did you not just say that you give credibility to the speculation (please don't use the word theory, as it doesn't fit here) that the Hills were abducted? If you don't give 'weight' to it, why are you discussing it? Why would you find it interesting, if you don't give 'weight' to it?

I think, perhaps, that you misunderstand what science is all about. It's NOT about speculation. It's about keeping a discriminating eye (and mind) about speculation, not giving into the hype, but searching for true evidence. Eye witness testimony cannot be, in and of itself, evidence for science. Every time we speak, we can chose to lie or tell the truth. Facts do not have that option.

Orion's Fan
2010-Feb-21, 04:25 PM
you dont have a point, thats the point.

there was no call for reduction to absurdity the guy who started the thread has done nothing to warrant it.
in my opinion ofcourse.

He has an excellent point, one perhaps, that you missed. It wasn't about ridicule. It is similar to a point that I made earlier. Aliens, smurfs, Bigfoot...there is no evidence that any of these things are responsible for the missing people. So, one is as good of a piece of speculation as the other.

manxman
2010-Feb-21, 04:26 PM
In the bottom right hand corner there is a button that you can use "QUOTE" that will allow you to quote the poster that you are responding to.

What about their profiles made them credible?

Did you not just say that you give credibility to the speculation (please don't use the word theory, as it doesn't fit here) that the Hills were abducted? If you don't give 'weight' to it, why are you discussing it? Why would you find it interesting, if you don't give 'weight' to it?

I think, perhaps, that you misunderstand what science is all about. It's NOT about speculation. It's about keeping a discriminating eye (and mind) about speculation, not giving into the hype, but searching for true evidence. Eye witness testimony cannot be, in and of itself, evidence for science. Every time we speak, we can chose to lie or tell the truth. Facts do not have that option.

i think you will find i said i had no reason to dis-believe them.
if you want to extrapolate that to me believing they were abducted after making myself perfectly clear several times about where i stand on anomalous and strange activity you be my guest.

now tho i am going to take my beautiful little 5 yr old granddaughter
for a walk in the fresh snow, have a good night gents.

Gobligok
2010-Feb-21, 04:28 PM
you dont have a point, thats the point.

That isn't a very good rebuttal. Can you attach the phrase "alien abduction" to something in reality, or do you concede that labeling it a floating abstraction is accurate? If it's accurate, what exactly are you disputing, and on what basis do you state that I don't have a point? I think my point is very clear.



there was no call for reduction to absurdity the guy who started the thread has done nothing to warrant it.
in my opinion ofcourse.

You're welcome to your opinion, but my reduction stands regardless of whether you consider it warranted. I've posted similar messages in other threads, toward individuals making similar mistakes. Call me a stickler for conceptual rigor.

manxman
2010-Feb-21, 04:29 PM
He has an excellent point, one perhaps, that you missed. It wasn't about ridicule. It is similar to a point that I made earlier. Aliens, smurfs, Bigfoot...there is no evidence that any of these things are responsible for the missing people. So, one is as good of a piece of speculation as the other.

true.

where have i said different.

SolusLupus
2010-Feb-21, 04:29 PM
i may give him a flick thru thanks.

never claimed to have or seen extrordinary evidence of abuction have i..?
No, but you implied that people were close-minded for not accepting the evidence, remember?


theres no evidence that would be good enough is there..?

photo film .. faked
personal testimony .. mistaken lairs trick of the mind etcetc
multiple eye witness reports .. mass halucinations
jet fighter lock ons and nose cone footage whilst object being tracked by radar at 13000 mile an hour .. secret technology venus mars etc etc.

i could go on and on but you see my point. .. theres nothing that would ever be good enough for those that passionately discount any anomolous activities thats why i asked you to not take my words as an entrenched view.

manxman
2010-Feb-21, 04:32 PM
That isn't a very good rebuttal. Can you attach the phrase "alien abduction" to something in reality, or do you concede that labeling it a floating abstraction is accurate? If it's accurate, what exactly are you disputing, and on what basis do you state that I don't have a point? I think my point is very clear.

i never applied alien aduction to anything the thread opener has done that.



You're welcome to your opinion, but my reduction stands regardless of whether you consider it warranted. I've posted similar messages in other threads, toward individuals making similar mistakes. Call me a stickler for conceptual rigor.

fine.

Orion's Fan
2010-Feb-21, 04:32 PM
i think you will find i said i had no reason to dis-believe them.
if you want to extrapolate that to me believing they were abducted after making myself perfectly clear several times about where i stand on anomalous and strange activity you be my guest.

now tho i am going to take my beautiful little 5 yr old granddaughter
for a walk in the fresh snow, have a good night gents.

Why promote them if you don't believe them?

An example...I saw a video on the making of crop circles that speculated that they were made by mating hedge hogs. I find this extremely interesting and have mentioned it to various people...because I find it absurd. Absurd can be interesting. Interesting enough to mention. If you neither believe or disbelieve the Hills, why do YOU retell their story?

Have fun with your granddaughter in the now. However, I am not a gent, but a female.

SolusLupus
2010-Feb-21, 04:34 PM
I'm not a gent or female. :D

manxman
2010-Feb-21, 04:36 PM
No, but you implied that people were close-minded for not accepting the evidence, remember?

no thats what you wanted to see.

there is no real evidence, never implied there was.



right im off good night or afternoon as it is here ladie/s & gents.

edit sorry orion.

Orion's Fan
2010-Feb-21, 04:38 PM
true.

where have i said different.

You have suggested that those that don't give credibility to 'eye witness' accounts of alien abduction (ie, the Hills) without any evidence are close-minded.

captain swoop
2010-Feb-21, 04:43 PM
Manxman, I suggest you take some time to re-read the rules for posting to the CT Forum. If you make claims then you need to support them with some evidence or retract them. Half remembered figures from some other website or a book aren't good enough.
If as you claim there is no real evidence then I think you are done in this thread until you can bring some.

Gobligok
2010-Feb-21, 04:54 PM
i never applied alien aduction to anything the thread opener has done that.

You said:


secondly if i thought they were being abducted by aliens i would have said that thats what i believe. i just dont automatically discount the possibility because its impossible .. as it isnt an impossibility.

however can you prove to me that a proportion of them are not..? so as i know for sure. .. ofcourse you cannot prove that to me as you simply do not know do you.

You claimed that "alien" abductions aren't "an impossiblity," then you ridiculed everyone else in this thread by implying that they are closed-minded to any and all evidence. Whether you personally believe the alien tales is irrelevant to my response to you, and my point stands. The fact that you even played the negative proof card suggests, to me, an unfamiliarity with the scientific method and basic logic on your part.

If you can attach "aliens" or "alien abduction" to something in reality, then I stand corrected. If you cannot, then there's nothing else to discuss here.

Garrison
2010-Feb-21, 05:05 PM
also many many men have been executed on eye witness testimony and it would be good enough to send anyone of us to the chair.


You know I had looked up the site linked below to reference in my last post about the reliability of eyewitnesses but decided it would be a bit melodramatic. Since you bring it up allow me to direct your attention to the Innocence project:

http://www.innocenceproject.org/understand/Eyewitness-Misidentification.php

manxman
2010-Feb-21, 07:51 PM
You said:



You claimed that "alien" abductions aren't "an impossiblity," then you ridiculed everyone else in this thread by implying that they are closed-minded to any and all evidence. Whether you personally believe the alien tales is irrelevant to my response to you, and my point stands. The fact that you even played the negative proof card suggests, to me, an unfamiliarity with the scientific method and basic logic on your part.

If you can attach "aliens" or "alien abduction" to something in reality, then I stand corrected. If you cannot, then there's nothing else to discuss here.

please feel free to quote the post directly rather than delibrately misquote to the point of deception.

kleindoofy
2010-Feb-21, 08:09 PM
... it isn[']t an impossibility.

however can you prove to me that a proportion of them are not..? ....
I just heard a noise outside in the yard.

I'm pretty sure it was a unicorn.

Can you prove to me that it wasn't?

It isn't an impossibility, or is it?

gzhpcu
2010-Feb-21, 08:18 PM
there is more evidence that they could be happening than evidence they are not.

im sorry saying i wont discount the possibilty isnt good enough for you but thats just me i do not think its impossible .. and i also do not know if it has happened and as long as i dont become a statistic not knowing is where i am along with everyone else to be strictly correct.
you are welcome to your theories on this matter but they are just that theoretical.
Are you stating here that there is more evidence that alien abductions are occuring than they are not? Or just abductions are occuring? If so, what evidence are you referring to which directly supports this statement?



you may chose to publish on forums your theorie/s on certain events .. i however do not feel the need.
theres no evidence that would be good enough is there..?

photo film .. faked
personal testimony .. mistaken lairs trick of the mind etcetc
multiple eye witness reports .. mass halucinations
jet fighter lock ons and nose cone footage whilst object being tracked by radar at 13000 mile an hour .. secret technology venus mars etc etc.

Show us what you consider an authentic ufo photo. Show the evidence for a jet fighter tracking by a radar at 13000 miles an hour, showing that it was an authentic object being tracked, and not just another sporadic radar anomaly being interpreted incorrectly.


i could go on and on but you see my point. .. theres nothing that would ever be good enough for those that passionately discount any anomolous activities thats why i asked you to not take my words as an entrenched view.

It is not a question of passionately discounting anomalous activities, it is a case of not jumping to unwaranted, biased conclusions.


and that small percentage who did actually see what they saw stacks right up over the years in actual numbers .. far too many infact for me to just dismiss the whole thing out of hand just because i refuse to except the possibility.
What are you referring to explicitly here? Saw what?

Gobligok
2010-Feb-21, 08:22 PM
please feel free to quote the post directly rather than delibrately misquote to the point of deception.

I haven't been posting here long, but you denying having written something that is in plain language for everyone to see, while accusing me of straw-manning you in the process, doesn't seem like the best course of action. People here seem predisposed toward spotting denials, retreats, red herrings and other such tactics with great ease.


there is more evidence that they could be happening than evidence they are not.

im sorry saying i wont discount the possibilty isnt good enough for you but thats just me i do not think its impossible .. and i also do not know if it has happened and as long as i dont become a statistic not knowing is where i am along with everyone else to be strictly correct.
you are welcome to your theories on this matter but they are just that theoretical.
you may chose to publish on forums your theorie/s on certain events .. i however do not feel the need.
theres no evidence that would be good enough is there..?

photo film .. faked
personal testimony .. mistaken lairs trick of the mind etcetc
multiple eye witness reports .. mass halucinations
jet fighter lock ons and nose cone footage whilst object being tracked by radar at 13000 mile an hour .. secret technology venus mars etc etc.

i could go on and on but you see my point. .. theres nothing that would ever be good enough for those that passionately discount any anomolous activities thats why i asked you to not take my words as an entrenched view.

ive looked at similar studies on hypnotic regression myself and i agree with your findings.
however none of that research says that the testimony is skewed 100% of the time ..no matter how unreliable eyewitness testimony is it will still leave those that saw what they saw without lying. .. also many many men have been executed on eye witness testimony and it would be good enough to send anyone of us to the chair.

and that small percentage who did actually see what they saw stacks right up over the years in actual numbers .. far too many infact for me to just dismiss the whole thing out of hand just because i refuse to except the possibility.

Emphasis mine, and apparently I'm not the only one who gleaned the rather obvious implication of those words.

Also, I'm still waiting for you to confirm whether "aliens" and "alien abduction," as concepts, have any referents in reality. If not, you concede my point that one can just as easily invoke Smurfs, schmuloflops and intergalactic overlords. If that's fine with you, we can agree to disagree over whether such abstractions are meaningful, but I don't think you believe they are, since it seems you've already accepted that those notions are absurd.

SolusLupus
2010-Feb-21, 08:36 PM
please feel free to quote the post directly rather than delibrately misquote to the point of deception.

I already have. I notice you ignored that post.

Here it is again. Please try not to ignore it this time:


theres no evidence that would be good enough is there..?

photo film .. faked
personal testimony .. mistaken lairs trick of the mind etcetc
multiple eye witness reports .. mass halucinations
jet fighter lock ons and nose cone footage whilst object being tracked by radar at 13000 mile an hour .. secret technology venus mars etc etc.

i could go on and on but you see my point. .. theres nothing that would ever be good enough for those that passionately discount any anomolous activities thats why i asked you to not take my words as an entrenched view.

Edit: Gobligok beat me to it.

Part of the problem of posting on message boards? People can read what you say. And not only that, but can refer to it word-for-word.

manxman
2010-Feb-21, 08:47 PM
I just heard a noise outside in the yard.

I'm pretty sure it was a unicorn.

Can you prove to me that it wasn't?

It isn't an impossibility, or is it?

first of all how do you know for sure you heard anything at all.
first hand testemony is notoriously fickle and cannot be relied upon to any great extent .. do you have a recording of it .. if not we only have your word on it sorry and the rest of your post becomes nil and void as just hearsay.

however even if you had done all that plus called the police who then shot it 16 times and delivered the bodie up for scentific authentication it would still not be a unicorn as theres no previous samples to compare it to.

SolusLupus
2010-Feb-21, 08:58 PM
Hearing a sound is nothing extraordinary. There is no extraordinary evidence required for it. Claiming to have seen an alien spacecraft or hearing a unicorn? That's extraordinary, and requires extraordinary evidence.

Do you get it yet?

Garrison
2010-Feb-21, 09:04 PM
first of all how do you know for sure you heard anything at all.
first hand testemony is notoriously fickle and cannot be relied upon to any great extent .. do you have a recording of it .. if not we only have your word on it sorry and the rest of your post becomes nil and void as just hearsay.

however even if you had done all that plus called the police who then shot it 16 times and delivered the bodie up for scentific authentication it would still not be a unicorn as theres no previous samples to compare it to.

Now first had testimony is fickle? Whereas previously you seem to have effectively been calling people closed minded for rejecting eyewitness testimony, specifically right here:


personal testimony .. mistaken lairs trick of the mind etcetc
multiple eye witness reports .. mass halucinations
jet fighter lock ons and nose cone footage whilst object being tracked by radar at 13000 mile an hour .. secret technology venus mars etc etc.

i could go on and on but you see my point. .. theres nothing that would ever be good enough for those that passionately discount any anomolous activities thats why i asked you to not take my words as an entrenched view.

care to explain the contradiction?

manxman
2010-Feb-21, 09:05 PM
I already have. I notice you ignored that post.

Here it is again. Please try not to ignore it this time:



Edit: Gobligok beat me to it.

Part of the problem of posting on message boards? People can read what you say. And not only that, but can refer to it word-for-word.

and your point is..?

would any of the above bolded comment be of sufficient quality too convince you that what you were seeing was anomolous..??

would any combination of the bolded be enough..??

infact what would be enough for you to be genuinely stuck for an answer.

and why you people would think i am some kind of claivoyant and can look into and explain other people thoughts and beliefs is beyond me.

Garrison
2010-Feb-21, 09:15 PM
and your point is..?

would any of the above bolded comment be of sufficient quality too convince you that what you were seeing was anomolous..??

would any combination of the bolded be enough..??

infact what would be enough for you to be genuinely stuck for an answer.

and why you people would think i am some kind of claivoyant and can look into and explain other people thoughts and beliefs is beyond me.

The point was you claimed not to have done something when your own posts clearly showed you had; you implied quite clearly that people who didn't accept the possibility of alien abduction were closed minded and then denied that you had done so.

manxman
2010-Feb-21, 09:16 PM
Now first had testimony is fickle? Whereas previously you seem to have effectively been calling people closed minded for rejecting eyewitness testimony, specifically right here:



care to explain the contradiction?

i dont see any contradiction .. i didnt believe she heard a unicorn and was posting in an insincere way so i replied in the same vien.

i mean if you fellas want i will gladly say in public that the sheer quality of your data and debunk of the OP subject matter has been second to none i am certain your peer group will be most impressed.

i have made it clear my thoughts on this matter earlier in the thread .. i made them indisputably clear.

now i have atleast contributed material on the good doctor.

whereas not one of you who have arrived in the last 6 or 7 hours has posted one iota to do with the thread .. i and i alone have been your sole target.

your wasting your time now and in future trying to get a rise out of me as i will always act with respect and decorum.

thanks for the interaction but i am tiring now of the bland repetitiveness that has now decended over this thread.

and i truly never thought when i joined that i would ever be making that comment to people that i percieved as having much greater than the normal intelligence levels.

yours truly
Very Dissapointed

Garrison
2010-Feb-21, 09:24 PM
i dont see any contradiction .. i didnt believe she heard a unicorn and was posting in an insincere way so i replied in the same vien.

i mean if you fellas want i will gladly say in public that the sheer quality of your data and debunk of the OP subject matter has been second to none i am certain your peer group will be most impressed.

i have made it clear my thoughts on this matter earlier in the thread .. i made them indisputably clear.

now i have atleast contributed material on the good doctor.

whereas not one of you who have arrived in the last 6 or 7 hours has posted one iota to do with the thread .. i and i alone have been your sole target.

your wasting your time now and in future trying to get a rise out of me as i will always act with respect and decorum.

thanks for the interaction but i am tiring now of the bland repetitiveness that has now decended over this thread.

Frankly you've been far from clear and becoming the focus of the thread is entirely of your own doing. You've contributed material, but refused to take any stance on it, simply contented yourself with sniping at those who have, and then denying the clear meaning of your words.

And you can't have it both ways on unsupported eyewitness testimony, should it be given credence or not when it comes to such speculative matters as alien abductions or unicorns?

Gobligok
2010-Feb-21, 09:32 PM
whereas not one of you who have arrived in the last 6 or 7 hours has posted one iota to do with the thread .. i and i alone have been your sole target.


Manxman, do the concepts "aliens" and "alien abduction" have any referent in reality? It's a simple yes or no question, directly relating to the subject matter, that you have heretofore evaded. Claiming that no one has posted anything with "one iota to do with the thread" is not an accurate reflection of what has transpired here.

Gillianren
2010-Feb-21, 09:35 PM
Honestly, Manxman, I would find it easier to discuss what you're intending to talk about if it were easier to work out what you were intending to talk about. Can you please write a little more clearly?

As to aliens and abduction, well, when someone shows me actual evidence, we'll talk.

SolusLupus
2010-Feb-21, 09:36 PM
and your point is..?

would any of the above bolded comment be of sufficient quality too convince you that what you were seeing was anomolous..??

"The plural of anecdote is not data".


would any combination of the bolded be enough..??

infact what would be enough for you to be genuinely stuck for an answer.

An actual captured extraterrestrial spacecraft might be nice.

I notice that you've once again changed your position, btw. Apparently, you DID imply that people were being "close minded" -- something you claimed that you did not.


i didnt believe she heard a unicorn and was posting in an insincere way so i replied in the same vien.

If anyone is being insincere it, it seems to be you. But regardless of that, the "insincere" post was a commonly-used argument called Reductio ad Absurdum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum).

If you cannot demonstrate why "thinking you heard a unicorn" is not enough evidence for hearing a unicorn, then why are we to take "I saw something that I could not explain" as meaning "I saw extraterrestrial aircraft"?

manxman
2010-Feb-21, 09:49 PM
Manxman, I suggest you take some time to re-read the rules for posting to the CT Forum. If you make claims then you need to support them with some evidence or retract them. Half remembered figures from some other website or a book aren't good enough.
If as you claim there is no real evidence then I think you are done in this thread until you can bring some.

captain your post is the last on page 2 and was made when i was out with the young one .. i hope you believe me when i say i have just and i mean only just right now seen it.

had i of seen it earlier i would have withdrew from the thread as i now will unless i see something to do with the OPs position that interests me.

as for the missing folks data iwill find it now.

edit.

2,300 American people are reported missing on a DAILY basis.

It is estimated that in 2010 over 1,000,000 missing persons will be registered with law enforcement agencies. 814,957 were registered in 2007.

As of December 1, 2007 only 105,229 missing persons cases were considered “active”.

In 2007 only 15.8% of the missing persons cases registered were classified as “locates” by the National Crime Information Center.

It is estimated that 10% of missing persons reported in the US never return home, there is hope.
52% of these “active” cases were juveniles. 11% were considered young adults ages 18-20.

55% of missing adults are men, 40% of them white, 30% African American, 20% Latino.

Only in October of 2001 were adults made inclusive of the National Missing Children’s Organizations national clearinghouse database for missing people—this was called Kristen’s Law. Kristin was also a Charlotte, NC native, like Kyle.

Little legislation since Kristen’s law has been initiated by the government to address the growing problem of missing adults cases in our county. No new laws have been enacted and little federal support has been given

http://www.thekff.org/resources/missing-persons-statistics/


YEAR
MISSING PERSON ENTRIES


1990
663,921


1991
705,175


1992
801,358


1993
868,345


1994
954,896


1995
969,264


1996
955,252


1997
980,712


1998
932,190


1999
867,129


2000
876,213


2001
840,279


2002
821,975


2003
824,699


2004
830,325


2005
834,536


2006
836,131


2007
814,967

source fbi.
http://www.fbi.gov/

indeed my figures were skewed by a factor of 3 the 10% or so that are never seen again per annum actually amounts to about a million more than i quoted previously but as i stated it was from memory and the figure altho well short of its real total did suffice in the reply.
i would like to point out that the figures i quoted earlier were for adults only thats over 21. they still fell short of the real amounts however.

thats 1.7 million over the last 20 years who went about their daily business as normal and have never been seen since all age groups included.

hope that this data is suffice captain.

AstroRockHunter
2010-Feb-21, 11:08 PM
do you know that millions of people a year go missing around the world.

over 90% turnup one way or the other, however in america alone 600,000 people have dissapeared from the face of the earth in the last 20 years alone so again your analogy is fataly flawed are you going to come up with something original. ... [SNIP] ...


You claim repeatedly that you never said that there were alien abductions, however the above bold statement says otherwise.

Which then brings up the question:

Direct Question:

If these people have disappeared, how would you know that they disappeared from the face of the earth?

manxman
2010-Feb-21, 11:14 PM
sorry but that statement means nothing more than they have vanished.

if you wish to read more into it then be my guest.

nice try tho. .. thats the only reason i answered.

and feel free to directly quote me saying anything other than anomolous activity.

Garrison
2010-Feb-21, 11:37 PM
sorry but that statement means nothing more than they have vanished.

if you wish to read more into it then be my guest.

nice try tho. .. thats the only reason i answered.

and feel free to directly quote me saying anything other than anomolous activity.

Oh come now, in light of the subject at hand it's a deliberately provocative choice of words.


indeed my figures were skewed by a factor of 3 the 10% or so that are never seen again per annum actually amounts to about a million more than i quoted previously but as i stated it was from memory and the figure altho well short of its real total did suffice in the reply.
i would like to point out that the figures i quoted earlier were for adults only thats over 21. they still fell short of the real amounts however.

thats 1.7 million over the last 20 years who went about their daily business as normal and have never been seen since all age groups included.

hope that this data is suffice captain.

Your new estimate of the total number of 'vanished' persons seems to be based on assuming that each years list is a completely separate group from the previous years whereas I would imagine that people remain on the list until they are found or are removed for some other reason. In other words you are massively overestimating the missing.
Also in a population of 300 million those missing persons constitute barely 1/3 of 1 percent of the US populous; heartbreaking individually but hardly in need of invoking alien abduction as an explanation.
And who says these people were going about their daily lives as normal? How many may have had perfectly good, or bad, reasons to disappear?

kleindoofy
2010-Feb-21, 11:39 PM
... they have vanished. ...
Perhaps they rode off into the sunset on unicorns.

Silly you say? So do I.

But why is that any more silly then an explanation which suggests that they were abducted by aliens?

... i didnt believe she heard a unicorn ...
Why do you assume I'm a female? I'm not.

Just because I have a famous female violinist in my avatar?

Do you equally think that other members here are galaxies, craters, and rockets?

manxman
2010-Feb-21, 11:44 PM
quote garrison

Also in a population of 300 million those missing persons constitute barely 1/3 of 1 percent of the US populous; heartbreaking individually but hardly in need of invoking alien abduction as an explanation.

and you know full well you could not quote me as saying it does.

SolusLupus
2010-Feb-21, 11:45 PM
Indeed, your "wordplay" has been quite interesting. Rather transparent, though.

manxman
2010-Feb-21, 11:48 PM
Perhaps they rode off into the sunset on unicorns.

Silly you say? So do I.

But why is that any more silly then an explanation which suggests that they were abducted by aliens?

Why do you assume I'm a female? I'm not.

Just because I have a famous female violinist in my avatar?

Do you equally think that other members here are galaxies, craters, and rockets?

i stand corrected on your sex. .. apologies.
i hadnt even re-alised that i had subconsciously defined you as a women.

i think other members here are fine people whose material i am enjoying very much.

manxman
2010-Feb-21, 11:51 PM
Indeed, your "wordplay" has been quite interesting. Rather transparent, though.

personal attacks now i refuse to rise to your baits.

i wont take it personal tho if thats ok with you.

nor complain to the mods its just very sad that an alledgedly grown intelligent man feels the need to try and humiliate an accommodating and welcoming stranger.

SolusLupus
2010-Feb-22, 12:10 AM
Nothing personal about it. You've been playing with words at the beginning of this discussion. It's not abductions, it's "anomalies", even though your statements have been rather directly defending such claims. You claim that we're close-minded for not accepting the evidence, except wait, you didn't say that, but then you did and defend it again.

You think you're fooling us, when really you're not.


personal attacks now i refuse to rise to your baits.


its just very sad that an alledgedly grown intelligent man

Now who's taking it to personal levels?

pzkpfw
2010-Feb-22, 12:16 AM
EVERYBODY take a deep breath, and please cool it.

Just the topic at hand. Discuss the posts, not the poster.

No insults (vague, implied or otherwise).

manxman
2010-Feb-22, 12:20 AM
Nothing personal about it. You've been playing with words at the beginning of this discussion. It's not abductions, it's "anomalies", even though your statements have been rather directly defending such claims. You claim that we're close-minded for not accepting the evidence, except wait, you didn't say that, but then you did and defend it again.

You think you're fooling us, when really you're not.

feel free to directly quote me giving any quoted evidence or defending anybody elses claims.
i dont know of any evidence and have never claimed different.
anacdotal evidence is merely interesting on occasion.
anomolies is all ive ever seen or read about ive never been able to justify to myself the use of any other word to describe them, so why would/should you think this back and forth should or would be any different.

edit to say posted before mods post above was observed mod posted as i was writing reply.

im going to step away now as its been made obvious to me that my replies are only being used as word play whereas i was just trying to stay constructive.

thanks for the interaction regardless of qualitie on this occasion.

SolusLupus
2010-Feb-22, 12:44 AM
feel free to directly quote me giving any quoted evidence or defending anybody elses claims.
i dont know of any evidence and have never claimed different.

I have. Twice. The bit where you mocked us for being close minded.

AstroRockHunter
2010-Feb-22, 12:46 AM
sorry but that statement means nothing more than they have vanished.

if you wish to read more into it then be my guest.

nice try tho. .. thats the only reason i answered.

and feel free to directly quote me saying anything other than anomolous activity.

I didn't read anything into your statement. However, your response indicates that you do not have any respect for the accuracy of language. On this board, what you write should be as succinct as you can make it. If you want to use turns of phrase, be prepared for people to take you to task for it.

As for quoting you saying anything other than anomalous activity, your posts where you might have said it have been edited by you and I don't know what was edited.

manxman
2010-Feb-22, 12:53 AM
quote
soluslupus

I have. Twice. The bit where you mocked us for being close minded.


you obviously struggle with the direct quote function.

also how can you justify the word mock with any of my comments here
please.

you do re-alise i am replying because i am treating you with the same respect as if you were in the same room as me dont you.

and why do you persist with these dirty posting tactics have i done something to offend you or is your failure to provoke me troubling you..?

manxman
2010-Feb-22, 01:05 AM
I didn't read anything into your statement. However, your response indicates that you do not have any respect for the accuracy of language. On this board, what you write should be as succinct as you can make it. If you want to use turns of phrase, be prepared for people to take you to task for it.

As for quoting you saying anything other than anomalous activity, your posts where you might have said it have been edited by you and I don't know what was edited.

now comes the character assassination.

ask yourself why no otherwords other than anomolous activity do not show up in any of my quoted posting literally everyone has been quoted, most several times.

now at the cost of maybe appearing ignorant i am leaving for pastures new so if you make replys they will not be eplied to sorry its all becoming to circular.
be lucky everyone.

Swift
2010-Feb-22, 01:06 AM
EVERYBODY take a deep breath, and please cool it.

Just the topic at hand. Discuss the posts, not the poster.

No insults (vague, implied or otherwise).
OK, last chance. This topic is for the discussion of David Jacob's ideas about UFO abductions. Enough with all the meta-discussions about posting style, language, politeness, etc. If there is nothing further to say about the topic, we can just close this thread. I can also start dishing out some infractions to the next person who doesn't follow the advice of two different moderators.

Orion's Fan
2010-Feb-22, 01:08 AM
I don't believe that there is any such thing as a UFO abduction expert (see title of post) because there is no evidence of a UFO (which simply means 'unidentified flying object' not 'alien') abducting a single person. I do believe that alien life can exist and that chances are that it does. I do not believe that any alien life has visited our planet, as there is no evidence that it has.

kleindoofy
2010-Feb-22, 01:12 AM
... I do not believe that any alien life has visited our planet, as there is no evidence that it has.
... or ever will during the few milliseconds of eternity in which humanity exists on Earth.

manxman
2010-Feb-22, 01:17 AM
i dont think the good doctor believes it himself but he sure does have alot invested in the whole theorie.
repost as it got buried.

I wrote most of the information on this web site based on more than 42 years of UFO research. In addition, since 1986 I have conducted over 1,000 hypnotic regressions with abductees. I have tried to be as objective and as "agenda free" as possible. I have no New Age, spiritual, religious, transformational, or transcendent program to promote. I try to stay as close to the evidence as I can. However, there is no possibility that I have avoided error. The majority of evidence for the alien abduction phenomenon is from human memory derived from hypnosis administered by amateurs. It is difficult to imagine a weaker form of evidence. But it is evidence and we have a great deal of it. Still, readers must be skeptical of what I say and of what all others say in this tangled arena of alien abductions, hypnosis, popular culture, and memory. Abduction researchers are mainly amateurs doing their best to get to the truth knowing that objective reality may elude them.

David M. Jacobs, Ph.D.

http://www.ufoabduction.com/

chrlzs
2010-Feb-22, 02:40 AM
..since 1986 I have conducted over 1,000 hypnotic regressions with abductees. I have tried to be as objective...



Do you not see the problem with that?? No, I'm not talking about the issue of hypnotism being a valid methodology..

He calls them 'abductees'.

Not alleged abductees, not abduction claimants. No, to him they are all abductees. And then he immediately says he has "tried to be objective"? He then alludes to all the problems in his own words, and strangely gives no reason why we should think he is anything above the amateurs he refers to.

When I see statements like that in a preface, I generally go no further. And as far as I am concerned, such a book/report/website should be placed in the nearest appropriate receptacle...


But it's interesting to note that he seems to be a lecturer at Temple University. His topics include 'anomalous experiences', but none of the words "UFO", "abductee" or "hypnotism" get a mention there and his CV is absent so apart from anything else we cannot judge his competence in, or knowledge of, hypnotism.

Perhaps we should invite Jacobs here to explain his own words? Despite having severe doubts about his objectivity, I'd still be particularly interested to hear his views on hypnotism, and his background in that field in an evidentiary environment.

Spoons
2010-Feb-22, 02:43 AM
Good day manxman. I know a lot has been said here, I just wanted to add my cool headed 2 cents worth.

Regarding the notion that missing people itself and alone is evidence of anything in particular…

The suggestion of great numbers of people going missing, “without a trace”, doesn’t appear to lend any credibility specifically to UFO cases though. If there had been traces of some sort of alien technologies then maybe, but alone it can only be moulded into another piece of “circumstantial evidence”.

I remember being at a friend’s birthday party as a child. His father didn’t come home, didn’t call, nobody at work knew what had happened to him. He showed up several days later, and had apparently blacked out in a park, national forest, or somewhere. If some people had chosen to take advantage of him while he was unconscious, steal his money, wallet, car and everything else, then kill him and dispose carefully of the body it would’ve been a perfect crime as nobody knew where he was. All of a sudden we would’ve had a UFO case on our hands, would we?

Another non-woo possibility: blackouts are not unheard of among alcoholics and drug abusers. Alcoholics and drug abusers are generally hesitant to admit to their problems, not just to others but to themselves. Thus they are keen to believe in other explanations. This makes them vulnerable to conspiracies.

I’m not trying to be smart, but there are many other possibilities. Even if you want to go the conspiracy route, try this one. Conspiracies abound of underground bases where people are abducted and taken to for experimentation. They are never seen again, otherwise evidence would exist of these kind of bases. To me, that would be a much better conspiracy explanation than UFOs.

Gobligok
2010-Feb-22, 03:18 AM
i dont think the good doctor believes it himself but he sure does have alot invested in the whole theorie.
repost as it got buried.

I wrote most of the information on this web site based on more than 42 years of UFO research. In addition, since 1986 I have conducted over 1,000 hypnotic regressions with abductees. I have tried to be as objective and as "agenda free" as possible. I have no New Age, spiritual, religious, transformational, or transcendent program to promote. I try to stay as close to the evidence as I can. However, there is no possibility that I have avoided error. The majority of evidence for the alien abduction phenomenon is from human memory derived from hypnosis administered by amateurs. It is difficult to imagine a weaker form of evidence. But it is evidence and we have a great deal of it. Still, readers must be skeptical of what I say and of what all others say in this tangled arena of alien abductions, hypnosis, popular culture, and memory. Abduction researchers are mainly amateurs doing their best to get to the truth knowing that objective reality may elude them.

David M. Jacobs, Ph.D.

http://www.ufoabduction.com/

Manxman, do the phrases "aliens" and "alien abductions" have any referents in reality? Insofar as I'm aware, based on available data, there is no such thing as any "alien abduction phenomenon." You've thus far refused to address this rather fundamental issue, despite my mentioning it several times. Like I said earlier, it's a simple yes or no question.

manxman
2010-Feb-22, 03:20 AM
Do you not see the problem with that?? No, I'm not talking about the issue of hypnotism being a valid methodology..

He calls them 'abductees'.

Not alleged abductees, not abduction claimants. No, to him they are all abductees. And then he immediately says he has "tried to be objective"? He then alludes to all the problems in his own words, and strangely gives no reason why we should think he is anything above the amateurs he refers to.

When I see statements like that in a preface, I generally go no further. And as far as I am concerned, such a book/report/website should be placed in the nearest appropriate receptacle...


But it's interesting to note that he seems to be a lecturer at Temple University. His topics include 'anomalous experiences', but none of the words "UFO", "abductee" or "hypnotism" get a mention there and his CV is absent so apart from anything else we cannot judge his competence in, or knowledge of, hypnotism.

Perhaps we should invite Jacobs here to explain his own words? Despite having severe doubts about his objectivity, I'd still be particularly interested to hear his views on hypnotism, and his background in that field in an evidentiary environment.

i dont think he has a leg to stand on hence why i reposted his own admission of fragile evidence.

manxman
2010-Feb-22, 03:31 AM
Good day manxman. I know a lot has been said here, I just wanted to add my cool heard 2 cents worth.

Regarding the notion that missing people itself and alone is evidence of anything in particular…

The suggestion of great numbers of people going missing, “without a trace”, doesn’t appear to lend any credibility specifically to UFO cases though. If there had been traces of some sort of alien technologies then maybe, but alone it can only be moulded into another piece of “circumstantial evidence”.

I remember being at a friend’s birthday party as a child. His father didn’t come home, didn’t call, nobody at work knew what had happened to him. He showed up several days later, and had apparently blacked out in a park, national forest, or somewhere. If some people had chosen to take advantage of him while he was unconscious, steal his money, wallet, car and everything else, then kill him and dispose carefully of the body it would’ve been a perfect crime as nobody knew where he was. All of a sudden we would’ve had a UFO case on our hands, would we?

Another non-woo possibility: blackouts are not unheard of among alcoholics and drug abusers. Alcoholics and drug abusers are generally hesitant to admit to their problems, not just to others but to themselves. Thus they are keen to believe in other explanations. This makes them vulnerable to conspiracies.

I’m not trying to be smart, but there are many other possibilities. Even if you want to go the conspiracy route, try this one. Conspiracies abound of underground bases where people are abducted and taken to for experimentation. They are never seen again, otherwise evidence would exist of these kind of bases. To me, that would be a much better conspiracy explanation than UFOs.

considering you claim to have read the thread and i believe you have i am surprised you linked the missing people to abduction no-one else here has, and certainly not i.

the missing persons debate came about because of an of the cuff remark by garrison.

and is of no real consequence to the OPs original post.

manxman
2010-Feb-22, 03:36 AM
Manxman, do the phrases "aliens" and "alien abductions" have any referents in reality? Insofar as I'm aware, based on available data, there is no such thing as any "alien abduction phenomenon." You've thus far refused to address this rather fundamental issue, despite my mentioning it several times. Like I said earlier, it's a simple yes or no question.

not to me nor does alien craft ive never got past ufo or anomolous activity.
because ive never seen anything to convince me that i am seeing non man made technology.

Spoons
2010-Feb-22, 04:15 AM
Well, what I was saying about people missing due to blacking out could tie back in to the missing hours. I don't know about multiple people blacking out at the same time - maybe noxious gases? At just a guess, there could be other ways of having this occur.

I'm not too sure exactly what you mean at the end of post #102, but I wasn't having a go at you at all and I'm not sure how you could've got that out of my post. If you took what I said as an attack, do you think maybe you're being a little overly sensitive? Besides, better to report it if you think a post is rude or against rules.

All I was doing is pointing out that there are usually a lot of possible explanations for things and, not saying you didn't, but it often appears that people ignore the great many possibilities in favour of whatever their pet theory is. It's a big world out there, filled with all sorts of crazy phenomena, and we don't even understand or know of it all yet here on Earth, so reaching to the stars for an explanation usually isn't necessary nor a probable answer.

manxman
2010-Feb-22, 05:17 AM
spoons.

i am sorry my friend you are correct .. i knew your name stood out to me and mistakenly included you in the group that have been trying to torment me instead of being the guy i have been speaking with by PM.

i have edited the post concerned and look forward to corrosponding after a nights sleep.

be lucky.

Don J
2010-Feb-22, 05:36 AM
As to aliens and abduction, well, when someone shows me actual evidence, we'll talk.

Assuming for the sake of discussion than aliens exist but that this knowledge is keeping secret from the public.

Can you describe what would be an actual evidence of an alien abduction ?

Spoons
2010-Feb-22, 05:54 AM
No worries manxman, just wanted to clear that up.

chrlzs
2010-Feb-22, 06:12 AM
Assuming for the sake of discussion than aliens exist but that this knowledge is keeping secret from the public.

Can you describe what would be an actual evidence of an alien abduction ?

For me, it would be the same sort of evidence that would result in a conviction if the abduction was by a person or persons. Why should it be different?

It would/could include stuff like credible witnesses, physical evidence, an admission by the perpetrators, a motive or ransom note, DNA or other physical evidence on the abductee or at the crime scene, security camera footage, etc. Oh, and the physical existence of the perpetrators sorta goes without saying, but let's not get too pedantic...


Usually, of course, it is a combination of some of the above, but there will usually be a 'clincher' among the evidence.

Now if all you have is a person's story, even if that is corroborated by a significant other, I'm afraid that isn't enough. In a world of weird people, hoaxers, flawed memories, even simple spousal support, words are not enough. Nor should they be.

Of course if one is naive, has an agenda/bias, or simply a want/need to believe - then pretty much anything will be sufficient. But at this forum, the evidentiary burden is set a little higher than that.


What is your standard of 'proof'? Do you believe any of these claims are proven beyond (your) doubt? Can you give your best example?

And if you claim that the gov is keeping aliens a secret, can you give another example of something like this that has been successfully kept secret for this amount of time?

Gillianren
2010-Feb-22, 06:43 AM
Assuming for the sake of discussion than aliens exist but that this knowledge is keeping secret from the public.

It's an untenable assumption in the real world, but it'll do for a hypothetical, so sure.


Can you describe what would be an actual evidence of an alien abduction ?

Personally, I'm not going to put eyewitness testimony on the list at all. This way, we get away from the argument about what's reliable eyewitness testimony, which is an issue keeping lawyers up nights as we speak. Instead, I'm going to talk physical evidence.

So far, I have not seen any photos which meet my plausibility test. A lot of them are obviously much more mundane in explanation--reflections are pretty common, as are dust motes or insects. (Mock away, but it's still true.) A fair number are hoaxes. However, as has been suggested earlier, if there are multiple photos from multiple angles, clear ones, from people who cannot be shown to be in collusion, that's a place to start. For video, the standards are about the same.

But I cannot emphasize clear enough. If all I can see is a blur, it is evidence that someone took a picture of something which didn't come out clearly enough to identify. If it's three pictures of blurs from three different angles, we have shown that we have three bad photographers, or at any rate three people who took bad pictures. What's more, if those multiple pictures can be shown to have a mundane explanation, which also happens, that's just evidence that multiple people took pictures of something they couldn't identify at the time.

I'd quite like a press conference, of course, but what other physical evidence would I accept? An autopsy film more convincing than the one Fox aired? A piece of machinery analyzed by multiple labs and still unidentifiable by people from all of them? Something inexplicable by multiple people in a relevant field, let us say--since I'm an English major, myself, I'll freely admit I'd have to take experts' words for it. However, that is not in and of itself fallacious--I take a lot of experts' words for a lot of things. We're a specialized society. However, it is multiple sources which becomes a big issue here as well. We've a thread elsewhere of one person's claiming their evidence is inexplicable and therefore necessarily alien, but no one else has analyzed it. That is below my standards.

As it stands, figures about missing people are just as easily, and convincingly, explained as they are in The Dresden Files--vampires got 'em. I don't have any convincing evidence of them, either, just my friends who pretend to be them for fun.

gzhpcu
2010-Feb-22, 10:01 AM
there is more evidence that they could be happening than evidence they are not.

.....

photo film .. faked
personal testimony .. mistaken lairs trick of the mind etcetc
multiple eye witness reports .. mass halucinations
jet fighter lock ons and nose cone footage whilst object being tracked by radar at 13000 mile an hour .. secret technology venus mars etc etc.

i could go on and on but you see my point. .. theres nothing that would ever be good enough for those that passionately discount any anomolous activities thats why i asked you to not take my words as an entrenched view.


Would you please clearly explain what you mean by these statements of yours?

Specifically: what are you referring to in your first sentence?
What is the intent behind the statements in the second paragraph?
What are you implying in your final paragraph?

Tom Servo
2010-Feb-22, 11:29 AM
Good day manxman.

Another non-woo possibility: blackouts are not unheard of among alcoholics and drug abusers. Alcoholics and drug abusers are generally hesitant to admit to their problems, not just to others but to themselves. Thus they are keen to believe in other explanations. This makes them vulnerable to conspiracies.

Iím not trying to be smart, but there are many other possibilities. Even if you want to go the conspiracy route, try this one. Conspiracies abound of underground bases where people are abducted and taken to for experimentation. They are never seen again, otherwise evidence would exist of these kind of bases. To me, that would be a much better conspiracy explanation than UFOs.

I have to agree with this.
I work as an ER RN/ Medical-Surgical RN.

You wouldnt beleive what kind of people are actually alcoholics and drug abusers.
Normaly you would think you can spot a crack head from a mile away. This is actualy not the case. There are people that come in the ER everyday with these Black out episodes. Our general medical term for blacking out is Syncope.

So now our job is finding out why these seemingly normal upstanding citizens are coming into the ER because someone found them blacked out.

Is it they took too much blood pressure meds. Sometimes.
Is it they stood up too fast and passed out. It happens (usualy elderly though)
Is it there blood sugar is too low. Happens alot.
Is it this or that, ect, ect, ect. Lots of things happen to people
Or is it they got really drunk and wont admit it.
Or they are taking some street drugs to help them get through life and it has backfired. Yes this also happens all the freakin time.

We generaly test things that we suspect is the cause. And doing alcohol and drug screens are usualy last resort Unless its blatantly obvious.

Many of these people who come back positive with drugs/and or/alcohol in their systems you would never ever in a million years accuse them of such a thing.

Lawyers, Businessmen, Mothers, Fathers, Kids, Teachers, Curch people, people from all backgrounds.

Hardly any of them ever ever admit it flat out that thats what they were doing, but the tests don't lie and once confronted they will either admit or downplay it like we are the ones that are out of line and it doesnt affect anyone.

Whatever after a while it becomes less and less suprizing that this happens to people like this.

Its very Sad.

I have even had some of them still high or drunk acuse me of being a freakin alien trying to probe them. Seriously.

Anyway just food for thought. When ever someone flat out says these people (which I actualy don't know personaly, but did some phsychotherapy on) are good people who would never lie. All I can think is, well youd be suprised what some people do in their spare time.

Tom Servo
2010-Feb-22, 11:50 AM
One of my Police officer friends can claim very similar stories about people that spend a night in jail.

Very normal people doing something stupid spend the night in jail halucinating that they are on an aliend space craft. Wake up the next morning dont remember anything about the night before and probably go home and make up crazy stories about why they were abscent.

If Hypnotherapy should be used to pull out repressed memories about alien abductions, then I have no doubt that a repressed halucination mixed with general fill in the blanks with this and that, will produce a memory that seems solid to every detail.

Gobligok
2010-Feb-22, 02:13 PM
not to me nor does alien craft ive never got past ufo or anomolous activity.
because ive never seen anything to convince me that i am seeing non man made technology.

So you admit that the concept is akin to Smurfs and galactic overlords. As such, what exactly are you defending here?

Don J
2010-Feb-22, 08:53 PM
As for the merit of the Hills, sorry but I simply don't regard unsubstantiated eyewitnesses as having any merit, especially not when their recollection was 'sharpened' by hypnosis.
In the Hill case there is clear indication than their recollection was not sharpened by hypnosis.
Because,
DR Simon who hypnotized them dismissed the popular extraterrestrial hypothesis as impossible,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betty_and_Barney_Hill_abduction#First_public_discl osure


The Hills first met Dr. Simon on December 14, 1963.

Early in their discussions, Simon determined that the UFO encounter was causing Barney far more worry and anxiety than Mr. Hill was willing to admit. Though Simon dismissed the popular extraterrestrial hypothesis as impossible, it seemed obvious to him that the Hills genuinely thought they had witnessed a UFO with human-like occupants. Simon hoped to uncover more about the experience through hypnosis.

Garrison
2010-Feb-22, 09:32 PM
In the Hill case there is clear indication than their recollection was not sharpened by hypnosis.
Because,
DR Simon who hypnotized them dismissed the popular extraterrestrial hypothesis as impossible,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betty_and_Barney_Hill_abduction#First_public_discl osure

But Simon was looking to uncover more details via hypnosis, unwitting memeory manipulation is still manipulation. And again it's still just an unsubstantiated eyewitness account, of little value without some other evidence.

Fazor
2010-Feb-22, 09:37 PM
In the Hill case there is clear indication than their recollection was not sharpened by hypnosis.
Because,
DR Simon who hypnotized them dismissed the popular extraterrestrial hypothesis as impossible,
I disagree that the belief that the recalled events were impossible necessarily proves that the recalled events weren't guided by the doctor.

If I think that you think you experienced a "classic abduction", my line of questioning might be biased towards my notions of a classic abduction, even if I don't believe such a thing existed. In legal terms, it'd be called "leading the witness."

Mind you, I'm not charging that the hypnotist did or did not lead the patient. Just that a belief against the abduction doesn't in and of itself rule out the possibility.

And in the interest of full disclosure, I am not a fan of hypnotic questioning as a means of recalling "subconscious memory".

chrlzs
2010-Feb-22, 10:30 PM
In the Hill case there is clear indication than their recollection was not sharpened by hypnosis.
Because,
DR Simon who hypnotized them dismissed the popular extraterrestrial hypothesis as impossible,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betty_and_Barney_Hill_abduction#First_public_discl osure

The problem with posting links is that people tend to check them.
Aside from:
- the fact that hypnosis is not accepted as an evidentiary tool, and indeed is well-known as a source of producing or re-inforcing false or implanted memories
- his own comment ".. seemed obvious to him that the Hills genuinely thought they had witnessed a UFO" could be construed as a bias
- it was Dr Simon verifying that Dr Simon used appropriate methods.. :)
..he then goes on to say:
"Dr. Simon concluded that Barney's recall of the UFO encounter was a fantasy inspired by Betty's recurrent dreams. Though Simon admitted this hypothesis did not explain every aspect of the experience, he thought it was the most plausible and consistent explanation."

I note that the aspects that were unexplained were not quantified - perhaps you can do so?

JayUtah
2010-Feb-22, 10:35 PM
Assuming for the sake of discussion than aliens exist but that this knowledge is keeping secret from the public.

Can you describe what would be an actual evidence of an alien abduction ?

Well that's a pretty artificial and finely-aimed set of constraints.

Evidence of alien abduction under those constraints proceeds step by step. First, prove abduction. Proof of absence is not proof of abduction. Absence is necessary, but not sufficient. The circumstances of absence would have to suggest involuntary absence.

Second, establish the identity of the abductor. No point in doing that until it's been proven an abduction has occurred. But here's where we take issue with the hypothetical premise. An investigator either knows that aliens exist and knows their properties, or he does not. If he knows, then it doesn't matter that it's being kept secret from others. If he doesn't, then the hypothetical premise is irrelevant.

Determining that the abductor is an alien is no different than determining that it's the abductee's father, his landlord, some random stranger, or any other perpetrator. It's a matter of matching the properties of the evidence against the properties of the suspects.

You can see where this is going: in order to determine that some person was abducted by an alien, you simply have to be able to build a prima facie case for that cause. But everything so far these days is purely hypothetical, and so you can't put the cart before the horse and say that some particular abduction "must" be by aliens.

In short, you can't attribute some result to some particular cause until you know that the cause actually exists and what its testable properties are. The UFO enthusiasts seem to believe that if something can't be attributed conclusively to a prosaic cause, it must therefore be space aliens. That sort of conclusion-by-default isn't scientific at all.

Gillianren
2010-Feb-23, 01:48 AM
I realize, having looked at it again, that my response wasn't so much about abduction as it was about the presence on Earth of extraterrestrials. However, it's a good first step--in order to posit alien abduction, you must establish aliens.

manxman
2010-Feb-23, 03:13 AM
So you admit that the concept is akin to Smurfs and galactic overlords. As such, what exactly are you defending here?

did i ..?

or are you just seeing what you want to see.

i said i find certain aspects interesting they maybe few and far between but i am open to looking at them with a critical eye.

please feel free to quote where i have said different.

Don J
2010-Feb-23, 04:58 AM
The problem with posting links is that people tend to check them.

That is why I given the links for people go to ckeck them. :)


Aside from:
- the fact that hypnosis is not accepted as an evidentiary tool, and indeed is well-known as a source of producing or re-inforcing false or implanted memories
- his own comment ".. seemed obvious to him that the Hills genuinely thought they had witnessed a UFO" could be construed as a bias
- it was Dr Simon verifying that Dr Simon used appropriate methods.. :)

Only the tapes or the transcripts of the hypnosis sessions can reveal the way the seances were conducted to determine if a bias was introduced or not.
I dont know if they are available on the internet (I will try a Google search) but the original tapes and transcripts are available at the University of New Hampshire library.

http://www.library.unh.edu/special/index.php/betty-and-barney-hill



..he then goes on to say:
"Dr. Simon concluded that Barney's recall of the UFO encounter was a fantasy inspired by Betty's recurrent dreams. Though Simon admitted this hypothesis did not explain every aspect of the experience, he thought it was the most plausible and consistent explanation."

At least the hypnosis sessions were effective:
as mentioned in Dr Simon conclusion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betty_and_Barney_Hill_abduction#Dr._Simon.27s_conc lusions


Though the Hills and Simon disagreed about the nature of the case, they all concurred that the hypnosis sessions were effective: the Hills were no longer tormented by nightmares or anxiety about the UFO encounter.

Afterwards, Simon wrote an article about the Hills for the journal Psychiatric Opinion, explaining his conclusions that the case was a singular psychological aberration.




I note that the aspects that were unexplained were not quantified - perhaps you can do so?

The missing time episode
and their reaction described in -Immediate aftermath-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betty_and_Barney_Hill_abduction#Immediate_aftermat h

manxman
2010-Feb-23, 05:05 AM
hi don.

The missing time episde
and their reaction described in -Immediate aftermath-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betty_a...iate_aftermath


this comment interests me.

Over the years, she said, five laboratories have conducted chemical and forensic analysis on the dress.

anything else about on this please.

Don J
2010-Feb-23, 05:19 AM
hi don.

The missing time episde
and their reaction described in -Immediate aftermath-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betty_and_Barney_Hill_abduction#Immediate_aftermat h


this comment interests me.

Over the years, she said, five laboratories have conducted chemical and forensic analysis on the dress.

anything else about on this please.


Sorry, but I cannot find anything about that.
Maybe it is mentioned in the 1966 book The Interrupted Journey relating Betty and Barney Hill experiment.

Edited
I find the dress analysis in -box 5- available at the University of New Hampshire library.
VI. Subject Files
http://www.library.unh.edu/special/index.php/betty-and-barney-hill#subject%20files

manxman
2010-Feb-23, 06:03 AM
indeed don it is written about.

Chapter 24
Captured! The Betty and Barney Hill UFO Experience.

cannot find the results for free tho.

Don J
2010-Feb-23, 06:12 AM
indeed don it is written about.

Chapter 24
Captured! The Betty and Barney Hill UFO Experience.

cannot find the results for free tho.

I think they are avalaible - free- for reading at the University of New Hampshire library.
scroll down to VI. Subject Files box 5 f.4 Dress Analysis.

http://www.library.unh.edu/special/index.php/betty-and-barney-hill#manuscripts

VI. Subject Files

http://www.library.unh.edu/special/index.php/betty-and-barney-hill#subject%20files

Edited to add
Also of interest
f.6 Grays Harbor County Civil Defense/UFA Report.
Which probably have
*the confirming radar trace from Pease Air Force Base*

as mentioned in UFOs AT CLOSE SIGHT website in their History section.
http://www.ufologie.net/indexe.htm

chrlzs
2010-Feb-23, 07:14 AM
Quoting Don J in italics:

That is why I given the links for people go to ckeck them. :)
My point was.. if there is a conclusion or contextual text that is important, you really should post it. Otherwise, when it is posted later, your motives/bias may be called into question.

..Only the tapes or the transcripts of the hypnosis sessions can reveal the way the seances were conducted to determine if a bias was introduced or not...
Seances?? That is a rather unfortunate choice to describe hypnosis.. Certainly the tapes might be interesting - I would be very wary of a transcript supplied by the Doctor without verification.

At least the hypnosis sessions were effective:
as mentioned in Dr Simon conclusion
Let's be very specific, they were 'effective' in just one sense, namely easing of symptoms. Feel free to call me heartless, but their later symptoms are rather irrelevant as regards to the veracity of the interpretation and the usefulness of hypnosis to get the true story. Indeed, I would call that misuse of the term effective - again, by failing to acknowledeg the context. The very next sentence suggests that in Dr Simon's opinion, the hypnosis revealed "psychological aberrations".

The missing time episode..
..is nothing but a part of their claim. There is no factual evidence of a missing time period, only their stories - the ones that Dr Simon thinks are psychological aberrations. You seem to be very selective about what you accept..

Me..? - I question everything. Where is the *evidence*? I see nothing but stories. Was Betty examined for the needle mark and scraped skin she claimed? Yes, that claim was made later, but seriously, did neither of them think it might be wise to get a doctors examination immediately after the incident?

It just goes on and on - but there simply is nothing that I can find in this story that can be verified. Right down to the ridiculous attempt to correlate Betty's 'star chart' with Zeta Reticuli... Don't get me started on that...:lol:

Don J
2010-Feb-23, 07:31 AM
Quoting Don J in italics:

That is why I given the links for people go to ckeck them. :)
My point was.. if there is a conclusion or contextual text that is important, you really should post it. Otherwise, when it is posted later, your motives/bias may be called into question.


The point that I finded important was that Dr Simon did not believe in Extraterrestrials and said it to the Hills before their hypnosis session.
and I have linked to that citation I see no motive/bias there. :doh:
Post 114
http://www.bautforum.com/1686295-post114.html

Post 19
http://www.bautforum.com/1684886-post19.html

gzhpcu
2010-Feb-23, 07:52 AM
manxman,
I asked you a question, (post 110). Would you kindly respond? Thanks.

manxman
2010-Feb-23, 09:41 AM
Would you please clearly explain what you mean by these statements of yours?

Specifically: what are you referring to in your first sentence?
What is the intent behind the statements in the second paragraph?
What are you implying in your final paragraph?


explanation
line1 .. die hard skeptics biuld a prosiac credible debunk and will never admit anything remotely anomolous ever goes on above us .
only the credibility of the debunk is of interest to me on a case by case basis.

now ive never studied 100s never mind thousands of cases but what i have looked at i have occassionally had my interest tweaked enough to delve abit further.
enough to re-alise that if the numbers are extrapolated over the whole field of anomolous activity people like stanton freedman etc can be very convincing and have some very persuasive material so i cannot ever be a die hard skeptic on the matter.

sometimes you have to look at the whole picture and when you realise theres now millions of reported cases of anomolous activity and that those are just the tip of the iceburg in a huge amount of sightings never reported for fear of ridicule.
using die hard skeptic prosiac case biulding it then only comes down to what percentage chance the skeptics answers actually cover on a case by case basis.

example
marsh gas etc. covered the event with a miniscule % chance of being the correct cause.
then theres the majority which are easily 100% covered by the debunk easily.

now if those debunks/explanations fall short on occassions as they do and do so 100s if not 1000s of times out of all reported anomolus activity once extrapolated upto the full volume of reports.
bluebook found 5% of their cases anomolous and they were government debunkers.

line2
i was getting at the die hard debunker never accepting any kind of evidence he hasnt seen with his own eyes and even then he would rightly doubt himself.

line3
i tried to explain my position on this matter as indeed i did here.

and here

not to me nor does alien craft ive never got past ufo or anomolous activity.
because ive never seen anything to convince me that i am seeing non man made technology.

here

i dont think he has a leg to stand on hence why i reposted his own admission of fragile evidence. {refering to the doctor.}

here

have i actually said anywhere i give weight to the theory of abuction please orion.?


here

i merely find some aspects interesting so therefore as explained will not automatically dismiss out of hand.

here

i dont know of any evidence and have never claimed different.
anacdotal evidence is merely interesting on occasion.
anomolies is all ive ever seen or read about ive never been able to justify to myself the use of any other word to describe them, so why would/should you think this back and forth should or would be any different.


and several more places no doubt.

i am surprised you missed my position on this subject it would have saved you the trouble of reposting a quote thats been reposted several times already.

finally i am comfortable that my eyes let in a little more light than a die hard skeptic as i am now retired and life is more interesting knowing for sure that one does not know everything the universe has to offer.

a die hard skeptic must have a very narrow view of the world around him and maybe thats why they are mostly highly successful people because of that focus and i suspect drive ambition created by that focused personality.

manxman
2010-Feb-23, 09:48 AM
double post.

NorthernBoy
2010-Feb-23, 10:41 AM
sometimes you have to look at the whole picture and when you realise theres now millions of reported cases of anomolous activity and that those are just the tip of the iceburg.

This fallacy is horrendous, but does get brought up time after time.

We have some observations, and we need to see if they rule out the null hypothesis. The null hypothesis says that there is no alien visitation. If this hypothesis is true we'd then likely expect a lot of very bad quality sightings that it's hard to identify, and no slam-dunk event.

This is exactly what we do see.

We see people seeing blurry lights, chinese lanterns, saturn, flares, or any number of other sources of light, exactly as we'd predict from the null hypothesis, and we also see some observations which cannot be explained.

Again, exactly as per the null hypothesis.

manxman
2010-Feb-23, 10:51 AM
of the ones that cannot be explained some are truly interesting.

this case isnt top draw interest theres just a few oddities.

Strange
2010-Feb-23, 10:59 AM
explanation
line1 .. die hard skeptics ...

You seem to have a very odd idea of the meaning of the word "skeptic".

Strange
2010-Feb-23, 11:11 AM
So you admit that the concept is akin to Smurfs and galactic overlords. As such, what exactly are you defending here?

did i ..?

or are you just seeing what you want to see.

Yes, you did:




Manxman, do the phrases "aliens" and "alien abductions" have any referents in reality? Insofar as I'm aware, based on available data, there is no such thing as any "alien abduction phenomenon." You've thus far refused to address this rather fundamental issue, despite my mentioning it several times. Like I said earlier, it's a simple yes or no question.

not to me nor does alien craft ive never got past ufo or anomolous activity.
because ive never seen anything to convince me that i am seeing non man made technology.

I am not sure if you are just communicating poorly, or you forget what you said previously, or maybe the word "consistency" isn't in the Manx dictionary :)

So you say [fairly] definitely that you don't think aliens exist. But when asked to confirm that, you deny you said it. Then you imply you think there might be something to these stories, but when challenged on that you just say there is nothing but "anomolous activity". And so we go round again. I don't know what you think.

manxman
2010-Feb-23, 11:13 AM
not really.

a bus can be 20foot long or 40 foot
a mathematician can be adequate upto a genius.
everyone has their level i used top of the shop skeptic .. im critical myself.
its all right for something anomolous to interest you if it still interest you after critical examination thats ok aswell.
its not life or death.

edited to take in your edit.
had i realised you were only fishing i wouldnt of bothered replying.

no-one can be in any doubt about where i stand from my last 2 replies plus many prevoius.

i will not be communicating badly to you again have no worries about that.

gzhpcu
2010-Feb-23, 11:31 AM
Thanks for replying...:)


explanation
line1 .. die hard skeptics biuld a prosiac credible debunk and will never admit anything remotely anomolous ever goes on above us .
only the credibility of the debunk is of interest to me on a case by case basis.

now ive never studied 100s never mind thousands of cases but what i have looked at i have occassionally had my interest tweaked enough to delve abit further.
enough to re-alise that if the numbers are extrapolated over the whole field of anomolous activity people like stanton freedman etc can be very convincing and have some very persuasive material so i cannot ever be a die hard skeptic on the matter.



sometimes you have to look at the whole picture and when you realise theres now millions of reported cases of anomolous activity and that those are just the tip of the iceburg in a huge amount of sightings never reported for fear of ridicule.
using die hard skeptic prosiac case biulding it then only comes down to what percentage chance the skeptics answers actually cover on a case by case basis.

I have read a number of books by ufo proponents, like Richard Dolan, for example. The 30'000 foot view seems impressive, but the problem begins when you zoom in for the details. Then, on a case by case basis, I have never found a smoking gun incident.


marsh gas etc. covered the event with a miniscule % chance of being the correct cause.
then theres the majority which are easily 100% covered by the debunk easily.

The swamp gas argument is often brought up by pro-ufo proponents. But it has not really been that often presented as an explanation.

now if those debunks/explanations fall short on occassions as they do and do so 100s if not 1000s of times out of all reported anomolus activity once extrapolated upto the full volume of reports.
bluebook found 5% of their cases anomolous and they were government debunkers.

Failure to find a prosaic explanation for a sighting is not equivalent to being evidence for an alien spaceship. This error is often made. Failure means that the object was unidentified. Nothing more, nothing less. Alien spaceship can enter the picture, once they have been shown to actually exist. Many of the radar sightings, for example, are really the misinterpreation of spurious radar noise blips being connected so as to show huge speeds...


i was getting at the die hard debunker never accepting any kind of evidence he hasnt seen with his own eyes and even then he would rightly doubt himself.

Important is to look at all incidents critically, and not be influenced by wishing to see an ufo.


As far as your position concerning alien abduction is concerned, your quoting the high number of missing persons has given the impression that you consider this to be supporting evidence for alien abduction. If not, why did you bring this up in the first place in this thread?:confused:

a die hard skeptic must have a very narrow view of the world around him and maybe thats why they are mostly highly successful people because of that focus and i suspect drive ambition created by that focused personality.
What you term a diehard skeptic is, in most cases, a person with education in the sciences, and has learned to be analytical and to recognize what is evidence and what isn't.

manxman
2010-Feb-23, 11:35 AM
in reply to gzhpcu


Failure to find a prosaic explanation for a sighting is not equivalent to being evidence for an alien spaceship. This error is often made. Failure means that the object was unidentified. Nothing more, nothing less. Alien spaceship can enter the picture, once they have been shown to actually exist. Many of the radar sightings, for example, are really the misinterpreation of spurious radar noise blips being connected so as to show huge speeds...

its how i described it anomolous.


I have read a number of books by ufo proponents, like Richard Dolan, for example. The 30'000 foot view seems impressive, but the problem begins when you zoom in for the details. Then, on a case by case basis, I have never found a smoking gun incident.

and neither will you ever it just isnt there .. anomolous/interesting is all you will see. .. well in my case so far anyway but i aint looked much.

Important is to look at all incidents critically, and not be influenced by wishing to see an ufo.

thanks for the advice.

As far as your position concerning alien abduction is concerned, your quoting the high number of missing persons has given the impression that you consider this to be supporting evidence for alien abduction. If not, why did you bring this up in the first place in this thread

have i ..?? then be my guest and direct quote it.
otherwise go back and look at who and what the reply was too.



What you term a diehard skeptic is, in most cases, a person with education in the sciences, and has learned to be analytical and to recognize what is evidence and what isn't.

thanks again for repackaging my reply into different words with same result.

Spoons
2010-Feb-23, 12:31 PM
do you know that millions of people a year go missing around the world.
Post #27

I know I wasn't asked, but this would be the quote he may be thinking of.

manxman
2010-Feb-23, 12:55 PM
i know what quote he is talking about spoons.

but its not the full story as you well know.
nor is it in context without the rest of the comments on the subject its a sideshow now being used to keep me replying.

the thread is about dr jacobs and it has nothing directly to do with dr jacobs
thats why i will not be replying to anymore questions about it i will simply refer them to this post as i have had enough of repeating myself.

are you unsure of my position here in this thread if so see post 129.

Strange
2010-Feb-23, 01:04 PM
i know what quote he is talking about spoons.

but its not the full story as you well know.
nor is it in context without the rest of the comments on the subject

The full quote and the context do not change the fact that you introduced the subject of millions of people going missing. This was (as far as I can tell) completely irrelevant to the discussion at the time unless you were trying to use it as evidence of "something".

And then you denied saying it.


its a sideshow now being used to keep me replying.

I think it is more a matter of people trying to get to grips with what you mean by your vague and shifting statements, and your semi-denials of everything you say.

manxman
2010-Feb-23, 01:29 PM
thats their choice gzhpcu.



Well yes you've made that claim but it doesn't mean that elements of the Hill story haven't influenced later abduction stories which is is what I was driving at. Doesn't that seem a more likely explanation for the similiarities in later accounts than little grey men from space kidnapping what by some accounts would be hundreds of thousands of people?

thats where the original numbers game started.


The full quote and the context do not change the fact that you introduced the subject of millions of people going missing. This was (as far as I can tell) completely irrelevant to the discussion at the time unless you were trying to use it as evidence of "something".



And then you denied saying it.



I think it is more a matter of people trying to get to grips with what you mean by your vague and shifting statements, and your semi-denials of everything you say.


or maybe your just seeing what you wish too.

and your subtly trying to make out im a liar which i find insulting personally.

manxman
2010-Feb-23, 01:35 PM
I think it is more a matter of people trying to get to grips with what you mean by your vague and shifting statements, and your semi-denials of everything you say.

see post 129.

again with the the attack on my character.

did you miss the 2 mod warnings further back about it aswell as garrisons figures that started the wholeside show.

Strange
2010-Feb-23, 02:19 PM
and your subtly trying to make out im a liar which i find insulting personally.


again with the the attack on my character.

It certainly wasn't intended as an attack on your character or to suggest you were lying. And I apologize if it came across that way.

It was a comment on your communication style. You write in a rather cryptic and abbreviated form. I and, apparently, some others seem to have misinterpreted your statements because of that. You then deny you said things - when I think what you really mean is that you have been misintperpreted. I think this may be the cause of some of the confusion here.

manxman
2010-Feb-23, 02:25 PM
apology accepted.

and there was never any doubt my posting, that you and several others say you had confusion over it was always in reply to garrisons posting whats to mis-interpreted.

anybody got anything good on the doctor himself.

phych report or such.

captain swoop
2010-Feb-23, 03:56 PM
Many of the radar sightings, for example, are really the misinterpreation of spurious radar noise blips being connected so as to show huge speeds...


As someone who has sat many a Radar Watch on Warships I can give some informed opinion here. I spent many an hour gazing at various Royal Navy Long Range Air Warning Plots.
I haven't seen anything that says 'Alien Spaceship' to me.

Most Radar systems apart from the latest military stuff can trace their history back many decades

On the RN ships I served on the Type 965 Air Warning set was first in service in 1955. It was still in use in the 1980s. It was a development of the Type 960 which was designed before the end of the war and came into service in 1946. It included MTI (Moving Target Indication) by phase locking the transmission and reception. This removes clutter, in particular from jamming, and shows only contacts with Doppler.
In the Falklands it was unable to detect anything coming in over the land and a lot of ships were 'retro' fitted with type 1022 from the later Type 42 Destroyers.

This is where things start to get modern. It's a pulse doppler set like the current 967. They don't have human readable output, contact information is extracted by computer system. This is where errors can creep in. On a 'raw' PPI display an experienced operator can interpret what he is seeing and discount spurious contacts. Computer systems can't always do it.

Our 992 set for surface contacts and navigationand was introduced just after the war on Destroyers and with various upgrades to it's electronics (the biggest being a switch from valves to solid state circuits in the late 70s) it is still in use today.

Just because a UFO report says that a military radar had a contact doesn't mean it's real. At the heart of the system is exactly the same gear as used in WW2 with the same .Mk1 Eyeballs reading it.

Air warning radars trade off bearing accuracy against range, operating at lower frequencies than other radars they require large heavy aerials to produce a narrow beam, aerials which are impractical on ships or aircraft. A contact on a 965 warning radar is painted as an arc on a PPI screen, the arc width being the same as the beam width of the radar, this would be about 12 degrees, the actual contact could be anywhere within that arc

Gobligok
2010-Feb-23, 04:14 PM
did i ..?

I asked if the concepts have any referents in reality, and you finally conceded this in post #103:


not to me nor does alien craft ive never got past ufo or anomolous activity.
because ive never seen anything to convince me that i am seeing non man made technology.

Galactic overlords, sapient reptilians and schmuloflops don't have any referents in reality, either. That's kinda the whole point.

Maybe you'll contend that by saying "not to me," you keep the door open to someone else having a real referent for those concepts, but that still leaves open the question of what those referents are and why they've never been produced. In any case, my initial post that you objected to for reasons unknown, still stands. If you want to successfully counter my reductio, you'll need to produce referents in reality for "aliens" and "alien abduction," which you admit to not having.


or are you just seeing what you want to see.

I see you trying to agree with me because you ostensibly know I'm right, while trying for some reason to maintain a pretense of disagreement.


i said i find certain aspects interesting they maybe few and far between but i am open to looking at them with a critical eye.

Aspects of what? Looking at what? The disappearances? The Hill case? How is looking at something and considering an explanation that doesn't have a referent in reality, and for that matter can't be distinguished from pure fraud or imagination, looking at it with a "critical eye," especially in light of the arguments you've received in this thread from others concerning eyewitness testimony? There's nothing "critical" about that.


please feel free to quote where i have said different.

I have quoted you verbatim in every response thus far. My position concerns the conceptual folly of invoking schmuloflops, ghosts, orcs, elves, magic or aliens when trying to explain a particular data set. You apparently object to including "aliens" in this category of floating abstractions, even though you readily admit to having no referents in reality for the concept, which is the whole basis on which I made the reductio in the first place.

manxman
2010-Feb-23, 05:28 PM
if your going to quote use the whole quote.


please see post 129 if you are not sure about my position on this matter of dr jacobs or anything else to do with above our heads.

and as for agreeing with you.
firstly i am having great difficulty following the gist of your sentences.

secondly you havent quoted verbatim you have dissected quotes and cherry picked only parts that look out of place and context on their own, and using that tactic too then attack that cherry picked comment which you have in esscence created yourself by orphaning it..

caveman1917
2010-Feb-23, 06:07 PM
Well yes you've made that claim but it doesn't mean that elements of the Hill story haven't influenced later abduction stories which is is what I was driving at. Doesn't that seem a more likely explanation for the similiarities in later accounts than little grey men from space kidnapping what by some accounts would be hundreds of thousands of people?

I remember reading somewhere that the classic grey alien image could have been imprinted in our subconscious from the very early stages of life. Now it could be completely bogus, and i can't find a reference anywhere, but the argument seemed interesting.

At the earliest stages when a baby gains the sense of sight, seeing in colours isn't developed yet so things will look gray shaded. There's also a distortion in field of view, which isn't "normalized" yet. Looking through these eyes at parents bending over the bed would make them look somewhat like the standard aliens, grey, not many detailed facial features and with an enlarged forehead.

Now i'm no expert on all this so it could be completely wrong. How does one even check wether a baby really does see such a distorted vision in the first place. But it seemed a noteworthy argument for the 'standardness' of alien visions.

gzhpcu
2010-Feb-23, 06:10 PM
As far as your position concerning alien abduction is concerned, your quoting the high number of missing persons has given the impression that you consider this to be supporting evidence for alien abduction. If not, why did you bring this up in the first place in this thread

have i ..?? then be my guest and direct quote it.
otherwise go back and look at who and what the reply was too.


I did so, and

Garrison said:
Well yes you've made that claim but it doesn't mean that elements of the Hill story haven't influenced later abduction stories which is is what I was driving at. Doesn't that seem a more likely explanation for the similiarities in later accounts than little grey men from space kidnapping what by some accounts would be hundreds of thousands of people?

Whereupon you replied:


do you know that millions of people a year go missing around the world.

over 90% turnup one way or the other, however in america alone 600,000 people have dissapeared from the face of the earth in the last 20 years alone so again your analogy is fataly flawed are you going to come up with something original.

plus betty and barney were the first and nothing to do with copy catting so they do have certian subsidery merit here.



When I read this sequence, I got the impression (mistaken or not) that you are equating the missing with abduction victims.

manxman
2010-Feb-23, 06:15 PM
no i was simply pointing out how many people go missing.

i never at any point tried to associate the 2.

you have to also remember garrisons reply was not to me.

i just confirmed the amount of missing people surpasses his estimation and it mushroomed from there.

pretty sure it was my first posting to the thread.

gzhpcu
2010-Feb-23, 06:23 PM
Thanks for the clarification manxman. :)

Fazor
2010-Feb-23, 06:39 PM
no i was simply pointing out how many people go missing.

i never at any point tried to associate the 2.

you have to also remember garrisons reply was not to me.

i just confirmed the amount of missing people surpasses his estimation and it mushroomed from there.

pretty sure it was my first posting to the thread.

According to the most recent NCIC report (2008) (http://www.fbi.gov/hq/cjisd/missingpersons2008.htm#1), there were 102,764 active missing person reports in the US. Here is a description of the statistic:

The National Crime Information Center’s (NCIC’s) Missing Person File was implemented in 1975. Records in the Missing Person File are retained indefinitely, until the individual is located or the record is canceled by the entering agency. The Missing Person File contains records for missing who:

While there's a significantly higher number of people reported missing each year (778,161 reports in 2008), a substantial number of those disappearances are accounted for even by the end of that reporting year (745,088 found).

Due to active cases being tracked indefinitely, and submissions/closures being tracked yearly, it's hard to immediately see what percentage of all reported missing persons ever go unanswered. I'm still reading through the reports to see if they list it anywhere. But it's substantially less that 600,000 unaccounted for persons in the US.

manxman
2010-Feb-23, 06:39 PM
no problem.

also you have to remember missing people dont report themselves as being adbucted.

and for him to extrapolate hundreds of thousands must be missing because of the 100s of thousands of abduction reports was a fatal flaw in his thinking because as stated the small percentage of people that have vanished stay vanished for whatever reason and the reasons must be many and varied..

manxman
2010-Feb-23, 06:42 PM
i used the fbi and corroborated it with a second link.

if i am wrong then the fbi is wrong.

and worldwide the numbers must be huge.

but its irrelevent.

it wouldnt be hard to drop out of society and stay untraced if thats what you wanted i would imagine especially when they can drive across borders and start again.

Fazor
2010-Feb-23, 06:50 PM
I was just pointing out that the FBI's crime statistics don't match this assertion:


do you know that millions of people a year go missing around the world.

over 90% turnup one way or the other, however in america alone 600,000 people have dissapeared from the face of the earth in the last 20 years alone so again your analogy is fataly flawed are you going to come up with something original.


But if you're not claiming that the number of people missing has anything to do with alien abduction, then you're right; it's a moot point.

Gillianren
2010-Feb-23, 06:59 PM
a bus can be 20foot long or 40 foot

Sure, but we know that there are buses and what their general features are. Twenty or forty feet long, they're still large boxes on wheels powered by engines and designed for the purposes of moving people from place to place. Using that analogy to describe things we don't know anything about (if that's what you're doing) is inappropriate.


and there was never any doubt my posting, that you and several others say you had confusion over it was always in reply to garrisons posting whats to mis-interpreted.

I'm afraid that's incorrect. The reason I have a hard time figuring out what you're saying is not because of how someone else responds or what someone else says you've said. It's because you don't write very clearly, and I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say half the time.

manxman
2010-Feb-23, 07:06 PM
gillian you keep commenting on my writing and then saying you wont be posting to me .. but you carry on doing so.

i assure you i will seek you out if i feel the need to improve my communication skills.

anymore comments and one could not be blamed for thinking you are being alittle personal youve made your point several times and i heard you first time..

Strange
2010-Feb-23, 07:09 PM
The reason I have a hard time figuring out what you're saying is not because of how someone else responds or what someone else says you've said. It's because you don't write very clearly, and I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say half the time.

Phew. Not just me then.

vonmazur
2010-Feb-23, 07:19 PM
Manxman: One has to present actual evidence of, for example, "Alien Abductions", and any other extraordinary assertion...I know Jay in Utah is much better than I at the logical analysis of illogical assertions, but the continued interest in what is obviously some kind of psychological pathology, leaves me wondering about the general state of the culture today. It is almost a certainty that there cannot be a "UFO Abduction Expert", because first we have to establish that such a thing is real. Quoting the FBI statistics do not prove that this is a reality, reams of paper on this subject all mean nothing without proof.....

It would not hurt to consider the concept of Scientific Parsimony once in a while, when one is considering supposed "Alien Abductions".

Dale

SolusLupus
2010-Feb-23, 07:20 PM
anymore comments and one could not be blamed for thinking you are being alittle personal youve made your point several times and i heard you first time..

Yet you STILL claim that anyone that has trouble with what you say, is entirely at fault!

manxman
2010-Feb-23, 07:25 PM
Manxman: One has to present actual evidence of, for example, "Alien Abductions", and any other extraordinary assertion...I know Jay in Utah is much better than I at the logical analysis of illogical assertions, but the continued interest in what is obviously some kind of psychological pathology, leaves me wondering about the general state of the culture today. It is almost a certainty that there cannot be a "UFO Abduction Expert", because first we have to establish that such a thing is real. Quoting the FBI statistics do not prove that this is a reality, reams of paper on this subject all mean nothing without proof.....

It would not hurt to consider the concept of Scientific Parsimony once in a while, when one is considering supposed "Alien Abductions".

Dale
did you even read from atleast a page back.
see post 129 for my views on dr jacobs and what goes on above our heads.

Fazor
2010-Feb-23, 07:27 PM
. . . It is almost a certainty that there cannot be a "UFO Abduction Expert", because first we have to establish that such a thing is real.
. . .
Dale
Ha! Thank you. I cannot help but say the same thing each and every time I come across some random TV show that utters the words "UFO expert" "Ghost expert" "Bigfoot Expert" or the likes. I'm sure Tara gets sick of me saying it, but I cannot help it.

manxman
2010-Feb-23, 07:29 PM
Yet you STILL claim that anyone that has trouble with what you say, is entirely at fault!



send me full quotes by pm that you alledge i have been unclear about both the post i was replying to and my reply.

i wont reply if you use cherry picked orthan sentences only from either the poster or me.

SolusLupus
2010-Feb-23, 07:32 PM
send me full quotes

Every time I send you full quotes, you ignore it then claim I have "trouble with the direct quote feature" because of your own failing to read my posts.

I'm sorry, but fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice...

manxman
2010-Feb-23, 07:37 PM
you cannot supply them can you.
and you havent sent me anything remotely to do with dr jacobs or any side issue on this thread just to be crystal clear..

SolusLupus
2010-Feb-23, 07:44 PM
Sigh.

Believe what you wish. It's obvious it'll never be any other way.

I have no interest to continue this discussion, for reasons probably obvious to everyone but a particular someone.

Good day.

Garrison
2010-Feb-23, 07:49 PM
I'd like manxman to answer a simple question:

Do you beleive alien abductions are actually happening? Not as a theoretical idea but as an physical reality in our world.

I have to ask this because I'm frankly uncertain as to where you stand on the issue.

manxman
2010-Feb-23, 07:51 PM
you dont have to ask i have said numerous times where i stand on the subject.
see post 129

JayUtah
2010-Feb-23, 07:54 PM
...

see post 129 for my views on dr jacobs and what goes on above our heads.

As nearly as I can tell, your statements in post #129 have been discussed and dealt with substantially. The problem remains that you seem to attribute "anomalous" occurrences to some specific cause, with little or no prima facie evidence. This attribution-by-default is the key fallacy of almost all UFO research.

As for Dr. Jacobs, I don't see where you refer to him specifically in post #129.

As for your communication skills, I agree with the others: you do not seem to communicate very clearly, and it hampers our ability to understand what claims, if any, you may be making. I don't want to belabor it, but I'm simply adding my vote to those of the others.

manxman
2010-Feb-23, 08:05 PM
no jay what i actually have said is i have never seen anything i could ever reconcile to myself as more than anomolous.

what i have seen as anomolous activity is nothing to do with dr jacobs thats why i havent elaborated.

Gillianren
2010-Feb-23, 08:22 PM
gillian you keep commenting on my writing and then saying you wont be posting to me .. but you carry on doing so.

Where did I say I wouldn't be posting to you? I said it was difficult to work out what you're saying and comment on it substantively, but that's not the same thing.


i assure you i will seek you out if i feel the need to improve my communication skills.

Improving your communication skills is in your best interests. It would save a lot of back-and-forth of trying to establish what you're talking about, which is doubtless as frustrating to you as it is to us.


anymore comments and one could not be blamed for thinking you are being alittle personal youve made your point several times and i heard you first time..

I don't think you did, given that you haven't changed your behaviour. However, I will note that it is the second time I made the point, and this in response to a direct accusation on your part that misunderstandings were the fault of what another poster said you were saying. We don't understand what you're saying because you're writing it unclearly. If you put in clear, simple, complete sentences what you're saying, there would be discussion of your points, not attempts to work out what they are and irritation on your part that we can't figure them out.

Mods--I am aware this is a side issue, but I really do think it's important. Since we can't understand what he's saying, his communication skills are directly relevant.

Garrison
2010-Feb-23, 08:28 PM
you dont have to ask i have said numerous times where i stand on the subject.
see post 129

Yes I've read 129 and I still don't know where you stand, perhaps its my failure of comprehension, so if you wouldn't mind just answering the question; do you believe that aliens abductions are happening as a physical reality?

manxman
2010-Feb-23, 08:38 PM
in spite of the fact that you cannot find anything ive said when quoted fully to even hint that i believe in alien abduction, plus post 129 with multiple quotes from when the accusation of believing in abduction has been previously put to me i will make it crystal clear dr jacob has done nothing to convince me that people are being abducted or even make me doubt from what i know of him, which isnt much as i have only ever been interested in military/government reports/footage as also previously stated.

R.A.F.
2010-Feb-23, 08:41 PM
Yes I've read 129 and I still don't know where you stand, perhaps its my failure of comprehension...

No, that ain't it...I'm having the same difficulity as others have expressed here.

Fazor
2010-Feb-23, 08:41 PM
. . .
i was getting at the die hard debunker never accepting any kind of evidence he hasnt seen with his own eyes and even then he would rightly doubt himself.
. . .
i merely find some aspects interesting so therefore as explained will not automatically dismiss out of hand.


Those are from post #129 which you referenced. I'm not cherry-picking, rather pointing out the lines that stood out to me most.

What I gather from that post (the whole post, not just the bits quoted above), is that you are saying that "hardcore debunkers" just dismiss all these abduction / alien / ufo claims automatically. I also interpret the post as saying that you personally feel that there's too many unexplained things to mean there's not something going on, and that leads you to look at each claim on a case-by-case basis.

Is my interpretation correct?

captain swoop
2010-Feb-23, 08:43 PM
OK everyone cut it out.
If posters want to find out where Manxman stands I suggest posting direct questions in a 1. 2. 3. format and Manxman will answer them directly then we will move on.

manxman
2010-Feb-23, 08:50 PM
no i didnt say they dismiss it all fazor.

what i said was bluebook couldnt explain 5% of their cases so they were anomolous sightings.

a die hard skeptic as i described as a fiercely driven successful individual has in my opinion not got the time or patience to argue a case when he has satisfied himself that he knows best and he is dealing with as you guys descride as a woo woo.

it was my opinion then and still is.

from there the range goes down to those who are so open to suggestion their brains fallout.


edit post under construction captain when you posted.
infact i am going to open a second page and refresh it before posting infuture.

Garrison
2010-Feb-23, 08:53 PM
in spite of the fact that you cannot find anything ive said when quoted fully to even hint that i believe in alien abduction, plus post 129 with multiple quotes from when the accusation of believing in abduction has been previously put to me i will make it crystal clear dr jacob has done nothing to convince me that people are being abducted or even make me doubt from what i know of him, which isnt much as i have only ever been interested in military/government reports/footage as also previously stated.

But that is far from crystal clear, either you believe its happening or not, I'm asking for a simple yes or no, and then perhaps we can move forward. So please if you wouldn't mind?

manxman
2010-Feb-23, 08:55 PM
nor has anyone else is that clear enough.

JayUtah
2010-Feb-23, 08:58 PM
...
I know Jay in Utah is much better than I at the logical analysis of illogical assertions...

You're doing a fine job.

...because first we have to establish that such a thing is real.

Exactly.

I speak often of prima facie plausibility. What this means is that if we want to test whether some proposed cause is responsible for the observed effect, we need proof that (a) the proposed cause is real and exists, (b) a plausible mechanism exists whereby the proposed cause can produce the result, and (c) the proposed cause and mechanism have testable properties.

If you desire a proposition to be held scientifically as a valid theory, its causes must satisfy these criteria. Before science can hold that some particular cause and effect are related it must have the ability to prove they are not related, if that's what reality bears out. Because we don't know any aliens, we don't know what their properties are. If we don't know their properties, then we can't formulate a test to rule them out in some particular case. Without that ability, we cannot consider that proposed cause scientifically.

R.A.F.
2010-Feb-23, 09:05 PM
...what i said was bluebook couldnt explain 5% of their cases so they were anomolous sightings.

Not so much anomolous as simply lacking the amount/quality of evidence need to determine "what" was witnessed.

If your claim is that there is "something" to those sightings for which there is insufficient evidence, then go ahead and present your case.

kleindoofy
2010-Feb-23, 09:08 PM
... Before science can hold that some particular cause and effect are related it must have the ability to prove they are not related, if that's what reality bears out. ...
And inversely related to that is the age old principle of post hoc non est propter hoc (= "just because one occurrence follows another, it doesn't mean that the former is caused by the latter").

CJSF
2010-Feb-23, 09:08 PM
I can follow most of this, Jay, but maybe you can clear up something for me.

Hypothetically, say some as yet "undiscovered" aliens start aubducting people. How would such an investigation begin? Would an "investigator", upon noticing people missing in peculiar but consistent circumstances by necessity (since we are hypothesizing the aliens are "real") first find evidence that there ARE aliens? THEN he or she would test whether they were in fact responsible? I am finding it hard to sort out how this would work.

CJSF

manxman
2010-Feb-23, 09:18 PM
quote raf

Not so much anomolous as simply lacking the amount/quality of evidence need to determine "what" was witnessed.

If your claim is that there is "something" to those sightings for which there is insufficient evidence, then go ahead and present your case.



if i wanted to start a thread on anomolous footage i would do just that.

the thread is about the good doctor and not me..

gzhpcu
2010-Feb-23, 09:24 PM
I can follow most of this, Jay, but maybe you can clear up something for me.

Hypothetically, say some as yet "undiscovered" aliens start aubducting people. How would such an investigation begin? Would an "investigator", upon noticing people missing in peculiar but consistent circumstances by necessity (since we are hypothesizing the aliens are "real") first find evidence that there ARE aliens? THEN he or she would test whether they were in fact responsible? I am finding it hard to sort out how this would work.

CJSF
It would seem to me that before considering that aliens are abducting people, you first have to prove that alien beings from another planet are visiting earth. Once you have proof for that, you can than consider the likelihood of their being responsible for abductions.

R.A.F.
2010-Feb-23, 09:29 PM
quote raf

Not so much anomolous as simply lacking the amount/quality of evidence need to determine "what" was witnessed.

If your claim is that there is "something" to those sightings for which there is insufficient evidence, then go ahead and present your case.



if i wanted to start a thread on anomolous footage i would do just that.

the thread is about the good doctor and not me..

So what you're saying is that you have "no" claim to make that relates to Jacobs ideas?

manxman
2010-Feb-23, 09:33 PM
yes i made several posts on jacobs and his works you only have to go back and look.

i put his footnote disclaimer up and a link for one thing and commented on the fact that he says its flimsey evidence.
then said i dont think he believes it himself. but it sells books and gets him on the lecture circiut doesnt it.

http://www.nowpublic.com/strange/ufo-alien-abduction-expert-dr-david-m-jacobs-guest-sept-6-09

David M. Jacobs, Ph.D. is Associate Professor of History at Temple University specializing in twentieth century American history and culture. Dr. Jacobs began researching the controversy over unidentified flying objects in America in the mid 1960's, and has amassed over 38 years of primary research data and analytical hypotheses on the subject.

In 1973 Dr. Jacobs completed his doctoral dissertation in field of intellectual history at the University of Wisconsin-Madison on the controversy over unidentified flying objects in America. This was only the second Ph.D. degree granted involving a UFO-related theme. A revised version of his dissertation was published by Indiana University Press as The UFO Controversy in America (1975). It remains the first sympathetic book on the subject of the existence UFOs to be published by an academic press. For over twenty-five years Dr. Jacobs has offered the only regular curriculum university course on UFOs: "UFOs and American Society."

click link for more.

CJSF
2010-Feb-23, 09:45 PM
My point is, what if the first evidence lain by aliens was through their abuducting? (This is all very hypothetical and speculative. I am not a "UFOlogist" or anything like that.) In other words, what if people missing were to be part of the evidence presented by alien presence? Not ANY missing people, but specific cases that an investigator put together that had some tell tale hallmark or "evidence" that something unique and unprecidented was going on.

CJSF

AstroRockHunter
2010-Feb-23, 10:15 PM
manxman:
At the risk of being accused of character assassination again.


explanation
line1 .. die hard skeptics biuld a prosiac credible debunk and will never admit anything remotely anomolous ever goes on above us .
only the credibility of the debunk is of interest to me on a case by case basis.
Direct Question 1:
This sentence makes no sense to me. Could you try to explain it, please?



now ive never studied 100s never mind thousands of cases but what i have looked at i have occassionally had my interest tweaked enough to delve abit further.
enough to re-alise that if the numbers are extrapolated over the whole field of anomolous activity people like stanton freedman etc can be very convincing and have some very persuasive material so i cannot ever be a die hard skeptic on the matter.
Direct Question 2:
So, are you saying that alien abductions might be an explanation for some of these anomalous activities?



sometimes you have to look at the whole picture and when you realise theres now millions of reported cases of anomolous activity and that those are just the tip of the iceburg in a huge amount of sightings never reported for fear of ridicule.
using die hard skeptic prosiac case biulding it then only comes down to what percentage chance the skeptics answers actually cover on a case by case basis.

example
marsh gas etc. covered the event with a miniscule % chance of being the correct cause.
then theres the majority which are easily 100% covered by the debunk easily.

now if those debunks/explanations fall short on occassions as they do and do so 100s if not 1000s of times out of all reported anomolus activity once extrapolated upto the full volume of reports.
bluebook found 5% of their cases anomolous and they were government debunkers.
Again, I'm not sure what you are trying to say here.
Direct Question 3:
Perhaps you could use fewer words to explain the point you are trying to make?



line2
i was getting at the die hard debunker never accepting any kind of evidence he hasnt seen with his own eyes and even then he would rightly doubt himself.I don't believe that anyone who considers themselves reasonable would accept any evidence which could not be verified independently.



line3
i tried to explain my position on this matter as indeed i did here.

and here

not to me nor does alien craft ive never got past ufo or anomolous activity.
because ive never seen anything to convince me that i am seeing non man made technology.
Direct Question 4:
So, are you saying that you don't believe that any anomalous activity could be attributed to aliens?



here

i dont think he has a leg to stand on hence why i reposted his own admission of fragile evidence. {refering to the doctor.}

here

have i actually said anywhere i give weight to the theory of abuction please orion.?


here

i merely find some aspects interesting so therefore as explained will not automatically dismiss out of hand.
Direct Question 5:
Dismiss what out of hand?



here

i dont know of any evidence and have never claimed different.
anacdotal evidence is merely interesting on occasion.
anomolies is all ive ever seen or read about ive never been able to justify to myself the use of any other word to describe them, so why would/should you think this back and forth should or would be any different.


and several more places no doubt.

i am surprised you missed my position on this subject it would have saved you the trouble of reposting a quote thats been reposted several times already.

finally i am comfortable that my eyes let in a little more light than a die hard skeptic as i am now retired and life is more interesting knowing for sure that one does not know everything the universe has to offer.

a die hard skeptic must have a very narrow view of the world around him and maybe thats why they are mostly highly successful people because of that focus and i suspect drive ambition created by that focused personality.

Finally, I don't agree with your description of a 'die hard skeptic'. I think that you may not be using the general definition of 'skeptic'.

Gobligok
2010-Feb-23, 10:19 PM
if your going to quote use the whole quote.

What whole quote? I don't need to quote your entire post to show that you said something, just the portion where you said it.



please see post 129 if you are not sure about my position on this matter of dr jacobs or anything else to do with above our heads.

I frankly don't care whether you believe in aliens, as I have already explained to you. My position concerns attaching "aliens" and "alien abduction" to referents in reality, which you admit that you cannot do, yet you continue with this bizarre posturing. That you concede my point and rather emphatically deny any affiliation with "alien" claims yourself, makes this ill-defined defense of yours all the more strange.



and as for agreeing with you.
firstly i am having great difficulty following the gist of your sentences.

The "gist" of every post I've made has been that "aliens" and "alien abduction" have no referents in reality. After multiple requests for a response, you ultimately agreed with this notion, as I showed in my previous post. This is why I asked what exactly you are defending or disputing if you A) claim to not be furthering an "alien" claim yourself and B) agree that the real referents I've mentioned have not been established.

If you do not understand this, you could have said, "I don't understand," several posts ago.



secondly you havent quoted verbatim you have dissected quotes and cherry picked only parts that look out of place and context on their own,

I have posted sections of your posts only when necessary to counter your denial of having said something. If you say that you did not mention the big red balloon in the sky, all I have to do is find where you wrote, "I saw the big red balloon in the sky." There is no need for me to clutter the post with ancillary content about blue balloons and confetti.

The last time you complained about this, I did in fact respond by quoting the entire post that you believed to be misrepresented. Doing so did not alter the substance of my response. See post #66.

When addressing your directly, I have quoted entire posts and responded in-line, as I'm doing here.


and using that tactic too then attack that cherry picked comment which you have in esscence created yourself by orphaning it..

If you feel that I've misrepresented your position in some regard, feel free to quote what you said and the pertinent response of mine. I will address it then. Vague references to so-called "attacks" and cherry-picking made in a vacuum aren't something I'm able to respond to effectively.

manxman
2010-Feb-23, 10:21 PM
no im not explaining myself time and time again.

its just wash rinse repeat with you my friends.

JayUtah
2010-Feb-23, 10:26 PM
...

Since you seem to repose so much emphasis in this post:

die hard skeptics ... will never admit anything remotely anomolous ever goes on above us .

Hogwash. The scientific approach seeks to attribute observations conclusively or probabilistically to any identifiable and characterizable cause. If that cannot be done, no attribution is made and the cause remains "anomalous," or in other words, unidentified or undetermined.

That is not an assertion that a prosaic cause cannot exist for that result, only that some specific one is not yet known.

enough to re-alise that if the numbers are extrapolated over the whole field of anomolous activity...

No. One fallacy among UFO believers is that one can lump anomalous occurrences together. That simply tacks on a commonality for which there is no evidence. That's wrong whether one believes in UFOs or not.

...people like stanton freedman etc can be very convincing and have some very persuasive material

Stanton Friedman makes his living pretending to adopt a scientific approach to UFO studies, but he hasn't practiced science for decades. He presents material in a deceptive and misleading way; it is persuasive because he intends it to be that way, not because it is the truth.

sometimes you have to look at the whole picture...

No. As you said, only the case-by-case view really matters. Each occurrence is different until proven to have something in common with others. You cannot consider them all related solely because they are all unexplained.

...a huge amount of sightings never reported for fear of ridicule.

No. Either you have actual documentary numbers or you have guesses. Padding the data is evidence of bias.

example: marsh gas etc. covered the event with a miniscule % chance of being the correct cause.

I don't personally know of any sightings that have been written off as "marsh gas" or "swamp gas," but I accept that as the placeholder among UFO fans for prosaic causes that they consider lame.

The problem is that space aliens account for practically zero probability of explaining any particular sighting. Swamp gas is known to exist and has testable properties. Aliens are not known to exist, and therefore their properties are unknown. It is possible to falsify swamp gas as a cause for any particular sighting. It is not possible to falsify the alien hypothesis for any sighting. Hence the alien hypothesis cannot be held scientifically.

That is the harsh reality of the UFO "research." The preferred cause simply has no prima facie existence.

now if those debunks/explanations fall short on occassions as they do... and bluebook found 5% of their cases anomolous and they were government debunkers.

This is a problem only if you wrongly presume that observations with prosaic causes will always be identifiable as such from the available evidence. In investigating happenstance occurrences, there will not always be enough evidence available to confirm or falsify any particular hypothesis.

UFO believers wrongly claim that if no prosaic cause can be identified, the cause must therefore be extraordinary. That's not logical.

...one does not know everything the universe has to offer.

Indeed. However that does not mean the universe has to offer anything you can imagine. Reality is what it is, not what we imagine it (or fail to imagine it) to be.

a die hard skeptic must have a very narrow view of the world around him...

No, a skeptic knows how to draw the line between what can be established by evidence and what is merely imagination or speculation. The field of what can be known by evidence is narrower. Fringe theorists often accuse skeptics of lack of imagination, narrow-mindedness, and closed-mindedness. This is sadly because the fringe theorists don't respect the difference between conjecture and reality.

captain swoop
2010-Feb-23, 10:27 PM
no im not explaining myself time and time again.

Manxman
Astrorockhunter has laid out a list of direct questions.
Please answer them with your next post.

vonmazur
2010-Feb-23, 10:27 PM
did you even read from atleast a page back.
see post 129 for my views on dr jacobs and what goes on above our heads.

I have read this from the beginning, and your arguments are not clear, especially meaningless statements like the above quoted....."What goes on above our heads.."

What exactly is meant by this? I am not clear as to exactly what sort of theory you are promoting here? I am not that familiar with Dr. Jacobs, but why exactly do you think he has proven something, that the other advocates of this have not?

Dale

JayUtah
2010-Feb-23, 10:32 PM
...

if i wanted to start a thread on anomolous footage i would do just that.

You've mentioned it twice in this thread with the insinuation that there is something significant about that 5% unexplained occurrences. I think here is just as good a place as any.

Gobligok
2010-Feb-23, 10:34 PM
no im not explaining myself time and time again.

its just wash rinse repeat with you my friends.

Again, what exactly are you defending or disputing?

You agree that "aliens" and "alien abduction" have no referents in reality, and you deny believing in those things (or at least believing that there is any evidence that such things are plausible explanations for anything). I have no idea what your agenda is here.

JayUtah
2010-Feb-23, 10:48 PM
My point is, what if the first evidence lain by aliens was through their abuducting?...

How, exactly? How would the only evidence of the presence of aliens among us be only a series of abduction?

Strange
2010-Feb-23, 11:18 PM
In manxman's defence, I would point out that he did not start this thread, he merely came along and added his unique brand of confusion to the discussion :)

Although, I still have no idea what he believes or what point he is trying to make and have given up trying to figure it out ....

manxman
2010-Feb-23, 11:40 PM
in reply to astrorock.



explanation
line1 .. die hard skeptics biuld a prosiac credible debunk and will never admit anything remotely anomolous ever goes on above us .
only the credibility of the debunk is of interest to me on a case by case basis.


Direct Question 1:
This sentence makes no sense to me. Could you try to explain it, please?

now ive never studied 100s never mind thousands of cases but what i have looked at i have occassionally had my interest tweaked enough to delve abit further.
enough to re-alise that if the numbers are extrapolated over the whole field of anomolous activity people like stanton freedman etc can be very convincing and have some very persuasive material so i cannot ever be a die hard skeptic on the matter.

whats to explain i have had a passing interest in military alledged close encounters/anamolous activity every few years.
and as stated further down underlined.
quote
ive never seen anything to convince me that i am seeing non man made technology


Direct Question 2:
So, are you saying that alien abductions might be an explanation for some of these anomalous activities?

sometimes you have to look at the whole picture and when you realise theres now millions of reported cases of anomolous activity and that those are just the tip of the iceburg in a huge amount of sightings never reported for fear of ridicule.
using die hard skeptic prosiac case biulding it then only comes down to what percentage chance the skeptics answers actually cover on a case by case basis.

example
marsh gas etc. covered the event with a miniscule % chance of being the correct cause.
then theres the majority which are easily 100% covered by the debunk easily.

now if those debunks/explanations fall short on occassions as they do and do so 100s if not 1000s of times out of all reported anomolus activity once extrapolated upto the full volume of reports.
bluebook found 5% of their cases anomolous and they were government debunkers.

the answer to your question is no this is what ive said when asked directly.


in spite of the fact that you cannot find anything ive said when quoted fully to even hint that i believe in alien abduction, plus post 129 with multiple quotes from when the accusation of believing in abduction has been previously put to me i will make it crystal clear dr jacob has done nothing to convince me that people are being abducted or even make me doubt from what i know of him, which isnt much as i have only ever been interested in military/government reports/footage as also previously stated.

and this quote again. and several similar if you look.
because ive never seen anything to convince me that i am seeing non man made technology



Direct Question 3:
Perhaps you could use fewer words to explain the point you are trying to make?

line2
i was getting at the die hard debunker never accepting any kind of evidence he hasnt seen with his own eyes and even then he would rightly doubt himself.

it was a direct reply to someone perhaps looking at his question would assist.

Direct Question 4:
So, are you saying that you don't believe that any anomalous activity could be attributed to aliens?

i said and will say again he has shown no proof of it nor anyone else.




line3
i tried to explain my position on this matter as indeed i did here.


not to me nor does alien craft ive never got past ufo or anomolous activity.
because ive never seen anything to convince me that i am seeing non man made technology.
here

i dont think he has a leg to stand on hence why i reposted his own admission of fragile evidence. {refering to the doctor.}
here

have i actually said anywhere i give weight to the theory of abuction please orion.?


here

i merely find some aspects interesting so therefore as explained will not automatically dismiss out of hand.

here

Direct Question 5:
Dismiss what out of hand?

anomalous activity reports by pilots or military personel


i dont know of any evidence and have never claimed different.
anacdotal evidence is merely interesting on occasion.
anomolies is all ive ever seen or read about ive never been able to justify to myself the use of any other word to describe them, so why would/should you think this back and forth should or would be any different.


and several more places no doubt.

i am surprised you missed my position on this subject it would have saved you the trouble of reposting a quote thats been reposted several times already.

finally i am comfortable that my eyes let in a little more light than a die hard skeptic as i am now retired and life is more interesting knowing for sure that one does not know everything the universe has to offer.

a die hard skeptic must have a very narrow view of the world around him and maybe thats why they are mostly highly successful people because of that focus and i suspect drive ambition created by that focused personality.

Abaddon
2010-Feb-23, 11:54 PM
How, exactly? How would the only evidence of the presence of aliens among us be only a series of abduction?

Because that allows the "aliens" to have unique powers which defy all detection methods available to us, granting the "alien" proponent to invoke magic to support their claim.

Always it comes down to this, the "aliens" do it by means of some magic.

Don't ask me why but it is inevitable. They little grey dudes will always have some magic technology which is beyond any measurement of ours, how convenient.

ETA: I await the usual A. C. Clarke quote.

kleindoofy
2010-Feb-24, 12:00 AM
... little grey dudes ...
Grey?

I thought they were turquoise with stripes.

Must be the magic.

AstroRockHunter
2010-Feb-24, 12:06 AM
manxman:
Obviously, I did not make myself clear.

My questions refer to your quotes above them, not below them as you seem to have inferred.

So, could you please go back and answer my questions as they relate to your quotes above them?

Abaddon
2010-Feb-24, 12:06 AM
And while I am at it there has been a sack of statistics thrown out about the number of people reported missing in this thread, yet very few have been posted about the number found. The net result of that may show very different figures.

Abaddon
2010-Feb-24, 12:07 AM
Grey?

I thought they were turquoise with stripes.

Must be the magic.

Accept the alien of your choice. :)

JayUtah
2010-Feb-24, 12:11 AM
Always it comes down to this, the "aliens" do it by means of some magic.

I don't think Christopher Ferro meant to propose that.

I explained the ordinary line of reasoning behind an abduction investigation, emphasizing that certain forms of prima facie evidence would need to be in place before considering aliens as suspects. I think he's trying to formulate a corner case where aliens are the perpetrators, but we would have no way of knowing this except by examining the abduction cases themselves. That's a pretty difficult question to answer in the abstract because real-world evidence really doesn't ever fall on the razor's edge like that.

Fazor
2010-Feb-24, 12:14 AM
. . .real-world evidence really doesn't ever fall on the razor's edge like that.

Except, of course, for the Boston Barbershop Murders of 1888.

. . . I apologize, but I couldn't resist.

JayUtah
2010-Feb-24, 12:16 AM
anomalous activity reports by pilots or military personel

What makes you suggest these reports are being "dismissed out of hand?"

Abaddon
2010-Feb-24, 12:17 AM
Twasnt directed at christopher.

Nonetheless, he asks a valid question. What if the alledged aliens chose to operate this way. How could we tell?

manxman
2010-Feb-24, 12:19 AM
manxman:
Obviously, I did not make myself clear.

My questions refer to your quotes above them, not below them as you seem to have inferred.

So, could you please go back and answer my questions as they relate to your quotes above them?

oh no your coming over loud and clear.

you should have presented all your questions at either the top or bottom of each section of my quote that you wanted an answers too .. instead you mixed them up some on top some on bottom of quote.

now what do you want directly answered.

Abaddon
2010-Feb-24, 12:26 AM
Are you referring to post #189? seems pretty clear to me.

JayUtah
2010-Feb-24, 12:30 AM
...

Nonetheless, he asks a valid question.

It may turn out to be valid, but in my opinion presently it is incomplete.

What if the alledged aliens chose to operate this way...?

That depends on what "this way" means. The question is proposed simply as an abstract prototype. I doubt such a situation could practically arise, and I'm not sure it could theoretically arise.

kleindoofy
2010-Feb-24, 12:33 AM
... What if the alledged aliens chose to operate this way. How could we tell?
That can, and often does, lead to fallacious logic.

Example:

"We think it is possible that aliens hide themselves from our view. We can assume that they always do.

Since we have now established as a fact that aliens always cloak themselves, we must conclude that their abductions are impossible to observe. Therefore ..."

and so on ...

It doesn't work.

That example may sound blatantly silly, but it's surprising how many people fall into that same trap when the arguments are longer and more complex.

Abaddon
2010-Feb-24, 12:35 AM
That can, and often does, lead to fallacious logic.

Example:

"We think it is possible that aliens hide themselves from our view. We can assume that they always do.

Since we have now established as a fact that aliens always cloak themselves, we must conclude that their abductions are impossible to observe. Therefore ..."

and so on ...

It doesn't work.

That example sound blatanly silly, but it's surprising how many people fall into that same trap when the arguments are longer and more complex.
yup thats how it goes, accept any old excuse. Sad to see it in action tho

Abaddon
2010-Feb-24, 12:44 AM
That can, and often does, lead to fallacious logic.

Example:

"We think it is possible that aliens hide themselves from our view. We can assume that they always do.

Since we have now established as a fact that aliens always cloak themselves, we must conclude that their abductions are impossible to observe. Therefore ..."

and so on ...

It doesn't work.

That example may sound blatantly silly, but it's surprising how many people fall into that same trap when the arguments are longer and more complex.

Yep I weep for the education system

AstroRockHunter
2010-Feb-24, 12:55 AM
oh no your coming over loud and clear.

you should have presented all your questions at either the top or bottom of each section of my quote that you wanted an answers too .. instead you mixed them up some on top some on bottom of quote.

now what do you want directly answered.

O.K. We'll do this your way, one step at a time.



Quote:

Originally Posted by manxman http://www.bautforum.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.bautforum.com/conspiracy-theories/100979-david-jacobs-ufo-abduction-experts-post1686570.html#post1686570)
explanation
line1 .. die hard skeptics biuld a prosiac credible debunk and will never admit anything remotely anomolous ever goes on above us .
only the credibility of the debunk is of interest to me on a case by case basis.

Direct Question 1:
This sentence makes no sense to me. Could you try to explain it, please?

JayUtah
2010-Feb-24, 01:23 AM
That can, and often does, lead to fallacious logic.

Sure, when there's an appeal to magic you get circularity and affirmed consequents that make parsimony scream.

But I didn't interpret Christopher's question as an appeal to magic. I gathered he really wanted to know how an investigation could succeed if there were legitimately no prima facie evidence of aliens. In other words, the allegedly supernatural properties of aliens wouldn't come into play in this situation; we would have to infer the identity of the perpetrators somehow solely by circumstantial evidence in the abductions themselves. It's an interesting proposition but I question how it could arise.

Nevertheless we have to remind ourselves that this particular circularity lies at the heart of UFO abduction claims. The abductions are supposed to be evidence of aliens. But that's just pure attribution; there's no actual evidence. As always, the case is made indirectly: it isn't conclusively any prosaic cause so it "must" be aliens.

kleindoofy
2010-Feb-24, 01:47 AM
... I didn't interpret Christopher's question as an appeal to magic. ...
Yes, I was speaking in general terms, not addressing any particular argument or post.

Circular logic can be hidden and difficult to find and can be used inadvertently even by serious researchers. One has to be carefull not to be caught in the trap.

In the case of presumed aliens, however, the absurdity is usually so glaring that circumspect can be left in the drawer.

Spoons
2010-Feb-24, 02:19 AM
Can I just ask a general question of participants in this thread?

Does the peppering of the word "anomoly" or "anomolous" act as a trigger word for suspicion over a person's stance on UFO's / aliens?

It seems this word is very much overused by UFO proponents, and has somewhat poisoned its meaning.

And could this partially contribute to the confusion that has dominated this thread?

CJSF
2010-Feb-24, 03:26 AM
I don't think Christopher Ferro meant to propose that.

I explained the ordinary line of reasoning behind an abduction investigation, emphasizing that certain forms of prima facie evidence would need to be in place before considering aliens as suspects. I think he's trying to formulate a corner case where aliens are the perpetrators, but we would have no way of knowing this except by examining the abduction cases themselves. That's a pretty difficult question to answer in the abstract because real-world evidence really doesn't ever fall on the razor's edge like that.


Yes, Jay, you are correct. I understand and generally accept your characterization of how a real investigation would likely unforld. I'm not trying to do anything else, other than think if there could ever possibly be a scenario in which a primary (but not only) piece of evidence for "aliens" would be that they started aubducting people.

On the whole, I am in agreement with you on all points, and (as I've tried to state) am not advocating aliens as any reason for real or imagined aubductions.

It was more of a thought experiment.

CJSF

Don J
2010-Feb-24, 05:26 AM
I can follow most of this, Jay, but maybe you can clear up something for me.

Hypothetically, say some as yet "undiscovered" aliens start aubducting people. How would such an investigation begin? Would an "investigator", upon noticing people missing in peculiar but consistent circumstances by necessity (since we are hypothesizing the aliens are "real") first find evidence that there ARE aliens? THEN he or she would test whether they were in fact responsible? I am finding it hard to sort out how this would work.

CJSF
One point to clarified, the abductees are not -missing persons- for the simple fact they are returned back after a period of 2 to 4 hours with their memory locked.
The only thing missing is their souvenir of -what happened- during the ...missing time episode.

I think you can find the answers to your questions from the pionner himself in these investigations Budd Hopkins.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/aliens/buddhopkins.html

I let you and Jay debate the validity or not of his methodology.

Van Rijn
2010-Feb-24, 06:15 AM
The specifics of the Hill case are revelant because it relate to -locked memory-,the medical experiments and missing time other abducties have reported.

If you are not familar with all the details about Betty And Barney Hill case see this page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betty_and_Barney_Hill_abduction

The point is that the Hills were talking about alien abductions before they ever went to the hypnotist. That's different from someone that, for example, has unspecific hallucinations with sleep paralysis who goes to someone for help, and that person starts pushing the alien abduction idea.

The idea of alien abductions or aliens doing other bad things to people were common in science fiction media at the time, so it wouldn't have been hard for them to pick up the idea (deliberately or not).

Van Rijn
2010-Feb-24, 06:31 AM
One point to clarified, the abductees


What abductees are you referring to? If you're claiming there are alien abductees, what's your evidence?



are not -missing persons- for the simple fact they are returned back after a period of 2 to 4 hours with their memory locked.


You have evidence for this "simple fact"?

Of course, it's been hinted in this thread that aliens are taking some people permanently. That's an old idea in science fiction too, but to take it seriously, there would need to be evidence.

chrlzs
2010-Feb-24, 06:43 AM
One point to clarified, the abductees are not -missing persons- for the simple fact they are returned back after a period of 2 to 4 hours with their memory locked.
The only thing missing is their souvenir of -what happened- during the ...missing time episode.

I think you can find the answers to your questions from the pionner himself in these investigations Budd Hopkins.

(link deleted)

I let you and Jay debate the validity or not of his methodology.

Umm, I don't think that's how it works here (or in any scientific or legal environment) and for very good reason..

You just claimed that 'they' (implying a majority, or at least a significant number, of alleged abductees) tend to disappear for 2-4 hours, and that their memories are 'locked'. So now, you have to supply us with the cases on which you base that claim, or at least a significant sampling of them.

And also answer the following questions:
What exactly does a 'memory lock' mean, in accepted medical/neurological terms?
How were the disappearances, and the durations thereof, verified?
How have you eliminated the possibility of 'copycat' effects and hoaxers?

Now, IF that evidence can be found at the hopkins site you waved at us, then please supply some direct quotes, or your interpretation of what is there. Posting arbitrary links is not the done thing.

Don J
2010-Feb-24, 06:55 AM
What abductees are you referring to? If you're claiming there are alien abductees, what's your evidence?



You have evidence for this "simple fact"?

Of course, the idea that's been hinted at in this thread is that aliens are taking some people permanently. That's an old idea in science fiction too, but to take it seriously, there would need to be evidence.
The sole purpose of my intervention was to reply to
Christopher Ferro .see post 220
And to clarified the distinction betwen the Alien Abuction Phenomenon as described in the ufo lore and -missing persons-.Which is the cause of lot of confusion in the actual discussion dont you think?

But feel free to read the linked page i given which may clarified some of your apprehensions.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/aliens/buddhopkins.html

Note I said I will let Jay and Christopher Ferro debate the methodology used by Budd Hopkins because I am interested to know their opinions.

To be clear dont ask me questions about what Budd Hopkins have writed. :hand:

JayUtah
2010-Feb-24, 07:27 AM
...

Note I said I will let Jay and Christopher Ferro debate the methodology used by Budd Hopkins because I am interested to know their opinions.

Hopkins is an artist who pretends to be a psychologist and a researcher. He used to be a huge celebrity in the UFO lecture circuit. He and Jacobs (mis)use hypnotic regression to add an air of credibility to what is essentially supposition. Some of Hopkins' "alien abduction" scenarios played out where there should have been many witnesses. Hopkins' reconciliation? The aliens simply make themselves and their victims selectively invisible.

There is no "methodology." It's just parlour tricks and supposition.

Don J
2010-Feb-24, 07:37 AM
Note I said I will let Jay and Christopher Ferro debate the methodology used by Budd Hopkins because I am interested to know their opinions.

Hopkins is an artist who pretends to be a psychologist and a researcher. He used to be a huge celebrity in the UFO lecture circuit. He and Jacobs (mis)use hypnotic regression to add an air of credibility to what is essentially supposition. Some of Hopkins' "alien abduction" scenarios played out where there should have been many witnesses. Hopkins' reconciliation? The aliens simply make themselves and their victims selectively invisible.

There is no "methodology." It's just parlour tricks and supposition.

Well, i finally find something more compelling about his methodology than the interview with Nova.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budd_Hopkins#Alien_abduction


For roughly the first seven years of his investigation of the abduction phenomenon, Hopkins himself conducted no hypnosis sessions. Rather, he secured the aid of licensed professionals. He notes that three of these therapists (Drs. Robert Naiman, Aphrodite Clamar and Girard Franklin) were quite skeptical of the reality of abduction claims, yet all uncovered detailed abduction scenarios from their patients. (Hopkins, 218)

Controversy has been a persistent feature of Hopkins' career in alien abduction and UFO studies. While few seem to doubt Hopkin's motives or sincerity, critics charge that Hopkins is out of his element when he uses hypnosis, thereby aiding his subjects in confabulation: the blending of fact and fantasy. However, Hopkins insists such criticism is specious. He writes, "I have often frequently invited interested therapists, journalists and academics to observe hypnosis sessions. Theoretical psychologist Nicholas Humphrey, who has held teaching positions at both Oxford and Cambridge Universities, and psychiatrist Donald. F. Klein, director of research at the New York State Psychiatric Institute and professor of psychiatry at the College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University, are but two of those who have observed my work firsthand. None of these visitors ... have reported anything that suggested I was attempting to lead the subjects." (Hopkins, 238-239)

Van Rijn
2010-Feb-24, 08:00 AM
To be clear dont ask me questions about what Budd Hopkins have writed. :hand:

I was asking about statements you made. I wasn't asking about what Budd Hopkins might have written.

So, to be clear, you are not claiming there are alien abductions or that claimed abductees have locked memories?

Van Rijn
2010-Feb-24, 08:04 AM
Well, i finally find something more compelling about his methodology than the interview with Nova.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budd_Hopkins#Alien_abduction

Taking that at face value, what do you find compelling?

NEOWatcher
2010-Feb-24, 01:37 PM
what i said was bluebook couldnt explain 5% of their cases so they were anomolous sightings.
Actually, that statistic suprises me. With the lack of clear evidence, and mix of misidentifications, vague descriptions, and the like, I would think that number would be higher.

Anomolous is not the same as unidentified. Anomoly means there must be conflicting information to the normal. Maybe there are some sparse anomolies in there, but I would be willing to say that we are just talking lack of evidence.


And while I am at it there has been a sack of statistics thrown out about the number of people reported missing in this thread, yet very few have been posted about the number found.
Not only that, but we also need a statistic on how many will be found.
Of course, there's no way of knowing, but there's old bones being dug up all the time that match old missing persons reports.

Fazor
2010-Feb-24, 02:49 PM
And while I am at it there has been a sack of statistics thrown out about the number of people reported missing in this thread, yet very few have been posted about the number found. The net result of that may show very different figures.

Mine listed both missing and found, with a link to the documentation. And as NEO pointed out, the number of currently missing that will be found is important too, though understandably impossible to know, one could take a stab at it.

Hell, I'm bored. Well, not so much bored, but shirking work. I'll be right back. ;)

ETA: The data I'm working with may be insufficient to determine the average number of people that go missing but will be found in the future. It's still interesting, so I'll post something when I have it.

JayUtah
2010-Feb-24, 03:51 PM
Well, i finally find something more compelling about his methodology than the interview with Nova.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budd_Hopkins#Alien_abduction

You realize that Wikipedia is simply quoting Hopkins' claims, don't you?

gzhpcu
2010-Feb-24, 04:25 PM
Actually, that statistic suprises me. With the lack of clear evidence, and mix of misidentifications, vague descriptions, and the like, I would think that number would be higher.


The statistic is incorrect.
Project Blue Book, Report 14 summary:

About 69% of the cases were judged known or identified (38% were considered conclusively identified while 31% were still "doubtfully" explained); about 9% fell into insufficient information. About 22% were deemed "unknown", down from the earlier 28% value of the Air Force studies.source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Blue_Book#Project_Blue_Book_Special_Report _No._14

NEOWatcher
2010-Feb-24, 05:40 PM
The statistic is incorrect.

I wonder how "unknown" and "insufficient information" differ.
Besides, where do they put "classified"? ;)

Fazor
2010-Feb-24, 06:11 PM
I wonder how "unknown" and "insufficient information" differ.
I was thinking the same thing.

Don J
2010-Feb-24, 07:28 PM
Taking that at face value, what do you find compelling?
I think my word choice was not correct.
Replace the word compelling by glimpse.

-Well, i finally [/i] find a glimpse[/i] which describe more details about his methodology than the interview with Nova.-

Don J
2010-Feb-24, 07:35 PM
You realize that Wikipedia is simply quoting Hopkins' claims, don't you?
Absolutely.So do you have a comment about the methodology he use as described in post 226 ?

Don J
2010-Feb-24, 07:51 PM
I was asking about statements you made. I wasn't asking about what Budd Hopkins might have written.

I cited something from Hopkins interview with Nova....
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/aliens/buddhopkins.html


But, as these cases began to come my way, where people were reporting a sighting, a period of missing time, they couldn't account for a couple of hours. Perhaps they were in a car, the car ended up on another road aimed in the wrong direction. They were having nightmares and fears and so on afterwards.



So, to be clear, you are not claiming there are alien abductions or that claimed abductees have locked memories?
I only referenced to the definition about the Alien Abduction Phenomena as defined in the "UFO lore".
But there is more
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_abduction

Gillianren
2010-Feb-24, 07:55 PM
"Couldn't account for a couple of hours"? And this is convincing? I lose track of time; so do you. I've read clocks wrong. I woke up once with a start thinking it was time for my boyfriend to leave for work and he was still asleep. This is because my brain was an hour off, and I didn't even have the excuse of Daylight Saving Time. I was just somehow convinced that he had to leave at 8:37 instead of 9:37.

Don J
2010-Feb-24, 08:03 PM
"Couldn't account for a couple of hours"? And this is convincing? I lose track of time; so do you. I've read clocks wrong. I woke up once with a start thinking it was time for my boyfriend to leave for work and he was still asleep. This is because my brain was an hour off, and I didn't even have the excuse of Daylight Saving Time. I was just somehow convinced that he had to leave at 8:37 instead of 9:37.
The Hills case have a good example
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betty_and_Barney_Hill_abduction#Missing_time


Missing time

On November 25, 1961, the Hills were again interviewed at length by NICAP members, this time C.D. Jackson and Robert E. Hohman.

Having read Webb's initial report, Jackson and Hohman had many questions for the Hills. One of their main questions was about the length of the trip. Neither Webb nor the Hills had noted that, though the drive should have taken about four hours, they did not arrive at home until seven hours after their departure. When Hohman and Jackson noted this discrepancy to the Hills, the couple was stunned, having no explanation (a frequently reported circumstance in alleged alien abduction cases that some have called "missing time").


More about the Missing Time
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_time

R.A.F.
2010-Feb-24, 08:14 PM
The Hills case have a good example...

A good example of what?...missing time??

Are we to blindly accept what the Hills said under hypnosis as if it were reality?


Sorry, but I require actual, testable evidence...and you're not going to find that evidence through hypnosis or on wikipedia.

Don J
2010-Feb-24, 08:21 PM
A good example of what?...missing time??

Are we to blindly accept what the Hills said under hypnosis as if it were reality?


Sorry, but I require actual, testable evidence...and you're not going to find that evidence through hypnosis or on wikipedia.
I see that you ask for scientific datas.

http://www.alienscalpel.com/

captain swoop
2010-Feb-24, 08:25 PM
I agree, all we have is anecdotes.

Gillianren
2010-Feb-24, 08:26 PM
A drive has never taken you longer than you expected without your noticing? Especially a long one?

captain swoop
2010-Feb-24, 08:34 PM
I see that you ask for scientific datas.

http://www.alienscalpel.com/

A link to a site claiming to remove 'Alien Implants'

How was it established they were 'Alien Implants'

Isn't that putting the Cart before the Horse?

Their photographs show what look like metal fragments and bits of grit

I like the notice on their page of 'Scientific Data'

"This material is only for viewing by qualifiedly academic scientists with an educational degree.

We will not correspond with anyone without this background."

Don J
2010-Feb-24, 08:36 PM
A drive has never taken you longer than you expected without your noticing? Especially a long one?

Are you talking about returning home after visiting friends or family when the trip is about 4 hours but which turn out to have lasted 7 hours ?

Don J
2010-Feb-24, 08:38 PM
A link to a site claiming to remove 'Alien Implants'

Isn't that putting the Cart before the Horse?

I like the notice on their page of 'Scientific Data'

"This material is only for viewing by qualifiedly academic scientists with an educational degree.

We will not correspond with anyone without this background."


But we have peoples on this board with those qualifications isn it ?

Garrison
2010-Feb-24, 08:44 PM
A drive has never taken you longer than you expected without your noticing? Especially a long one?


Conversely I've found sometimes on the long drive to work I'm suddenly at the turn off for the industrial park with no specific recollection of what happened during the journey.

R.A.F.
2010-Feb-24, 08:48 PM
I see that you ask for scientific datas.

Too bad the site you linked to doesn't provide any "scientific datas".

Fazor
2010-Feb-24, 08:52 PM
At 9:00 pm on Dec 25, 2009, Fazor left his mother-in-law's house and drove straight home. Fazor and Tara drove straight home sans interruption, but upon pulling into the drive, noted the clock said 12:30AM. They were both astonished, as the drive should only have been two hours!

And I'm not mocking you, Don J. The above is a true account of what happened last Christmas day. And no, there was no drinking involved.

. . . there were no aliens involved either. The reason the two hour trip seemed like it took three and a half hours was simple; what felt like 15 minutes that had passed between us saying "Well, we better get going" and the time Tara finally stopped getting side-tracked, the dogs were loaded into the car, goodbyes were said, then said again, and we finally hit the road, was actually closer to an hour and a half! (Tara and her mom are both talkers. Ugh)

Now, take an incident that you're trying to think back to, and can "only remember under hypnotic regression", and try to pin exact departure, travel, and arrival times.

I'm sorry, but to me it's just infinitely more likely that they are misremembering times than it is that they were abducted for a few hours, had their memories wiped, then returned home.

I mean, shouldn't the [hours] of missing time struck them as odd when they returned home, rather than much later as they tried to "think back to what happened"?

JayUtah
2010-Feb-24, 09:04 PM
Absolutely.So do you have a comment about the methodology he use as described in post 226 ?

Do you realize that by citing Hopkins' claims as evidence of the validity of Hopkins' claims, you're asking the fox to guard the henhouse?

Hopkins claims he has applied controls to prevent himself from leading the subject in hypnotic regression. What is Hopkins' control for the notion that hypnotic regression produces a recollection of actual events? Hypnotic regression can fail to produce valid recollections whether the practitioner has led the subject or not. Even if we take Hopkins at his word, his defense is a straw man.

Further, I gave you examples of Hopkins' patently absurd claims. Do you have any way to get out of the blatant circularity his argument entails?