PDA

View Full Version : Alien Abduction



Pages : [1] 2 3 4

jkmccrann
2005-Nov-01, 05:37 AM
Here's an interesting review of a book explaining where people's beliefs about alien abduction come from.

Here's a quote from the review


Is there any consensus about the psychology of alien abduction? Prior research has yielded a few insights, some of which are hardly surprising: People who believe they've been abducted tend to be fantasy-prone and eccentric, for one. On the other hand, they don't tend to be crazy. Most abductees are regular Joes, with decent jobs; though they have varying levels of education, they are predominantly white and middle class. In addition to an appetite for fantasy, researchers have identified several mental phenomena that often accompany a person's belief that she's been abducted: One is sleep paralysis,

http://www.slate.com/id/2129111/?nav=navoa

Intersting read. The actual book its reviewing is by a former Harvard psychology department researcher who was involved in a study into the area a few years ago. Her name being Susan Clancy.

Just curious, are there any alien abductees here in the fora? And does the above explanation describe who you are?????

SolusLupus
2005-Nov-01, 02:45 PM
I was abducted by aliens. See, a group of Mexicans decided to try to take me over the border into Mexico, and...

Oh, THAT kind of Alien Abduction. Nope, haven't dealt with that.

Faultline
2005-Nov-01, 08:03 PM
Funny, Lonewulf.

I saw a program on one of the science channels about sleep paralysis and how it could possibly explain alien abduction.

Six hundred years ago, there were similar tales of being abducted by witches. The symptoms described were very similar to sleep paralysis.

Curious...

trinitree88
2005-Nov-01, 11:33 PM
In its' early years, Astronomy magazine ran an article called "The Zeta Reticuli Incident"..circa Nov/Dec 1974. It was about the Betty Hill, Barney Hill incident in Exeter NH. They became famous...sort of... What is interesting is that Betty claimed upon a physical examination, a large needle was inserted proximate to her navel (below) to do a pregnancy test....at the time, medically.. amniocentesis was unheard of. Barney revealed that he was placed in a large tube...like a tunnel...on a slab....."They" were going to take a picture of him (Hmm..MRI?). And the kicker, the Marjorie Fish starmap in three dimensions revealing trade routes....with the mystery "star"...the, at the times of Betty's rendition...previously entirely unknown category of nearest red dwarf...in the approximate right holographic position.Zeta A and B reticulum were two of the others.
Now for an Afro-American businessman with little science background, and his high school education wife with even less...I think they really lucked out by lying about and clearly describing three independently confirmed future advanced technologies years before they appeared in the annals of science and technology. (Betty had the scar from the needle...and both were told that they could be "found" if necessary in the future by implants...RFID tags anyone?:think: Ciao. Pete

SolusLupus
2005-Nov-02, 12:44 AM
The MIB is kinda interesting, though, now that I think about it. Does anyone know if the tales of the MIB are all bunk?

AGN Fuel
2005-Nov-02, 02:30 AM
In its' early years, Astronomy magazine ran an article called "The Zeta Reticuli Incident"..circa Nov/Dec 1974. It was about the Betty Hill, Barney Hill incident in Exeter NH. They became famous...sort of... What is interesting is that Betty claimed upon a physical examination, a large needle was inserted proximate to her navel (below) to do a pregnancy test....at the time, medically.. amniocentesis was unheard of. Barney revealed that he was placed in a large tube...like a tunnel...on a slab....."They" were going to take a picture of him (Hmm..MRI?). And the kicker, the Marjorie Fish starmap in three dimensions revealing trade routes....with the mystery "star"...the, at the times of Betty's rendition...previously entirely unknown category of nearest red dwarf...in the approximate right holographic position.Zeta A and B reticulum were two of the others.
Now for an Afro-American businessman with little science background, and his high school education wife with even less...I think they really lucked out by lying about and clearly describing three independently confirmed future advanced technologies years before they appeared in the annals of science and technology. (Betty had the scar from the needle...and both were told that they could be "found" if necessary in the future by implants...RFID tags anyone?:think: Ciao. Pete


This is supposed to be a joke, right?

The procedure of Amniocentesis has been around for well over 100 years, red dwarves have been known as such for a similar length of time and the patent for the MRI was given in 1972.

(NB: For any technology capable of interstellar travel, one would have thought that amniocentesis & MRI's would have been rather primitive investigative tools in any event, no?)

Gullible Jones
2005-Nov-02, 03:23 AM
I've got my own little theory on the abduction phenomenon.

You see, it seems to me that people are always very willing to believe in alien and/or supernatural entities - even profoundly hostile entities of that sort. But no one wants to hear that aliens, or spirits, or whatever, don't exist.

I'd say this indicates a deep, profound fear that such beings do not exist - that people are frightened of the concept that we're alone in the universe. It's just a hunch, not all that well supported, but the idea of being alone frightens me and, and at least one other poster has mentioned being frightened by that possibility... Perhaps there is something to this. Then again, it could very well be a red herring.

Samara
2005-Nov-02, 03:28 AM
I've got my own little theory on the abduction phenomenon.

You see, it seems to me that people are always very willing to believe in alien and/or supernatural entities - even profoundly hostile entities of that sort. But no one wants to hear that aliens, or spirits, or whatever, don't exist.

I'd say this indicates a deep, profound fear that such beings do not exist - that people are frightened of the concept that we're alone in the universe. It's just a hunch, not all that well supported, but the idea of being alone frightens me and, and at least one other poster has mentioned being frightened by that possibility... Perhaps there is something to this. Then again, it could very well be a red herring.

I think it makes perfect sense. Humans are very social animals, that generally can't stand being alone. Even the people we consider "loners" have at least one or two friends (Hey, look at me! I've got you guys!) And those that truly are loners...well, incidents like Columbine show how much lonliness and alienation affects the mind. So the idea that we are, essentially, alone, goes against our deepest instincts and disturbs us greatly.

trinitree88
2005-Nov-03, 01:20 AM
This is supposed to be a joke, right?

The procedure of Amniocentesis has been around for well over 100 years, red dwarves have been known as such for a similar length of time and the patent for the MRI was given in 1972.

(NB: For any technology capable of interstellar travel, one would have thought that amniocentesis & MRI's would have been rather primitive investigative tools in any event, no?)
Hi. While it is true that amniocentesis has been around since ~1882...it was not the routine pregnancy test used in Betty Hill's era...that was the rabbit test...it died. My recollection is that the very first MRI image popularly seen was a poor resolution mouse...in Discover magazine. I remember holding it up to my chemistry classes at Hanover High School, and telling them...learn this technology, imaging without ionizing radiation...I had worked in X-ray solution service technology..and could see what was coming.That could only be the years 1978-81, long after Barney & Betty's experience.
The Astronomy magazine article specifically spent a long time on the anomalous ability of Betty to draw in a star...unknown to the astronomers of the day in that position. Not my invention. Ciao. Pete

AGN Fuel
2005-Nov-03, 02:39 AM
Hi. While it is true that amniocentesis has been around since ~1882...it was not the routine pregnancy test used in Betty Hill's era...that was the rabbit test...it died. My recollection is that the very first MRI image popularly seen was a poor resolution mouse...in Discover magazine. I remember holding it up to my chemistry classes at Hanover High School, and telling them...learn this technology, imaging without ionizing radiation...I had worked in X-ray solution service technology..and could see what was coming.That could only be the years 1978-81, long after Barney & Betty's experience.
The Astronomy magazine article specifically spent a long time on the anomalous ability of Betty to draw in a star...unknown to the astronomers of the day in that position. Not my invention. Ciao. Pete

No, sorry, but I must disagree with you. From here (http://www.ob-ultrasound.net/amniocentesis.html) (my underlines):

"Nadler and Gerbie published the important article "Role of amniocentesis in the intra-uterine diagnosis of genetic defects" in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1970. This was the real impetus in genetic amniocentesis and diagnosis, and from then on, genetic laboratories for analysis of amniotic fluid had become prevalent."

Secondly, in your original post you stated:
"...clearly describing three independently confirmed future advanced technologies years before they appeared in the annals of science and technology."

Looking here (http://www.isbe.man.ac.uk/personal/dellard/dje/history_mri/history%20of%20mri.htm), I note that:

During the 50's and 60's NMR spectroscopy became a widely used technique for the non-destructive analysis of small samples. Many of its applications were at the microscopic level using small (a few centimetres) bore high field magnets. In the late 60's and early 70's Raymond Damadian, an American medical doctor at the State University of New York in Brooklyn, demonstrated that a NMR tissue parameter (termed T1 relaxation time) of tumour samples, measured in vitro, was significantly higher than normal tissue....his description of relaxation time changes in cancer tissue was one of the main impetuses for the introduction of NMR into medicine.


So, even ignoring the facts that: (1) When you first recall seeing an MRI is hardly relevant; (2) you are speculating that what was described was actually an MRI; and (3) it is remarkable that a species capable of interstellar flight might use coeval technology to ours: then your statement is evidently incorrect.

With respect to the Red Dwarf star apparently identified, I have not read the Astronomy article to which you refer and so cannot comment on it. However, I must note that Red Dwarf stars are easily the most common form of Main Sequence star (comprising well over 50% of all the stars in our galaxy) and as you yourself describe the Hill prediction as 'approximate', I am loath at this point to put a lot of weight on it.


(EDITED TO NOTE: I just looked up the Betty & Barney Hill 'episode' and note that it was supposed to have occurred in 1961. It is my error that I had assumed that it took place circa 1974 as this is when the 'Astronomy' article was written according to trinitree88's post. As such, many of the objections that I raise above regarding dates become inappropriate and I withdraw them.)

TheBlackCat
2005-Nov-03, 02:50 AM
There is one massive assumption here that I do not consider valid unless it shown to be otherwise. Betty and Barney Hill claimed these things happened to them. They were supposedly abducted in 1961. However, it does not necessarily follow that they made those particular claims in 1961. They could have made them decades later. Even if they aren't lying, memory is a fickle thing and can be easily changed over the years to incorporate new information or outside events, especially when there is strong outside pressure.

Gillianren
2005-Nov-03, 08:56 PM
There's also the little detail that amnioscentesis (which I may have just spelled wrong) isn't a pregnancy test. It's a test done on pregnant women, but it is not a test to prove that someone is pregnant.

And, yes, I was wondering when they first "came forward" myself.

Faultline
2005-Nov-03, 11:08 PM
True Gillian, amniocentesis is only done when it is known a woman is pregnant. If a woman is without child, there is no amniotic fluid to test!

Wooo! Wooo! I hear it!

AGN Fuel
2005-Nov-03, 11:48 PM
My original objection was that the 'future technology' supposedly described was in fact not so. However, this was based on a misunderstanding on my part of the dates involved. Hence my retraction on that specific objection.

The statements from the Hill's were apparently taken after hypnosis sessions in 1962 (this is enough for me to have alarm bells ringing already, but that is another argument for another day). I haven't seen transcripts of these hypnosis sessions, so I can't comment on how accurately these claims have been reported in the morass of abduction sites that pollute the web.

Faultline
2005-Nov-03, 11:52 PM
If an alien did poke something into your abdomen, how would you know what the heck they were doing?

SolusLupus
2005-Nov-03, 11:58 PM
If an alien did poke something into your abdomen, how would you know what the heck they were doing?

Trick question! You would know they were poking something into your abdomen 'cause you'd feel it. While you wouldn't feel it while you're numb, you didn't say that you were numb while it occured.

HAH!

trinitree88
2005-Nov-04, 12:42 AM
Hi. Several posters have raised questions which might be answered by a read of the text, Incident in Exeter... by Raymond Fowler of Wenham,Ma. I once heard him speak to see what his demeanor was,..you can tell a lot in a personal meeting forum. He's straight about things, and was the one who catapulted Betty & Barney to fame. It is hard to sort out the needles of truth from the many haystacks of anecdotes...but they are there. Ciao. Pete.

eburacum45
2005-Nov-04, 08:50 AM
This case hinges on a hypnotic retreival of 'buried' memories, a technique which has very little credibility nowadays.

As I mentioned on this thread (http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=593510&postcount=4), I experienced a slight case of sleep paralysis myself, and saw an alien very similar to the one described by the Hills. I am sure that such images are very much influenced by popular culture, particularly films and TV; in that thread I gave examples of comparable alien images stretching back to H G Wells. Betty Hill is said to have been a fan of such films, including Invaders from Mars mentioned in the link.

Not it turns out that an episode of the Outer Limits was shown on TV in the states a few days after the so-called Hill 'abduction', but before the hypnotic regression took place; on that episode there was an alien which resembled the one decribed by the Hills -here it is (http://www.thirfg.demon.co.uk/homepage/webstuff/boleoshd.jpeg); I think we can probably trace the Hill's alien experience, and the predominance of the Grey alien image in UFO culture, to that particular image on an early 60's TV show.

I also have grave doubts about the so-called sketch map of Zeta Reticuli; the perspective seems way off. When I have time, I'll check it against the locations of those stars as determined by Hipparchos (using Celesta) and report back.

eburacum45
2005-Nov-04, 10:30 AM
A discussion of the Bellero Shield theory
http://www.csicop.org/sb/9409/eyesthat.html

GDwarf
2005-Nov-04, 12:17 PM
If I recall correctly, she simply drew some points on paper, said they were stars, and left it at that for her 'star map'. No names, no reference point, nothing. If that is correct (feel free to tell me if I got that wrong) then it's hardly amazing that they matched a pattern of some stars.

Faultline
2005-Nov-04, 01:24 PM
Trick question! You would know they were poking something into your abdomen 'cause you'd feel it. While you wouldn't feel it while you're numb, you didn't say that you were numb while it occured.

HAH!


What I meant was, if an alien comes at you with something that looks like a melon baller, how the heck are you supposed to know what kind of proceedure is going on? A doctor sticks a needle in me when I visit, but I won't know what its supposed to do unless he tells me.

And then I have to take his word for it!

SolusLupus
2005-Nov-04, 02:25 PM
Yeah, that's a point, I was just being silly. However, common sense can take over a bit.

If you're stuck with a needle, you can probably think that it's an injection. If you're injected with something and feel sleepy, then you know you've been injected with a sedative. If you wake up, then you'll know they didn't want you dead.


A melonballer, however, would be a lot more frightening, because there's only a couple uses I can think of for that kind of instrument, and they're all "ew". o.o;

A.DIM
2005-Nov-04, 04:08 PM
Here's an interesting review of a book explaining where people's beliefs about alien abduction come from. ...


Abduction by Aliens or Sleep Paralysis? (http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc817.htm)

I'm inclined to think either of two scenarios:

1. Sleep paralysis and too much tv.
2. Abduction phenomena are real.

trinitree88
2005-Nov-05, 01:35 AM
It's true memories fade: that's why we have pencils and paper. My recollection of the story was that Betty experienced a very painful needle test, and protested loudly to "them".
The reference to Barney saying that "they" told him they were taking a picture...came from a separate interview years later....I remember being surprised that it was not in the original book story.
The Marjorie Fish star map took her some time to construct. Parallax measures of nearby stars were known by then, and she constructed a three dimensional model using spheres suspended from strings from the ceiling...to scale , and then photographed her model to show the stereo effect. One orientation contained all but one of Betty's stars....the one discovered about six years later to be local. Quite a coincidence, don't you think? Ciao. Pete.

eburacum45
2005-Nov-05, 08:42 AM
Using the much more accurate data available from the Hipparchos catalogue (as shown in Celestia) I have been entirely unable to reproduce the Fish star map; the named stars cover a much wider part of the sky than implied in the Fish map as seen from the vicinity of Zeta 2 Reticuli, so it seems the locations she was working with were wrong in the first place. It appears that the resemblance between the Hill diagram and the Fish map was almost certainly a coincidence.

GDwarf
2005-Nov-06, 01:35 PM
It's true memories fade: that's why we have pencils and paper. My recollection of the story was that Betty experienced a very painful needle test, and protested loudly to "them".
The reference to Barney saying that "they" told him they were taking a picture...came from a separate interview years later....I remember being surprised that it was not in the original book story.
The Marjorie Fish star map took her some time to construct. Parallax measures of nearby stars were known by then, and she constructed a three dimensional model using spheres suspended from strings from the ceiling...to scale , and then photographed her model to show the stereo effect. One orientation contained all but one of Betty's stars....the one discovered about six years later to be local. Quite a coincidence, don't you think? Ciao. Pete.
All the same, did she ever give them a name? Or say where they'd be found in the sky? Odds are that if I hung 3 balls from a mobile and claimed they were stars I'd be able to find a group of stars that matched that configuration almost exactly, it's not hard to do with so many of them out there.

Also, apparently they'd only look that way from Earth, which she couldn't have seen them from, as such I think it is incredibly likely that it was a co-incidence.

bart5050
2008-Jun-14, 03:35 PM
Having a recent interest in UFO's I have endeavoured to learn more about the subject. I find the persistance and scope of reports compelling.

Learning what I can of the phenomena would be incomplete without studying the abduction as well. One comment I have seen is that abductees are all kooks and people with mental problems. Another is that scientist never report abductions or UFO's. I have found references that refute this.

Karla Turner held a PHD and tought college courses. Now deceased from cancer. She sought to determine why she and her husband seemed to suffer from stress symptoms when their lives were happy and accomplshed. She kept a journal and was shocked at her discoveries. She wrote three books on the subject. Into the Fringe documents her personal discovery. Taken was a case study of eight women.

Her books are out of print but are available for pdf down load at this web site. They are not huge books and can be read in a reasonable time frame.

http://www.karlaturner.org/

If you want to debate or form opinions on the subject make them informed opinions. What better source than a first hand account from a well educated person with first hand experience. Having a carear as an educator made her well qualified to document and relate her experience.

Swift
2008-Jun-14, 04:04 PM
What better source than a first hand account from a well educated person with first hand experience. Having a carear as an educator made her well qualified to document and relate her experience.
I would think completely independent witnesses, armed with video cameras, would be much sources (maybe backed up with some nice radar tracking), than a person who well after the fact "remembers" some "abduction".

gzhpcu
2008-Jun-14, 05:05 PM
Before even going into any discussion, just a side remark: This is linked to the UFO question and the Extraterrestrial Hypothesis (ETH). If the ETH is valid, then there might be something to abductions by aliens. If the ETH is not valid, then the abductions are not alien-related. Up until now, the ETH has not been proven valid.

JayUtah
2008-Jun-14, 05:33 PM
In that Karla Turner's academic expertise was in Old English studies, I fail to see how it applies to the subject matter. Also note that she co-authored some of her works with noted psychics.

Please explain why these works should appeal to the skeptic as a scientific or scholarly approach to abduction.

John Jones
2008-Jun-14, 06:02 PM
In that Karla Turner's academic expertise was in Old English studies, I fail to see how it applies to the subject matter. Also note that she co-authored some of her works with noted psychics.

Please explain why these works should appeal to the skeptic as a scientific or scholarly approach to abduction.


Indeed.

Bart, your appeal to her education is a logical fallacy known variously as an Appeal to Authority, or an Appeal to False Authority.

Your arguments on the ETH have been free from logic through post after post. Is there any reason to believe this will be any different?

captain swoop
2008-Jun-14, 06:45 PM
Well, she had a PHD! What more do you want?

gzhpcu
2008-Jun-14, 08:06 PM
Well, she had a PHD! What more do you want?

Well, she even wrote a book on Reptilians and is lauded by David Icke....

John Jones
2008-Jun-14, 08:09 PM
I stand corrected.

bart5050
2008-Jun-14, 08:59 PM
Please explain why these works should appeal to the skeptic as a scientific or scholarly approach to abduction.

Being an educator with a phd she took an approach of accepting nothing on face value. If you don't want to read the books you can watch the 4 segment 2 hour vid.

1. She states you can accept nothing on face value.
2. She attempts to correlate stories looking for facts.
3. She stipulates who the manipulators are is unknown, aliens assumed as possible source but not proven.
4. If you listen to her lecture she makes her approach and relevence clearer than I can.

Watch the first one, find nothing relevent then don't watch the rest. I discovered her work about 4 days ago. I am researching the subject because I know so little about it. So I thought I would check and see what had been discussed here, as well as other forums.

I found her approach remarkable because;

So much of what I have started to read I put down quickly. It became obvious many researchers were cherry picking the facts to fit their agenda.

She took the approach of censuring nothing, accept nothing on face value, correlate simularities. She was a critical thinker who tried at first to reject where the investigation was taking her. She tried to find it all was explainable as a mental condition, but found the truly mentally ill people in treatment or institutions did not exhibit anything even close to what the abduction people reported.

I did not start this post, make no claims, have no need to defend.

I just suggest that she takes a science minded approach, which many authors clearly do not. If you have an opinion, make it an informed one and evaluate her lecture video. She pretty much summerizes her thoughts there. She offers what thoughts can be directed towards the abductors as a defense. Points out how the abductors play into the belief systems of the abducted. Points out the alien or government connection is not proven.

bart5050
2008-Jun-14, 09:10 PM
Your arguments on the ETH have been free from logic through post after post. Is there any reason to believe this will be any different?

That is a matter of opinion. And I posted reference to her work and not mine. Suggest you evaluate her work, which has absolutly nothing to do with your opinion of me.

After watching her vid I would find it worthy to read your posts and opinion.
If you do not wish to spend the time, then you are just making skeptical noise of uninformed bias.

JayUtah
2008-Jun-14, 09:35 PM
I did not start this post, make no claims, have no need to defend.

They why are you defending? Why do you care what we say?

Knock off the passive-aggressive approach. It's really getting old.

I just suggest that she takes a science minded approach, which many authors clearly do not.

But you aren't sure what a "science-minded approach" might be. Remember that you told us your knowledge of scientific method was limited.

If you have an opinion, make it an informed one...

...says the admitted non-scientist trying to tell everyone that a certain person's work is scientific-minded. BAUT's readership is generally not a group you can easily accuse of being poorly informed.

JayUtah
2008-Jun-14, 09:44 PM
That is a matter of opinion.

No it isn't. You simply deny the logical analysis of your work. As I've repeatedly said: illogic is as it is.

And I posted reference to her work and not mine.

You told us this was the work of a well educated person, whom you believe approached the subject with appropriate scientific rigor. I assume you believed this would appeal to a skeptical audience. Turns out this person's education had nothing to do with the work you ask us to consider, and in fact nothing to do with science. (PhD degrees in literature do not generally require a scientific method.) Turns out this person left academia to pursue "woo-woo" topics full time, and was successful at it.

That was your basis of recommending this author's work among all others. But now there's a serious doubt for that basis; you misled us. And so the worthiness of further attention to it is now the question.

But now you change horses and demand it simply be taken at face value.

You urge us to inform ourselves. I suggest you take your own advice and inform yourself on the credibility and qualifications of your sources before you undertake to advocate them.

bart5050
2008-Jun-14, 10:24 PM
You urge us to inform ourselves. I suggest you take your own advice and inform yourself on the credibility and qualifications of your sources before you undertake to advocate them.

Ever the skeptic. Not sure I believe in the abduction phenomena as real either. Know sleep paralyses is not a good explenation. That can happen anytime you are rudely awakend from rem sleep. Have undergone that and guess what, did not hallucinate aliens. Just took me too long to get motor function back and chase the burgler out of the house.

I called attention to her work because she was a victim with education. Not a kook or a psychotic. The phenomena cannot always be attributed to someone with issues. She became a researcher to understand her own experiences. She was forced to this because she could get no help from the science community.

She kept a journal and documented her experience. Was it real or imagined? I don't know, judge that for yourself. To me it reads like a rational person confronted with a reality that had no rationality. I would equate it to a sufficiently adavanced technology seeming to be magic hypothesis.

Knew I could count on you. Could have written your response myself. If she became a researcher just to write a book, your response would have merit. She became a researcher to understand her own experiance, wrote a book to document what she found.

Facts are stubborn things. They just keep popping up no matter how much you try to ignore them. Even when they cannot be placed into your scientific approach, they still refuse to go away.

John Jones
2008-Jun-14, 11:51 PM
Your arguments on the ETH have been free from logic through post after post. Is there any reason to believe this will be any different?

That is a matter of opinion. And I posted reference to her work and not mine. Suggest you evaluate her work, which has absolutly nothing to do with your opinion of me.



It's a matter of fact, not opinion, that you have failed to provide logical arguments for your beliefs on other ETH/CT threads.

You don't seem to understand the concept of logical arguments, and now you have made an appeal to authority to someone with a PhD in Old English, who collaborates with psychics.

The fact that you post references to some author of dubious qualification in no way demonstrates a command of logical arguments on your part.

The fact that you continue to make logical fallacies with nearly every post does nothing to encourage me to follow your links.

But, hey! I admire you for attempting to answer the questions put to you.

astrophotographer
2008-Jun-15, 12:45 AM
Not sure I believe in the abduction phenomena as real either. Know sleep paralyses is not a good explenation.

And what makes you qualified to determine that it is not a good explanation? Your personal experience may be different than those that have alien abduction stories. Maybe you should read Susan Clancy's book on the subject. There is a reference to it here:

http://www.csicop.org/si/2006-02/abducted.html

I have read Clancy's book, have you?

If you do not like Skeptic books, read Kevin Randle's book (which abduction proponents also dislike).

http://www.amazon.com/Abduction-Enigma-Investigation-Alien-Phenomenon/dp/0312867085

I think a lot of respected and learned people feel that sleep paralysis is a pretty good explanation for some/many abduction reports. I believe Clancy is part of the psychology department at Harvard. That sounds pretty respectable and qualified to me.

Of course, some of these people could be just plain lying. It is my opinion that Walton (failed polygraph test) and Ed Walters (Gulf Breeze saga) are two examples that probably fit in this category.

bart5050
2008-Jun-15, 12:45 AM
You don't seem to understand the concept of logical arguments, and now you have made an appeal to authority to someone with a PhD in Old English, who collaborates with psychics.

Consider her dilemma as she presents it to be. Where would you suggest she turn to for answers to cope with something that was disrupting her life so profoundly?

Consider that the source of disruption had so much power over perception that it seemed to make her percieve whataver it wished. When she sought help from traditional sources she encountered only skeptics and dismisal.

Being the phenomena had such a profound control over psychic perception, where should she explore an explenation.

You also assume her collaberation with a psychic as damning without considering the merits? ** She chose this as a case study because the psychic was as powerless as anyone else. It clearly established that the phenomena was outside the psychic influence. Psychic, college professor, redneck or educated. The phenomena is not limited to any group or qualification.

You base the merit of the information on your assesment of me. That isn't science, thats denial pseudoscince.

Also I find as sgnificant the beginning premise and conclusion of any scientific study made is the same. Defense significance.

And that argument clearly fails by definition. That the phenomena is growing in scope, profoundly disrupts peoples lives, leads many to believe the government as co-conspiritors, severly modifies peoples belief systems, and disrupts their lives leading many towards stress and psychotic breakdown.

Just by virtue of its impact on society it is of defense significance regardless of the underlying cause.

Sorry I disturbed you. Put your head back in the sand. We are being farmed by an entity of such technological superiority that our government is as powerless as its citizens. Denial and cover up is the only mechanism governments have found to mantain any semblence that they are in control of our defense.

At least Karla Turner found a coping mechanism and established an emotional stance that was diruptive of the illusion the entities try to cast over their subjects. Anger seems to be an emotion that makes it more difficult for the entities to keep virtual reality illusions intact.

Finding something that makes a difference. How is that not science?

Maksutov
2008-Jun-15, 03:02 AM
You don't seem to understand the concept of logical arguments, and now you have made an appeal to authority to someone with a PhD in Old English, who collaborates with psychics.

Consider her dilemma as she presents it to be. Where would you suggest she turn to for answers to cope with something that was disrupting her life so profoundly?...This post illustrates a logical fallacy found in the set "fallacies of relevance", from its subset "irrelevant appeals", specifically the "appeal to pity". It's a favourite among lawyers and politicians.

bart5050
2008-Jun-15, 03:24 AM
This post illustrates a logical fallacy found in the set "fallacies of relevance", from its subset "irrelevant appeals", specifically the "appeal to pity". It's a favourite among lawyers and politicians.

Doesn't necesarily invalidate how she felt in her frustration and feelings of helplesness. Putting a label on something does not invalidate it.

This is a common skeptic tactic. Defining something by tactic or example automaticly invalidates the argument by inference.

Maksutov
2008-Jun-15, 03:39 AM
This post illustrates a logical fallacy found in the set "fallacies of relevance", from its subset "irrelevant appeals", specifically the "appeal to pity". It's a favourite among lawyers and politicians.

Doesn't necesarily invalidate how she felt in her frustration and feelings of helplesness. Putting a label on something does not invalidate it.It invalidates it as being a logical, scientific argument.
This is a common skeptic tactic. Defining something by tactic or example automaticly invalidates the argument by inference.See the above.

Thank you for helping substantiate my point even further.

bart5050
2008-Jun-15, 03:39 AM
Any sufficietly advanced technology. This precludes any physical evidence of proof and any evidence of proof against.

This leaves only ancedotal evidence as any possibility. One voice without relevent references makes a delusion.

Many voices as eyewitness accounts, research papers and published books, with a long documented history, makes a phenomena.

bart5050
2008-Jun-15, 03:59 AM
See the above.

Thank you for helping substantiate my point even further.

Thank you for substantiating my argument. Discounting emotional state as being scientific evidence. You just invalidated the entire field of psychology as being scientific. Guess you better invalidate all those phd's psychiatrists hold, amd close that branch of unversity study.

JayUtah
2008-Jun-15, 04:17 AM
Ever the skeptic.

Thank you. I don't play games. My approach to these questions is consistent because I believe it is the right approach and is well-founded in logic, investigative technique, and epistemology. You may expect such consistency in the future. And since you anticipate my questions, please go ahead and provide the information you seem to know I'll ask for.

Knew I could count on you. Could have written your response myself.

You're good at ridiculing answers, but not as good at addressing the reasons behind them.

I called attention to her work because she was a victim with education.

And my education is chopped liver? Unlike she, I have been trained in investigative method. Yet you don't seem to think my education, intelligence, and skill are worth anything that you need to pay attention to. You just write me off as a die-hard skeptic and ignore every reason I give for not buying your hogwash.

You're trying to trump her up as something more than any of dozens of abductees telling their stories on the fringe media circuit.

Not a kook or a psychotic.

Well look at the company she kept and collaborated with.

The phenomena cannot always be attributed to someone with issues.

Nor is there any reason to attribute it to imaginary space invaders, which is what is being done. You forget that part. Not only did she write about her experiences, she wrote about what the aliens are going to do to us. Horror! Makes for a pretty gripping story.

She kept a journal and documented her experience. Was it real or imagined?

Doesn't matter; it's just not science.

If she became a researcher just to write a book, your response would have merit. She became a researcher to understand her own experiance, wrote a book to document what she found.

She wrote several books, including one describing the political and social agenda of the abductors. She became a professional fringe author. I don't see where she "became a researcher" in the sense of acquiring any understanding or expertise in how to investigate what she describes. I see where she quit her job teaching Old English literature at a university, claimed she'd been abducted by aliens, and spent the rest of her life talking about alien abductors.

You don't consider the possibility at all that she's just making it all up to get attention.

Facts are stubborn things. They just keep popping up no matter how much you try to ignore them.

And where might I find these facts?

Even when they cannot be placed into your scientific approach, they still refuse to go away.

You really hate science, don't you. It takes away all your toys.

JayUtah
2008-Jun-15, 04:18 AM
Discounting emotional state as being scientific evidence.

Of what?

JayUtah
2008-Jun-15, 04:20 AM
Doesn't necesarily invalidate how she felt in her frustration and feelings of helplesness. Putting a label on something does not invalidate it.

Attributing it to space aliens without proof does.

JayUtah
2008-Jun-15, 04:37 AM
Where would you suggest she turn to for answers to cope with something that was disrupting her life so profoundly?

Red herring. She said it was space aliens. I want proof of those aliens.

When she sought help from traditional sources she encountered only skeptics and dismisal.

So she decided to sell a book to the fringe crowd. (Hint: to appeal to the fringe, always say you were rejected and ridiculed by the mainstream.)

You also assume her collaberation with a psychic as damning without considering the merits?

You assume there is merit to psychics.

Psychic, college professor, redneck or educated. The phenomena is not limited to any group or qualification.

So why did you mislead us and direct us only to the work of the college professor -- the respectable person -- and not the rednecks or charlatans (er, um, psychics).

You simply believe hook-line-and-sinker that all this self-proclaimed hokum is real. Okay, let's say for the sake of argument that there is an external cause. What do a redneck, a college professor, and a psychic all have in common? Might it be most obviously that they are human? Therefore mightn't the result most parsimoniously be attributable to some property of being human? Why must we invent space alien invadors and secret government coverup conspiracies for which there is no evidence? That's as unparsimonious as it can be. Yet that's exactly what she does.

You base the merit of the information on your assesment of me. That isn't science, thats denial pseudoscince.

You told us (twice) that the merit of the information was in the properties of its presenter -- chiefly education. You advocated it in particular to us skeptics on that basis. Then we find you misled us about that basis.

Now, again, I ask you what makes this story -- which you've advocated -- any better than any of the other abductee tales that we might read?

Also I find as sgnificant the beginning premise and conclusion of any scientific study made is the same.

Please stop trying to lecture everyone on how science works. There is absolutely no science in the approach this author has taken.

That the phenomena is growing in scope, profoundly disrupts peoples lives, leads many to believe the government as co-conspiritors, severly modifies peoples belief systems, and disrupts their lives leading many towards stress and psychotic breakdown.

Are all such symptoms being caused by invisible space aliens?

Sorry I disturbed you. Put your head back in the sand. We are being farmed by an entity of such technological superiority that our government is as powerless as its citizens.

Whatever happened to "I'm not making any argument?" See, this is why no one takes you seriously. You try to defuse criticism by saying you're not taking a stand. Then you take a stand. This passive aggression is really getting old. You've used it in every topic you've raised.

Finding something that makes a difference. How is that not science?

If I steal all your money and leave you to starve, I'll have made a difference in your life. But why would that be science?

JayUtah
2008-Jun-15, 04:53 AM
Any sufficietly advanced technology. This precludes any physical evidence of proof...

Appeal to magic, and blatantly circular.

Many voices as eyewitness accounts, research papers and published books, with a long documented history, makes a phenomena.

Documenting a repeated effect does not substantiate a hypothesized cause. You demonstrate no understanding whatsoever about how science works.

Science isn't just some religion with arbitrary rules. Science is the body of understanding we've acquired into how, when, and by modes of reasoning a defensible and substantial conclusion may be drawn. The acquisition of that understanding occurs by trial and error. Repeating the known errors simply because they give you the answers you want doesn't constitute a valid dissenting opinion.

bart5050
2008-Jun-15, 05:07 AM
You really hate science, don't you. It takes away all your toys.

Wrong, I love science. Hate it that science is in denial, or is that just for public denial. I would bet the phenomena is in very serious classified study. The defense implecations are too big to ignore.

Of what?

Good question. Unfounded fears = paranoia.

In her case, motivation to research. Having a phd in english did not qualify her for research in physics. The act of obtaining that phd gave her the tools and methodology for conducting research. She researched the human and emotional aspects of the phenomena.

Established that it was not unfounded paranoia. Established that psycic and new age philosophy of the abduction phenomena was a form of denial and wishful thinking.

Doesn't matter; it's just not science.

Documentation by journal has a long established historical presedence in scientific study. Darwin kept one.

Nor is there any reason to attribute it to imaginary space invaders, which is what is being done. You forget that part. Not only did she write about her experiences, she wrote about what the aliens are going to do to us. Horror! Makes for a pretty gripping story.

Wrong. She did not claim alien. Clearly stated there was no proof as to source. Also made no predictions of what they were going to do. She documented what was being done. She dispelled the notion of applying purpose or intent, stated the facts as she found them in blunt reality of action.

You don't consider the possibility at all that she's just making it all up to get attention.

No I do not. She just didn't fit that profile.


I did not post this to get into a long discussion of merit. Expected exactly the response that I got. Obviously you continue to post from position of judgement according to your paradeim.

Have you actually read her work?

Did you actually listen to her lecture?

At least listen to the lecture in its entirety. Two hours well spent. Then you can have a reasonable assesment of value. Your arguments against will have a ring of validity.

At this point you sound like a computer program incapable of considering anything outside of programming. Argument by rote. Do you write those documents the government uses to deny? The evidence suggest they take it very seriously in secret. It is public denial that counts.

And yes, people like Karla Turner have convinced me that there is indeed a denial at work. Did not feel that way when I embarqued on this journey of discovery. Now I do. This aspect went from a possibility to a necessity for me. They have to.

Reading her work I was saying hmm, maybe. Watched her lecture and decided her demeaner and assessments were hard cold fact, devoid of spiritual interpretation many like to apply. The spiritual aspect others applied frankly irretated me.

Do not see it as a horror story for good reading. See it as an application of our own morality. Absolute power does corrupt absolutly. And so does technology so superior that the purveyers of such are elevated to absolute power.

Love science. Believe that one day we will have enough to put our foot down and dictate our own terms.

bart5050
2008-Jun-15, 05:17 AM
Repeating the known errors simply because they give you the answers you want doesn't constitute a valid dissenting opinion.

Disagree. Didn't get the answers I wanted. Hoped to find some reason to believe we could aquire new technology that would bring a leap. No longer believe that to be possible. The disparity is to great. We have too far to go in game of catchup. Need more evolution and technology just to throw the collar off.

Sam5
2008-Jun-15, 05:26 AM
This case hinges on a hypnotic retreival of 'buried' memories, a technique which has very little credibility nowadays.

As I mentioned on this thread (http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=593510&postcount=4), I experienced a slight case of sleep paralysis myself, and saw an alien very similar to the one described by the Hills. I am sure that such images are very much influenced by popular culture, particularly films and TV;


One of the first “grays” was shown in “Earth vs the Flying Saucers” in 1956:

http://i27.tinypic.com/30uq0ig.jpg

“Invaders from Mars” (1953) has scenes of alien abduction and medical examinations of humans on a medical type slab-table aboard a flying saucer, people put into a trance, and electronic implants placed in the backs of people’s necks:

http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Hills/3411/poster.jpg

http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Hills/3411/image16.jpg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-A-EdC2Glk&feature=related

“The Man From Planet X” (1951) has alien abduction, people put into a trance, and a spaceman that looks like a “gray”:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h7kEf-rW7ks

Kids can see these films as young children, 2, 3, or 4 years old, and they won’t understand them, but they’ll remember some of the images from the films all their lives. But later they will forget where they learned of those image. Some people will think they might have dreamed them. Others will think they are some kind of mystical supernatural images placed in their minds. Others will fear the mental images, especially if they never see the films again and never recall where the images and concepts originated.

bart5050
2008-Jun-15, 06:51 AM
Kids can see these films as young children, 2, 3, or 4 years old, and they won’t understand them, but they’ll remember some of the images from the films all their lives. But later they will forget where they learned of those image. Some people will think they might have dreamed them. Others will think they are some kind of mystical supernatural images placed in their minds. Others will fear the mental images, especially if they never see the films again and never recall where the images and concepts originated.

I grew up watching Twighlight Zone, Outer Limits, and Bugs Bunny with Marvin the Martian. I have to my knowlege ever seen an alien, never really gave it much thought till sometime last year, or really ever saw them in my dreams. Didn't ever expect to see big funny rabbits. Loved horror shows too as a kid, never seen a vampire or considered them real.

I find just the opposite. Film makers don't make films without a box office appeal. Big investment to make on a subject to which the film audience has no interest or means to relate. They make films based on what is already a subject of interest within the audience. Box office dollars rule. Historical precedence was long established before the first radio show or even the first alien novel.

I am sure there are some whose imaginations were inspired. And there will always be some who have a loose connection to reality. However there are very few mental patients who have the I see aliens syndrome.

You make a statement in support of your paradeim that has no research or supporting studies other than an unfounded speculation by a few psycologist who have conducted no studies. Yet because others find it supportive of their beliefs they do not call your lack of scientific proof into question.

There is no correlation between mental aberration as to detatchment from reality and belief in alieans. Just the opposite. Most mental disorders have a distinct lack of aliens. It is more a lack of connection to society.

If suggestability in children were the major cause, there would be more correlation. There is none. ** is not objectionable when it supports the skeptical view?

Your belief systems are firmly entrenched. I did not post here to attempt to change them.

bart5050
2008-Jun-15, 07:16 AM
You told us (twice) that the merit of the information was in the properties of its presenter -- chiefly education. You advocated it in particular to us skeptics on that basis. Then we find you misled us about that basis.

Now, again, I ask you what makes this story -- which you've advocated -- any better than any of the other abductee tales that we might read?

Because of her approach to the subject. Others writing on the subject were only using aspects that supported some position they were advocating.

Her approach was from her experience as an educator. Gather the data and go where it leads. No conclusions made before evaluation. No choosing one set of facts over others to support an argument made.

She did her work at a time when UFOology was into a new age approach ie the aliens are here to help us. Her research clearly rejected this. What she showed was that the aliens were using the belief systems the abductee already had in place to support their virtual reality false memory screens.

And I keep using the word alien as a meaning of convenience. She also stated there was no proof of alien, interdimensional beings, or some long resident earthly entities.

Further she stated that there was no proof of different alien types. The Tall Whites, Reptillians, Insectoids or whatever seemed to be part of the memory screens used to hide the purpose from the abductee. Whoever they are, they can manipulate memory and perception to such proficiency that nothing could be taken on face value.

I find her work significnt because she approached it from a basis free of pre conception. Not particuarly comfortable with where it led. Not sure anybody is doing anything of comparable quality today.

But do believe the implications are significant enough that some clandestine research is likely being conducted somewhere. Believe that just because the shelves of the CIA is stacked with contengency what if plans for every possible scenario of world politics as well. Occasionally one comes to light that is embarasement because it does not fit actual political climate.

It would be remiss if something of such scope were ignored---and it turned out to be true. I think the truth is known, just not made public.

eburacum45
2008-Jun-15, 08:12 AM
One of the first “grays” was shown in “Earth vs the Flying Saucers” in 1956:

http://i27.tinypic.com/30uq0ig.jpg

“Invaders from Mars” (1953) has scenes of alien abduction and medical examinations of humans on a medical type slab-table aboard a flying saucer, people put into a trance, and electronic implants placed in the backs of people’s necks:

http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Hills/3411/poster.jpg

http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Hills/3411/image16.jpg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-A-EdC2Glk&feature=related

“The Man From Planet X” (1951) has alien abduction, people put into a trance, and a spaceman that looks like a “gray”:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h7kEf-rW7ks

Kids can see these films as young children, 2, 3, or 4 years old, and they won’t understand them, but they’ll remember some of the images from the films all their lives. But later they will forget where they learned of those image. Some people will think they might have dreamed them. Others will think they are some kind of mystical supernatural images placed in their minds. Others will fear the mental images, especially if they never see the films again and never recall where the images and concepts originated.

Excellent stuff, especially the 'Man from Planet X'. Thanks.

gzhpcu
2008-Jun-15, 12:10 PM
She did her work at a time when UFOology was into a new age approach ie the aliens are here to help us. Her research clearly rejected this. What she showed was that the aliens were using the belief systems the abductee already had in place to support their virtual reality false memory screens.

And I keep using the word alien as a meaning of convenience. She also stated there was no proof of alien, interdimensional beings, or some long resident earthly entities.

Further she stated that there was no proof of different alien types. The Tall Whites, Reptillians, Insectoids or whatever seemed to be part of the memory screens used to hide the purpose from the abductee. Whoever they are, they can manipulate memory and perception to such proficiency that nothing could be taken on face value.

This is pure speculation. Mysterious beings which can assume various forms by one means or another. A catch-all for different sightings. No proof whatsoever of these super beings, which are never witnessed by others. Many of the abductees are sincere. Do you feel that telling them that their abductions are real and caused by monsters, helps them in any way? Or does it augment their distress?


But do believe the implications are significant enough that some clandestine research is likely being conducted somewhere. Believe that just because the shelves of the CIA is stacked with contengency what if plans for every possible scenario of world politics as well. Occasionally one comes to light that is embarasement because it does not fit actual political climate.

It would be remiss if something of such scope were ignored---and it turned out to be true. I think the truth is known, just not made public.

This is an example of classical conspiracy theory mindset.

JayUtah
2008-Jun-15, 02:35 PM
Wrong, I love science. Hate it that science is in denial...

Hair split. Science takes away your toys, and you don't like that.

The act of obtaining that phd gave her the tools and methodology for conducting research.

Do you have a PhD? Have you ever done PhD study yourself? A PhD in Old English literature does not equip a candidate to do scientific research such as determining the likely causes of physical symptoms.

My duties at the University of Utah included evaluating the research, methods, and conclusions of PhD candidates. I'll keep my own counsel about what it means to get a PhD.

She researched the human and emotional aspects of the phenomena.

And concluded, in the end, that it was still space aliens performing experiments on humans while the government stood helplessly by.

Documentation by journal has a long established historical presedence in scientific study. Darwin kept one.

You confuse the collection of data with the principles of drawing conclusions from that data. Darwin did the later according to reasonably good principles of scientific inference. Turner did only the former, and then speculated wildly that it must be aliens.

Wrong. She did not claim alien.

"The one thing I can say, is that ... one thing I know I know: the evidence does show a massive, ongoing, long-term alien involvement with humans, and no one has a convincing explanation for it yet." --Karla Turner, International UFO Congres and Film Festival, 1993.

No I do not. She just didn't fit that profile.

So your assessment of credibility is based on profiling? That's a hoot. I based my assessment on her behavior and statements, not on what category I might have placed her in before I knew anything about her.

I sat through a two-hour lecture from her -- not the one you sent us to, but a different one -- in which she spoke to an audience of rapt UFO enthusiasts about why E.T. is messing with our lives.

I did not post this to get into a long discussion of merit. Expected exactly the response that I got.

Contradiction. We're discussing the merits of her work. Either you expected it or you didn't.

Have you actually read her work?

Have you?

In the lecture I heard, she specifically rejects the notion that all she should do is to collect data; and that she instead must draw conclusions in order "make this work exciting." She then went on to speculate about the reasons for alien involvement, considering absolutely no other possible explanation for the symptoms she and others had felt.

At this point you sound like a computer program incapable of considering anything outside of programming.

Thank you for profiling me and largely ignoring my arguments.

Do you write those documents the government uses to deny?

Thank you for accusing me of being part of your alleged government coverup.

And yes, people like Karla Turner have convinced me that there is indeed a denial at work.

Which is the drum you've been banging ever since your first arrival. At first the government was covering up secret alien bases on the Moon. Then they were covering up the truth of aerial sightings. Now they're covering up the truth of alien abductions. Every time the evidence beats you over the head and you concede it doesn't fit your handwaving du jour, you just move on to the next government coverup theory.

Love science. Believe that one day we will have enough to put our foot down and dictate our own terms.

I see. So you want science not to be independent, but to acquiesce to your wishes and confirm your beliefs?

JayUtah
2008-Jun-15, 02:45 PM
Her approach was from her experience as an educator. Gather the data and go where it leads.

That's not what all educators do. That's what scientists generally do, but she did not receive a scientific education, or educate toward scientific research. She taught about Old English literature. She spent her whole life reading and telling stories. Surprise, surprise: she found a more lucrative audience for stories.

What she showed was that the aliens were using the belief systems the abductee already had in place...

No, that's what she speculated. Nice and convenient. She still gets to believe in her space aliens, but tips her hat to some prevailing scientific notions then thought to explain some abductee encounters. She completely disregards Occam and postulates a completely foreign, completely unnecessary, and completely unevidence phenomenon to enable her predetermined belief in a cause.

And I keep using the word alien as a meaning of convenience. She also stated there was no proof of alien, interdimensional beings, or some long resident earthly entities.

Hair split. She refused to define alien up front. She then goes on to describe how these aliens must be behaving and acting in order to bring about her symptoms, and speculates on their motives behind that behavior. She doesn't hesitate to use the classic Gray in her illustrations.

It's nice that she admits there's no proof. But she still attributes all her woes and those of the other abductees to that cause for which there is no proof. How is that science?

I find her work significnt because she approached it from a basis free of pre conception.

Where do you get the notion that she is free from preconception? I see little else in her work.

But do believe the implications are significant enough that some clandestine research is likely being conducted somewhere.

Appeal to conspiracy.

Tomblvd
2008-Jun-15, 02:56 PM
Love science. Believe that one day we will have enough to put our foot down and dictate our own terms.

"(D)ictate our own terms"?

I cannot think of another statement that is more anti-scientific.

John Jones
2008-Jun-15, 03:23 PM
This resurrected thread went down in flames in short order.

Did anyone else noticed how Bart tried to absolve himself of any responsibility for his claims by stating that he didn't start this thread?

bart5050
2008-Jun-15, 03:33 PM
So you want science not to be independent, but to acquiesce to your wishes and confirm your beliefs?

Oh if only they would. But I suspect that science will go where the laws of physics and the cosmos dictate.

Ultimatly, It will not be bound by my limitations, or yours.

The UFO flap. The alien abduction flap. Something very real is at work here. And has been for a very long time.

I don't think my attempts at understanding it is more than speculation. Yours are no more informed, having done no research yourself.

I read and try to understand the official reports as well as research by people like Karla Turner.

You reject all that do not fit your paradiem.

Perhaps in the end the UFO flap will prove more to do with how the human mind works than anything else, but I wouldn't bet on that.

Have you ever read any part of this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhagavad_Gita

Interpretation of phenomina has been with us for a long time. Guess what. I didn't invent it, and it just refuses to bend to my will.

astrophotographer
2008-Jun-15, 03:39 PM
Many voices as eyewitness accounts, research papers and published books, with a long documented history, makes a phenomena.

You better start adding fairies, elves, bigfoot, the loch ness monster, witches, werewolves, etc. to your list of phenomena then. All have eyewitness accounts, published books, research papers (of a sort), and long documented histories. I don't believe any of them are true, do you?

BTW, what type of "research papers" are you talking about? How many actually appear in scientific journals. It is easy to write about "landing traces" or "alien implants" in the "Journal for scientific exploration". However, what about actual scientific journals that don't cater to wild "alien" ideas and demand a bit more from their articles. After all, they are journals for professionals and would like to have professionally written articles that intrigue and inform those reading the article. How many "research papers" have actually appeared in such journals?

astrophotographer
2008-Jun-15, 03:42 PM
Wrong, I love science. Hate it that science is in denial, or is that just for public denial. I would bet the phenomena is in very serious classified study. The defense implecations are too big to ignore.

I would bet it is not. History shows me correct (all previous studies basically state "waste of time") and the "defense implications" you discuss are actually zero. Are you suggesting that our technology is being reverse-engineered from captured alien spaceships or that our technology can be advanced by capturing one?

JayUtah
2008-Jun-15, 03:57 PM
I don't think my attempts at understanding it is more than speculation. Yours are no more informed, having done no research yourself.

Hogwash. We all know more about your sources than you do. You constantly imply that we are poorly informed, then constantly sidestep the examples showing that we aren't.

Further, I am beginning to detest your constant passive-aggressive flip-flopping. Take a stand or don't; but don't simply change your horse based on how well you think the discussion is going for you. You say now that you're only speculating. But not more than a few hours ago you were telling us we all had our heads in the sand.

Make up your mind.

You reject all that do not fit your paradiem.

No. You are constantly trying to make this a matter of ideology instead of evidence. You admit Turner has no evidence for the basis of her outlandish claims. That lack is why I reject her, not because I'm following some "paradigm."

Interpretation of phenomina has been with us for a long time.

And there are people who do it professionally for the benefit of all mankind. They are called scientists. There are also people who do it to the extent where they are legally liable for the correctness of their interpretations. They are called engineers. They have adopted methods that are proven to help ensure success. Those methods are not just following some "rules" or "paradigms," but are based on empirical feedback from success and failure.

When you are willing to adopt the rigor that others do when results matter, then perhaps you can argue to be taken as seriously as they. But if you're simply going to play at being a "researcher" then you will get little quarter from those you ridicule.

JayUtah
2008-Jun-15, 04:01 PM
Did anyone else noticed how Bart tried to absolve himself of any responsibility for his claims by stating that he didn't start this thread?

Of course. He is becoming quite adept at evading responsibility for his contributions and beliefs when the consequences become uncomfortable.

That's why I renew my impression that he's here only to get the standard "Rejected by BAUT because my ideas were too real for them," badge.

bart5050
2008-Jun-15, 04:21 PM
You better start adding fairies, elves, bigfoot, the loch ness monster, witches, werewolves, etc. to your list of phenomena then. All have eyewitness accounts, published books, research papers (of a sort), and long documented histories. I don't believe any of them are true, do you?

Any sufficiently advanced technology.

The human capacity for reasoning and deduction has been relativly unchanged for a long time. The ancient greeks proved this.

These are evidence that some manipualative memory screening technology is capable of playing into the current belief systems. Goblins from the dark ages.

The question is, does this false memory screening originate within the human psyche or is it external? There is ancedotal evidence for both, proof for neither.

Are you suggesting that our technology is being reverse-engineered from captured alien spaceships or that our technology can be advanced by capturing one?

I doubt that very much. Our advancements seem to originate from the hard work of dedicated researchers. Further, every technology we have has a parallel somewhere in nature.

If there were an avanced technology being employed that were capable of manipulating perception and memory, then. Recovering captured technology from us would be an easy application of such.

There is ample evidence that defense research has taken some unusual turns. Remote viewing was one. I do not think any possible avenue would be ignored. Defense by definition of objectives would have to consider all possibilities or risk extremly unpleasent surprise. All such research by definition of purpose would be classified.

It all again comes down to one question. Are the extraordinary reports that just keep coming in of internal or external origin?

The photos and vids I have seen suggest external. The lack of physical evidence suggest internal. The answer remains unresolved, but if it is like most things I have observed, it is likely some of both.

bart5050
2008-Jun-15, 04:50 PM
That's why I renew my impression that he's here only to get the standard "Rejected by BAUT because my ideas were too real for them," badge.

Wrong. It is too easy to let speculation become too ungrounded if you don't bounce them off a hard wall now and then. Like accepting all that KT's research implied without getting the skeptical review of her work. Accept some of your criticisms as valid. Reject some as need for you to debunk, as in applying motivation for story sells. Her motivations were sincere.

I found most English teachers in college very grounded and quite good at applying common sense reasoning and deduction. They expanded my horizons considerably.

JayUtah
2008-Jun-15, 04:51 PM
Any sufficiently advanced technology.

...is, yes, indistinguishable from magic. That does not mean all that cannot be distinguished from magic is therefore advanced technology. Bald-faced lies, if demanded to be true yet contradicted by evidence, would also be indistinguishable from magic.

The human capacity for reasoning and deduction has been relativly unchanged for a long time. The ancient greeks proved this.

The ancient Greeks, namely Aristotle in his On Sophistical Refutations, soundly repudiate the means by which you and the UFO enthusiasts go about their business. Those methods were wrong then, and they're still wrong. The human knowledge of good reasoning and deduction need not change when it is shown to be correct.

These are evidence that some manipualative memory screening technology is capable of playing into the current belief systems.

It may also be evidence that people trying to make a buck from gullible UFO enthusiasts are capable of coming up with pure speculation that incorporates contemporary trends in thinking. I might just as well say that Nargles interfere with my computer by mimicking software and hardware failures. Would you like me to sell you a Nargle Protection Plan for your computer? Only $1,000 a year.

The question is, does this false memory screening originate within the human psyche or is it external?

No. The question is whether the space aliens are doing this. There is a specific hypothesis on the table, if you intend us to follow Karla Turner as you originally requested. Defend it, not the vague, handwaving properties of the huge class of hypotheses from which it was drawn.

Our advancements seem to originate from the hard work of dedicated researchers.

Thank you. I hope you continue to enjoy them. Kindly refrain from ridiculing the methods we use to bring them about.

There is ample evidence that defense research has taken some unusual turns. Remote viewing was one. I do not think any possible avenue would be ignored.

Yet most have been ignored. Just because some pseudoscientific directions were once briefly taken does not mean all should be. The value to defense of remote viewing was proven to be zero, and the military has been generally laughed at by the public for having even considered it.

All such research by definition of purpose would be classified.

Thus explaining the absence of any evidence for that research -- argument from silence. Unfortunately such an absence would also be explained by the absense of the research itself. Affirmation of the consequent.

It all again comes down to one question. Are the extraordinary reports that just keep coming in of internal or external origin?

No. It comes down to whether aliens are abducting humans. You're shifting the goalposts.

I grow tired of these rhetorical games. You hijack a dead thread on alien abductions to post more evidence supposedly of alien abductions. Then when the source is shown to be the charlatan she is, and the topic thoroughly refuted, you try to fall back to some more general and more apparently reasonable position.

As I said before, you draw your opponents out into an extended and exposed position, then you abruptly fall back in order to convey the wrong impression that they have overextended themselves because of ideological reasons. Then you convert the discussion solely into one of ideology.

You have adopted this same approach on every single controversial topic you have raised here. You say you're here for "answers," but I see none of that in your approach. Your pattern of behavior has been repeated, by my count, three times always with the same result. What evidence can you provide that this is not your calculated intent?

bart5050
2008-Jun-15, 04:53 PM
Of course. He is becoming quite adept at evading responsibility for his contributions and beliefs when the consequences become uncomfortable.

Wrong again but not worth the nitpicking of detail.

JayUtah
2008-Jun-15, 05:04 PM
Wrong. It is too easy to let speculation become too ungrounded if you don't bounce them off a hard wall now and then.

I'm not buying this anymore. You've backpedalled like this three times now on three different topics. It's just an act.

Explain how "bouncing speculation off a hard wall" involves claiming the wall is underinformed or ideologically motivated. Indeed, how can any such intent be reconciled your attempts to discredit the wall? How can we buy this backpedalling after you accused the wall of having its head in the sand?

Like accepting all that KT's research implied without getting the skeptical review of her work.

Hogwash. You misrepresented not only her qualifications but also her conclusions. You told me specifically that she did not hypothesize her symptoms were the result of alien visitation, interference, and abduction. You told me specifically that she was only collecting data. Yet you have not addressed or reconciled the easily-located quotations from her own mouth establishing diametrically the opposite viewpoint.

After trying to take us to task for allegedly being unfamiliar with her work, I find your dismissal of our review to be in egregiously poor taste.

Reject some as need for you to debunk...

"Need to debunk." Still trying to discredit me by painting me as a hard-core skeptical ideologue! You constantly side-step my actual arguments in order to level these general, handwaving characterizations against me.

Which exact arguments I've made in this thread were made solely because of my "need to debunk," and what is the evidence that supports that characterization? This is a direct question for which I will compel you to provide an answer.

Her motivations were sincere.

I see no proof at all of this. Where is your proof of her sincerity?

Even so, what has this to do with the correctness of her method and the strength of her conclusions? Should we accept everyone's conclusions simply because we fail to account for them by a few common examples of malice?

I found most English teachers in college very grounded and quite good at applying common sense reasoning and deduction.

Common sense is not science.

I have been both a college student and a college teacher. I have both conducted and evaluated PhD research in scientific and technical fields. As I said, I will keep my own counsel about the value and content of those efforts. If you can demonstrate that your opinion is better or more squarely founded on fact, then perhaps I can consider it as more than handwaving.

JayUtah
2008-Jun-15, 05:09 PM
Wrong again but not worth the nitpicking of detail.

I disagree. If your speculation on your critics' motives is to continue to be used as a means of side-stepping their actual arguments and dealing with their content, then your rhetorical approach here is indeed on-topic.

Please explain why you've followed the same major pattern of argumentation here as you did in both the alien ship on the moon topic and the aerial sightings topic. Reconcile it with your stated motive simply to acquire answers. You tried to paint me as paranoid for seeing that pattern, yet I've shown how you just did it again by retreating from Turner's conclusions back to the general topic.

Now I am the one who wants answers, and the question is what you really intend to achieve by posting at BAUT. Your answer will determine how much further attention I determine is worth paying to you.

bart5050
2008-Jun-15, 05:09 PM
I really wanted an honest evaluation of her work and its implications. As in why her independent and unrelated subjects reported consistant stories. Why identical triangular marks of exactly the same size were found on the bodies after a dream state experiance. Why her whole family and anyone they associated with suddenly found themselves in the same phenomena. Mental abberration is not contageous.

I have an older brother in an asylum. His condition was evident from birth and was degenerative. Six boys and two girls in my family and guess what. None of the rest cought his condition. Nor did any of us believe his hallucinations or fantasy either. And being of a real disorder, it didn't involve aliens.

Instead of evaluationg her research on its evidence and conclusions, she was classed as woo woo and impuned as to motive. Excuse then established not to read and study the work, just to research and debunk the author.

I focused on her work. You focused on the source, as you point out that you know more about her than I do, and use this as excuse to ignore her work. Again it degenerates into debunking bart for being unscientific and of questionable motive, ignoring the issue.

You become quite predictable.

bart5050
2008-Jun-15, 05:15 PM
You become quite predictable.

Let me write the counter for you.

Predictable of sound scientific method.

Once the source has been discredited, consideration of their evidence and arguments are unnecesary.

JayUtah
2008-Jun-15, 05:23 PM
I really wanted an honest evaluation of her work and its implications.

Reconcile that statement with your misrepresentation of her qualifications and her credentials. Why would you misrepresent something you wanted evaluated honestly?

Instead of evaluationg her research on its evidence and conclusions, she was classed as woo woo and impuned as to motive.

No. I looked at her work and approach. I noted that she collected evidence of some effect, then simply speculatively attributed it to the actions of space aliens for which she admitted there was no evidence.

That is her line of reasoning, and it's indefensible. On that basis it was rejected.

In wondering why someone would make such a blatantly illogical statement, we note that there is a motive -- attention and money from UFO enthusiasts -- that also might explain her actions. And we find plenty of evidence for that motive. I find no evidence that her actions were the result of a desire to do good science.

I focused on her work.

You focused on her conclusions because they told you something you wanted to hear: that the government was covering up evidence of alien abductions about which they could do nothing.

You focused on the source...

No. You focused on the source, trying to establish her as a "well-educated" conscientious researcher who was not supposedly bothered by partisan or ulterior motives. You said her qualities as an "educator" validated the approach and conclusions.

We noted that your hype about the properties of the source was misplaced -- she was not properly credentialled. We then pointed out that the actual claims and methods she employed were also flawed, regardless of the nature of the source, and that you had misrepresented those too.

You become quite predictable.

That's because I am consistent.

JayUtah
2008-Jun-15, 05:25 PM
Once the source has been discredited, consideration of their evidence and arguments are unnecesary.

When the qualifications and credentials of the source are given as the assurance of proper method, and found to be lacking, then the method is indeed questioned as well as the results.

In addition, we have also considered the evidence and arguments. But you just ignore all that because it's so much easier to blame your car wreck of an argument on the hardness of the wall rather than upon your inability to drive.

bart5050
2008-Jun-15, 05:41 PM
noted that she collected evidence of some effect, then simply speculatively attributed it to the actions of space aliens for which she admitted there was no evidence.

So where in all this is your evaluation of the evidence she collected?

I find all your other arguments irrelevent rhetoric.

JayUtah
2008-Jun-15, 05:54 PM
So where in all this is your evaluation of the evidence she collected?

Anecdotal evidence. Commonality assumed, not proven.

The body of evidence itself does not suffer much beyond the natural problems with anecdotal evidence. What suffers is her consideration only of an unestablished explanation for the observed effect (space alien abduction and visitation) and her considerable development of that explanation along purely speculative grounds.

This suggests that that the conclusion was arrived at first, and the evidence simply backfilled against it. I find no indication whatsoever that she was led to the space-alien hypothesis by evidence, especially since she admits there is no prima facie evidence for that hypothesis.

I find all your other arguments irrelevent rhetoric.

Evasion noted. I have asked you several direct questions, including reconciliation of on-topic claims with the evidence I presented. Your continued participation here is contingent upon you answering them.

JayUtah
2008-Jun-15, 06:19 PM
In the quote from Turner that I reproduced above, the ellipsis indicates the omission of a phrase from her statement. I omitted it to improve the flow of the quote, but I think it's worth mentioning that what I omitted was Turner's emphasis that the conclusion she was drawing was not tentative ("...there are something things I think I know, and some things I know I know..."). Her conclusion that the data set she presented was explained without question by alien abduction and visitation.

No scientist draws a conclusion like that even from certain data, and definitely not from anecdotal data in which the causation cannot be determined.

You yourself said Turner admits there is no prima facie evidence for her hypothesis. You yourself claim Turner admits she has no evidence of the properties of the space aliens to which she attributes her symptoms.

You ignore all of that and simply point to some body of anecdotal evidence for some set of symptoms. Keeping a diary of them does not mean one's attempt to explain them is the right one. Hearing similar reports from others does not mean the attempt to explain them is correct.

Yes, let's agree that Charles Darwin kept a meticulous diary of his observations at Galapogos. But if Darwin then comes home and writes a book entitled, On the Origin of Species By Means of Their Having Been Blown From the Noses of Invisible Nargles, the means of collecting the data don't mitigate the absurdity of the conclusion drawn on them. He still has no basis for accusing the Royal Society of covering up the evidence of Nargles.

Sam5
2008-Jun-15, 06:29 PM
Kids can see these films as young children, 2, 3, or 4 years old, and they won’t understand them, but they’ll remember some of the images from the films all their lives. But later they will forget where they learned of those image. Some people will think they might have dreamed them. Others will think they are some kind of mystical supernatural images placed in their minds. Others will fear the mental images, especially if they never see the films again and never recall where the images and concepts originated.

I grew up watching Twighlight Zone, Outer Limits, and Bugs Bunny with Marvin the Martian. I have to my knowlege ever seen an alien, never really gave it much thought till sometime last year, or really ever saw them in my dreams. Didn't ever expect to see big funny rabbits. Loved horror shows too as a kid, never seen a vampire or considered them real.

I find just the opposite. Film makers don't make films without a box office appeal. Big investment to make on a subject to which the film audience has no interest or means to relate. They make films based on what is already a subject of interest within the audience. Box office dollars rule. Historical precedence was long established before the first radio show or even the first alien novel.

I am sure there are some whose imaginations were inspired. And there will always be some who have a loose connection to reality. However there are very few mental patients who have the I see aliens syndrome.

You make a statement in support of your paradeim that has no research or supporting studies other than an unfounded speculation by a few psycologist who have conducted no studies. Yet because others find it supportive of their beliefs they do not call your lack of scientific proof into question.


Hi bart,

This is a well known phenomenon in the media world, and among people who work in the media. They certainly know about it. I learned years ago that many auto magazines have strict rules never to show any photos of wrecked cars in their magazines, since it will implant the subconscious mental image of ‘WRECKED CARS!!!” whenever some people, in the future, read that magazine or think of buying a car that is advertised in the magazine. I could give you many other kinds of media examples.

This is a very common concept in psychology. One can subconsciously remember a real-life trauma but not remember it consciously, and one can subconsciously remember an ugly movie monster (or a drawing of a monster in a 19th Century adventure book) but not remember it consciously. Freud figured this out about the subconscious mind and its hidden memories more than a hundred years ago.

It was quite common when I was growing up for parents to tell their kids about certain movies or TV shows, “You’d better not watch that ‘cause it’ll give you nightmares.” And in some cases it did give kids nightmares. We kids discussed this, and we discussed what kinds of films we “couldn’t see” without having nightmares about some of the images.

I knew a guy who had a fear of putting his hand in dark places without first inspecting the places with a flashlight. He was afraid something would be hiding in the dark places that would bite his hand. It was an unreasonable phobia, and the guy knew it, but he had it anyway. Whenever he had to put his hand somewhere dark, such as under his sink to repair his plumbing, or in the trunk of his car at night to search for something he couldn’t see, he often saw a mental image of a man’s hand about to be put in a small hole in the ground under a rock. The hand in the mental image always stopped and hesitated. The guy saw this image as clear as remembering an image on any photograph, and he developed a phobia about putting his hand in dark places.

About 40 years later the man went to a revival showing of “Treasure of the Sierra Madre”, and in that movie, there was the image.... it was Humphrey Bogart about to put his hand under a rock where a Gila Monster was hiding. The man first saw this film when he was 6 years old. His mind remembered that one scene of Bogart’s hand hesitating before going under the rock, the scene lasted less than 2 seconds, but the mental image stayed with him for life, although he didn’t remember where he originally saw the scene or if had been a real-life scene, a movie scene, or a dream scene, not until he saw the movie again 40 or so years later.

Chip
2008-Jun-15, 06:56 PM
...he developed a phobia about putting his hand in dark places...About 40 years later the man went to a revival showing of “Treasure of the Sierra Madre”, and in that movie, there was the image.... it was Humphrey Bogart about to put his hand under a rock where a Gila Monster was hiding. The man first saw this film when he was 6 years old. His mind remembered that one scene of Bogart’s hand hesitating before going under the rock, the scene lasted less than 2 seconds, but the mental image stayed with him for life, although he didn’t remember where he originally saw the scene....

I saw "Treasure of the Sierra Madre" first as a kid (and later read the novel which is also very good,) but in my case, I learned to refrain from putting my hand under rocks in the desert or in dark corners of an old garage that has spider webs. Having lived in Arizona, I still shake out shoes if for some reason I have to reach inside. Except when in a shoe store. ;)

Extracelestial
2008-Jun-15, 07:13 PM
...On the other hand, they don't tend to be crazy...

Certainly true, but hardly relevant. It is not their sanity that is questioned but their ability to relay exactly their experience. And this experience has to be scrutinized as well.

When yo u look really close than you'll notice that alien abductions always touch something very profound in human existence: the integrity of oneself (being frisked), control over your destiny (being abducted) and fear (they're in the hands of others). These are issues that appear to be more related to psychology than to space faring.
Don't misunderstand me: I'm a big fan of space faring, I do believe that so much space as we observe must be inhabited by more than one species and there is an, albeit remote, possibility we have been visited, but these abduction stories look like just that: a nice yarn.
#1 How comes that aliens that are incapable of sexual intercourse (they're always need needles, don't they) with humans, not to speak about our, presumably mutual "un-attractiveness" try to get their way with us? They're very often grey, have no breasts or hips to speak of (which rates quite low on my "erotometer" last time I checked) so why should we be of any sexual interest to them?
#2 In a documentary about abductees and their fate it struck me how similar their pre-dispostion was: one was a stand-up comedian who specilized in self-depreciating acts and a woman who was abused in her childhood and still had vivid memories. Both were unable to carry on with their ordinary lives after the abduction. However, isn't this something one might expect given the ordeal they have been put through.
#3 And then there is plain old sleep: many a illusion may happen when awakening. I remember a night in my adolescence when I woke up in the middle of the night and saw something hellical shape rotate rigth before my bed: it took only a nick to vanish and I was scared ****less but twenty years I still recall the horror I felt in those few seconds.

This has nothing to do with people being too gulible but there are many processes running unnoticed within us even when we're wake) and when they surface we tend to label them as witches or aliens.

Extracelestial

bart5050
2008-Jun-15, 07:16 PM
This is a well known phenomenon in the media world

So there are cases where ancedotal evidence is considered proof. I don't think anyone would argue that music can influence mood.

However from reinforcing vague fears and changes in mood it is a speculative leap unfounded by proof that this causes a later in life abduction memory.

Sam5
2008-Jun-15, 07:21 PM
I saw "Treasure of the Sierra Madre" first as a kid (and later read the novel which is also very good,) but in my case, I learned to refrain from putting my hand under rocks in the desert or in dark corners of an old garage that has spider webs. Having lived in Arizona, I still shake out shoes if for some reason I have to reach inside. Except when in a shoe store. ;)

I live in the West too, and I’ve seen black widows hiding in dark places, so I’m careful to look for them before sticking my hand in a dark place. They don’t seem to like light places. But I know the origin of this concern, and of course it’s because I’ve actually seen the spiders myself. :)

bart5050
2008-Jun-15, 07:22 PM
Your continued participation here is contingent upon you answering them. Too many questions to go back and try to get them all. Ask the ones you specificly want answered and I will comply to my best ability.

What is your evaluation of the triangular skin lesions noted after a supposed abduction. They were measured and photographed and seemed to be consistant when they did appear, and on different persons, different settings, different times.

Sam5
2008-Jun-15, 07:50 PM
This is a well known phenomenon in the media world

So there are cases where ancedotal evidence is considered proof. I don't think anyone would argue that music can influence mood.

However from reinforcing vague fears and changes in mood it is a speculative leap unfounded by proof that this causes a later in life abduction memory.

Again I will tell you that this is a well-known phenomenon to people who work inside the media. Film directors have been using subconscious implanting methods on their audiences for many decades. I used the technique when I made documentary films. This is why the Nazis made documentaries in the 1930s showing scenes of rats and certain kinds of people. They made the audiences associate the people with rats. After a few years of this, every time people in Germany saw that type of person, they thought of rats.

Out of an audience of 1,000 people, I could make a dozen or so of them fear and loathe Shirley Temple, if I made a documentary about her and included a lot of scenes of rats. Adults can generally remember where they first saw such images, but kids under about 10 years old often can’t remember. Kids aged 2 through about 7 or 8 are likely not to remember. If I showed a bunch of kids a documentary about Shirley Temple, and included a lot of scenes of rats, many of them would go through their adulthood disliking Shirley Temple and not wanting to see Shirley Temple films, although they might not know why or remember why.

My point was that an “abduction memory” is only one of the many kinds of “repressed false memories” that a person can experience in life. Other people might think they were beaten as a child, when all that really happened was that, as a child, they saw a movie about some kid being beaten.

Back in the 1950s, “reincarnation” stories were very popular in the US, because of the book “The Search for Bridey Murphy”. Hundreds of people in the US reported to the media that they “knew” they had been “reincarnated” because they could “remember” some details about their “past life.”

But it turns out that some psychologists and psychiatrists who interviewed such “reincarnated” people, were able to learn that their false memories were based on some movie they saw as a kid. They didn’t really live in Ireland in the 18th Century, but as a young child they saw a movie about people living in Ireland in the 18th Century. They weren’t really in love with “a ghost named Cathy” in a “previous life”, they just saw the movie “Wuthering Heights” when they were 4 years old. Etc., etc.

astrophotographer
2008-Jun-15, 09:15 PM
What is your evaluation of the triangular skin lesions noted after a supposed abduction. They were measured and photographed and seemed to be consistant when they did appear, and on different persons, different settings, different times.

Feel free to give us case by case where the same exact marks are found. You say this because you apparently heard somebody state it as a matter of fact. I want cases and I want photographs for comparison. If you can not deliver these, then withdraw the claim and stop making claims that you can not back up with data/facts.

John Jones
2008-Jun-15, 09:36 PM
Hey Bart, I have some info that I think would really help you in the future.

This is my favorite WRT logical fallacies: http://nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

You'll have to go to the library for these:

The Logic of Scientific Discovery by Karl R Popper.

The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas S Kuhn.

You would be doing yourself a big favor by reading these.

But first of all, educate yourself on logical fallacies! You keep falling into the same traps, and it's exhausting the patience of our most patient veterans here.

HTH

JayUtah
2008-Jun-15, 10:56 PM
Too many questions to go back and try to get them all. Ask the ones you specificly want answered and I will comply to my best ability.

Cop out. You should have answered them when they were asked. I'm not going to repeat myself because you simply felt I was irrelevant.

What is your evaluation of...

Not likely to be alien abduction.

bart5050
2008-Jun-15, 11:21 PM
Not likely to be alien abduction.

Cop out.

JayUtah
2008-Jun-15, 11:58 PM
Cop out.

No, you're once again trying to shift the burden of proof, hoping you can bait someone else into speculating so that you will be off the hook.

You have made the allegations. Defend them. Or do we have to ask the moderators to intervene?

John Jones
2008-Jun-16, 12:15 AM
Not likely to be alien abduction.

Cop out.

Do you know that you have earned a reputation for parroting comments of other posters with no apparent understanding of their meaning?

bart5050
2008-Jun-16, 01:55 AM
First let me try to answer you question as I understand it. Relevence of work:

A person involved in the abduction experiance with a background as an educator. She attempted to document events as they occured and understand what and why of the phenomena. Being a part of the phenomena and not a researcher seeking to prove a point. She rejected and debunked the new age aproach of other researchers who sought a pre concieved meaning.

While the evidence is largely ancedotal, as she states, there was some physical trace evidence she documented as it occured. If you have any desire to understand the phenomena at all, then her unique perspective is a look inside the experience.

That the phenomena is real is undeniable, estimates are that four million people are affected in some way. Denying the existance and rubber stamping it as not scientificly quantifiable is not an understanding of why it is occuring.

Is it cultural, attention seekers, mental aberration, childhood fears expressed into adulthood, or a manifestation of some external stimulus. A look inside the experiance from someone with an educator background may yield some insight into explenation.

Unless you reject the premise of Clarke that any sufficiently... then it should be considered a possible example of how such technology would exhibit itself. Without evaluation or considering alternative explenation you immediatly class it as to what it cannot be. You make a statement of conclusion and offer no support for it.

Her work is a look at what documented evidence is available. You offer explenations that are largly ancedotal as well. Or class it as what it cannot be without any supporting argument.

Further you have exhibited the very reason why much of the ley community discounts science on this subject. You impune the person presenting the case, refuse to evaluate the work, and cite the motive of the source without proof of such motive.

Sam5
2008-Jun-16, 02:17 AM
First let me try to answer you question as I understand it. Relevence of work:

A person involved in the abduction experiance with a background as an educator. She attempted to document events as they occured and understand what and why of the phenomena. Being a part of the phenomena and not a researcher seeking to prove a point. She rejected and debunked the new age aproach of other researchers who sought a pre concieved meaning.

While the evidence is largely ancedotal, as she states, there was some physical trace evidence she documented as it occured. If you have any desire to understand the phenomena at all, then her unique perspective is a look inside the experience.

That the phenomena is real is undeniable, estimates are that four million people are affected in some way.


Bart, if I had a “dream” about being abducted by aliens, and if I woke up with strange marks on my body that I couldn’t explain, I’d call 911 and report it to the police and the local hospital. I’d photograph the marks and paste them all over the internet. I visit my dermatologist to see if she could figure out what caused the marks. I’d ask my doctor for a CAT scan. If it happened a second time, I’d call a press conference and notify all the media. I’d ask that anyone else who had had the same experience to come forward and call the police and the media.

If our doctors found anything unusual, indicating something other than a self-inflicted wound, they would notify the Center for Disease Control in Atlanta, the FDA in Washington, and the state health department. If several other unrelated people had the same marks and the same experience, the CDC, the FDA, the FBI, and the Department of Homeland Defense would immediately form task forces and send teams of investigators over to our houses to investigate the situation. The media would be setting up their satellite trucks in all our neighborhoods.

If 4 million Americans were having this same experience, the President would declare a National Emergency like what was done during the anthrax crisis several years ago. The National Guard would be called out. The US Army would be guarding all of our Canadian and Mexican borders. NORAD would be put on Red Alert. Doctors and scientists would be flying in from all over the world to try to find out what’s going on.

This type of “strange medical crisis” occasionally does happen, such as with the bird flu scare in Canada a couple of years ago, the hantavirus scare in the Southwest several years ago, and the anthrax scare up in NY and DC back around 2001.

There is another medical crisis in this country that some people fall victim too, and it is called "paranoia". You need to look up paranoia on medical websites and read about it.

astrophotographer
2008-Jun-16, 02:19 AM
Further you have exhibited the very reason why much of the ley community discounts science on this subject. You impune the person presenting the case, refuse to evaluate the work, and cite the motive of the source without proof of such motive.


I asked you to present the cases for your claims. You refuse. The "lay" community does not really matter and public opinion does not matter either. It is FACT that is important. You claim that people have been abducted and examined. There is not one iota of proof of this.

You have a foot doctor supposedly removing implants. Strange that not one has been presented as evidence. The foot doctor apparently is afraid to discover that the implants are not alien at all. People claim they are being abducted regularly. Yet not one has ever recorded such an abduction on videotape or bothered to get a security system to stop from being abducted. I read in one instance, that the aliens could not be videotaped because they are not visible to electronic equipment (the aliens can even walk through walls). In other reports, the aliens are performing a genetic breeding program. The list goes on and on.

Are you kidding me? Is this what you consider strong evidence? You keep saying that science is ignoring these things but science keeps asking "where is the evidence" and "present it so it can be examined". Nothing is presented and any evidence (implants, hairs, etc) is, instead, hidden from science. Then, these "keepers of the secret" get individuals like yourself to believe that science is not interested. I suggest you pay attention to the bilge you are being fed. Abduction researchers walk a very fine line. If this is a psychological problem, then they just make matters worse because they aren't helping. If it is a physical case of alien abduction, they aren't helping because they let it keep happening. I am not sure how you can praise that.

JayUtah
2008-Jun-16, 02:50 AM
Being a part of the phenomena and not a researcher seeking to prove a point.

And this is different than an alleged victim seeking to prove a point? Appeals to pity abound in both her and your arguments.

That the phenomena is real is undeniable...

Straw man. It is being attributed to alien abduction without any proof of that.

A look inside the experiance from someone with an educator background...

Handwaving. You have yet to establish that her background has anything to do with the validity of her conclusions or the soundness of her method.

Unless you reject the premise of Clarke that any sufficiently... then it should be considered a possible example...

Affirmed consequent. Asked and answered.

You make a statement of conclusion and offer no support for it.

I have drawn no conclusion. I have rejected as extremely unlikely your claim that the symptoms Turner identifies are the result of alien abduction. That rejection is predicated upon the total lack of proof of any such connection. It is your job to provide the evidence to satisfy it.

Or class it as what it cannot be without any supporting argument.

False. I have described numerous times that the lack of prima facie evidence -- which is stipulated by both you and Turner -- is grounds for not accepting your claims. You simply fail to understand even the most basic principles of scientific inquiry, so you don't understand why the absence of prima facie evidence is fatal to the hypothesis.

You have alleged the cause to be alien abduction. I dispute that cause because there is no proof for it. You still have the burden of proof. The disputer does not, and never can, accept a burden of proof for the negative, converse proposition.

You repeatedly attempt to assign a burden of proof to your critics when they express skepticism at your conclusion. We are not going to play that game anymore. Stop putting words in people's mouths, stop trying to shift the burden of proof; either prove or concede your claims without further delay.

You impune the person presenting the case, refuse to evaluate the work, and cite the motive of the source without proof of such motive.

False. I am not impugning the person; I am impugning the qualifications of the person, which was your stated basis for the insinuated strength of the claim. You presented Karla Turner's work as being worthy of special attention because she had a background which you alleged would assure a higher degree of reliability to her research. I specifically asked you that question, and you specifically answered it that way.

That worthiness has been challenged because her background was misstated and has now been determined to be irrelevant. When something is presented as expert research, the question of whether it's expert research is not only relevant, it's all that's relevant. Now you're backpedalling, because it's clear you haven't done the homework necessary to determine whether she really was qualified.

So in addition, her method and conclusions have also been examined independently of her alleged qualification. She states her principal conclusion (which you blatantly lied about) as an absolute certainty, something no scientific study does. She also states a conclusion based on absolutely no prima facie plausibility -- again something no scientific study does. She finally accuses the government of covering up alleged evidence that would supposedly prove her case -- something scientific inquiry does not do.

By one line of reasoning she has no scientific credentials or qualifications, yet she is playing at being a scientist. We may not therefore accept her findings as those of one learned in the field.

By a completely different line of reasoning, her findings and the methods by which they were reached violate several important precepts of scientific inquiry. We may not therefore accept her findings as well-formed science.

Justify why her work deserves further attention from fair-minded people.

bart5050
2008-Jun-16, 03:08 AM
Bart, if I had a “dream” about being abducted by aliens, and if I woke up with strange marks on my body that I couldn’t explain, I’d call 911 and report it to the police and the local hospital. I’d photograph the marks and paste them all over the internet. I visit my dermatologist to see if she could figure out what caused the marks. I’d ask my doctor for a CAT scan. If it happened a second time, I’d call a press conference and notify all the media. I’d ask that anyone else who had had the same experience to come forward and call the police and the media.

And you would find yourself given a pat on the back, assured that you are ok, and the interns and doctors would roll their eyes and snicker behind your back.

Same reaction I get on this forum.

I asked you to present the cases for your claims. You refuse. The "lay" community does not really matter and public opinion does not matter either. It is FACT that is important. You claim that people have been abducted and examined. There is not one iota of proof of this.

When did I refuse. I presented the work of Karla Turner. She documented the evidence.

If this is a psychological problem, then they just make matters worse because they aren't helping. If it is a physical case of alien abduction, they aren't helping because they let it keep happening. I am not sure how you can praise that.

As to letting it keep happening. I see person after person posting on forums asking what the [thinly disguised expletive deleted] is going on, and how can I stop it from happening. They are ignored or rubber stamped as kooks while remaining powerless to do anything about it. So far video cameras have recorded blank frames.

I have withstood a multitude of accusations, attacks on character, and phrases of parroting, pointed evaluation that I am incapable of rational thought, and general derision just for bringing up the subject. The victims and witnesses fold and go away with only one tenth the ridicule. I am in a safe position because I am not a witniss or an abductee and have enough confidence in myself that I just don't care what the opinion here is of me.

I presented a case study by someone who documented her work and refused to be a victim. Evaluate it or not, that choice is yours. My opinion is of little importance and I have nothing further to present.

Four million and counting. You can expect the subject will come up again from other sources. As for me.

I rest my case.
regards

bart5050
2008-Jun-16, 03:09 AM
Justify why her work deserves further attention from fair-minded people.

It doesn't

Have a good day.

JayUtah
2008-Jun-16, 03:13 AM
It doesn't

Very well; let's hear no more of Karla Turner.

Is there any other evidence you'd care to present in favor of your alien-abduction claims?

JayUtah
2008-Jun-16, 04:08 AM
I presented the work of Karla Turner. She documented the evidence.

You presented the work of Karla Turner as an expert. She was shown not to be an expert.

She documented evidence of something. She asserted unequivocally that it was evidence of alien abduction. There is no evidence presented either by her or by you that makes the connection between the effects she documented and the cause she demands must be true. She admits there is no evidence her preferred cause even exists as an actual, real phenomenon.

You simply put on blinders to all of that. As with the plasma phenomenon, you demand that an investigation be done exactly your way and no other way, regardless of whether your way is the right way.

So far video cameras have recorded blank frames.

Leading to the unparsimonious claim that space aliens must be invisible. At no time is the space alien hypothesis relaxed. The Nargles (er, um, space aliens) are simply redefined to have whatever form fits the observation. Blatantly circular.

I have withstood a multitude of accusations, attacks on character, and phrases of parroting, pointed evaluation that I am incapable of rational thought, and general derision just for bringing up the subject.

You have withstood nothing more than a test of your claims, the kind that we and others endure every day. If you are unaccustomed to that level of rigor, then that is unfortunate. Evidence was given for each claim made. I have little personal sympathy for accusations of hurt feelings after having been told that I'm a government shill with my head in the sand, simply for having given reasons for my disagreement with your claims.

If you believe you have been attacked unfairly, stop complaining and notify a moderator. Put your money where your mouth is.

I just don't care what the opinion here is of me.

Then stop complaining about it. The "poor, poor me" role has been done to death in pseudoscience circles.

I presented a case study by someone who documented her work and refused to be a victim.

You presented the work of someone whose credentials you misrepresented and whose conclusions you blatantly lied about. You said she had the credentials to make her study credible -- not true. You said she didn't jump to any conclusions about space aliens -- not true. As to "refusing to be a victim," she played the victimized role for the whole rest of her life, and even got people to pay her to talk about it.

Evaluate it or not, that choice is yours.

The evaluation is given. You simply refuse to deal with it. The problem is that it wasn't the straw-man evaluation you expected. No one fell into your trap, and now you're all out of ideas.

My opinion is of little importance and I have nothing further to present.

On any other topic? Or will we see a fourth act to your "The government is covering this up!" play?

I rest my case.

What case?

DALeffler
2008-Jun-16, 04:47 AM
Why would people abducted by aliens be returned?

Maksutov
2008-Jun-16, 05:09 AM
Justify why her work deserves further attention from fair-minded people.

It doesn't

Have a good day.Thought you tried to rest your case (again) in the prior post.
I rest my case.
regardsMeanwhile, as Jay pointed out, you can't rest your case until you have one.

Maksutov
2008-Jun-16, 05:14 AM
See the above.

Thank you for helping substantiate my point even further.

Thank you for substantiating my argument. Discounting emotional state as being scientific evidence. You just invalidated the entire field of psychology as being scientific. Guess you better invalidate all those phd's psychiatrists hold, amd close that branch of unversity study.Seems to be an echo in here.

Meanwhile, nice try at selling a sweeping generalisation based on a strawman. Actually it really wasn't even a good try.

Oh yeah, concerning
I found most English teachers in college very grounded and quite good at applying common sense reasoning and deduction. common sense ≠ good sense.

Stuart van Onselen
2008-Jun-16, 12:32 PM
Bart5050 is a diminutive supine representative of the genus Mustela. This is undeniable.

By stating my position (in a quote box, no less!) I have fulfilled the entirety of my responsibility with respect to proof. So now the onus is on Mr 5050 to prove otherwise.

astrophotographer
2008-Jun-16, 01:39 PM
When did I refuse. I presented the work of Karla Turner. She documented the evidence.

I asked you to back up your claim that the same skin marks were being found on different people. One case is not enough. Show me the photos of the marks and how they are identical from person to person. Case files please.




So far video cameras have recorded blank frames.


That in itself indicates it probably is not a physical issue. It is psychological. All you are doing is parroting the storyline you want to hear. I think psychologists are more interested in helping these people out and understanding the issue here. Unfortunately, the UFOlogists have got these people believing it is not psychological but physical. The abduction researchers make a name for themselves and the abductees receive no help at all in understand the true nature of the issue. To me that says a lot about abduction researchers. They are con men. You are just buying into the con.


Four million and counting. You can expect the subject will come up again from other sources. As for me.

I rest my case.
regards

Where have I heard that line before? I am not sure where the 4 million and counting comes from. Another made up number by abduction researchers/UFOlogists that you easily bought? Do you want to buy a bridge in Brooklyn? I can sell it to you real cheap. It's a steal.

ToSeek
2008-Jun-16, 02:12 PM
As to letting it keep happening. I see person after person posting on forums asking what the [thinly disguised expletive deleted] is going on, and how can I stop it from happening. They are ignored or rubber stamped as kooks while remaining powerless to do anything about it. So far video cameras have recorded blank frames.

Your frustration is understandable, but please don't use thinly disguised profanity on this forum as it's a rules violation (see Rule 3 here (http://www.bautforum.com/about-baut/32864-rules-posting-board.html)). Thanks.

ToSeek
BAUT Forum Moderator

bart5050
2008-Jun-17, 12:14 AM
Your frustration is understandable, but please don't use thinly disguised profanity on this forum as it's a rules violation (see Rule 3 here). Thanks.

Please excuse, it was a direct quote from another forum on abduction from a confused abductee seeking answers.

By stating my position (in a quote box, no less!) I have fulfilled the entirety of my responsibility with respect to proof. So now the onus is on Mr 5050 to prove otherwise.

You pose a conclusion without having done an analysis of my fur.

Why would people abducted by aliens be returned?

Do you shoot your sheep or keep them for next years wool. They are farming us.

Her husband now holds copyright to her work and makes it available at no charge. Motivation for profit is invalid.

Not opening this for more discussion. Just wanted to make sure purpose and intent was clear. Still no further evidence so concede ancedotal evidence does not meet your standards of proof.

regards

Joe Boy
2008-Jun-17, 12:55 AM
Hey Bart. Another spirited albeit ill fated thread. I assure you I am not trying to be a smart a-- here, nor am I talking down to you. I just for the life of me cannot understand how you can go from a person just interested in a new subject on June 14 to "they are farming us" on June 16. Most of your belief seems to be based on Karla Turner's experiences. I am a bit of a woo and I even find it hard to believe that this subject and the last on another thread (your sighting) is something you just became interested in. Have you participated on another forum regarding these issues? Just curious Bart--joe

Gillianren
2008-Jun-17, 01:09 AM
Do you shoot your sheep or keep them for next years wool. They are farming us.

For what? Further, most farmers keep their stock behind, you know, fences.

JayUtah
2008-Jun-17, 01:10 AM
Not opening this for more discussion. Just wanted to make sure purpose and intent was clear.

And how many times now is this that you've threatened to go away, and then come back to make sure everyone knew you were gone for real?

Oh, the drama!

Still no further evidence so concede ancedotal evidence does not meet your standards of proof.

By which I assume you mean that "our standards of proof" are unreasonable.

astrophotographer
2008-Jun-17, 02:26 AM
They are farming us.

I guess you have bought the whole abduction storyline hook, line, and sinker then. There is no evidence other than these stories that what is being told is true. Not one iota of evidence that has been tested! NOVA did a program "kidnapped by UFOs" about 10 years ago. Their webpage is very telling when it comes to physical evidence:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/aliens/wheresphysev.html

Some excerpts:

In interviews and in writing, and specifically in a letter sent October 17, 1995, we offered several abduction proponents the opportunity to have NOVA hire independent scientists to examine any physical evidence from a current case. We went so far as to offer to perform an MRI or other radiological tests (with the approval of a physician) in cases of alleged nasal implants. We were not taken up on our offer, and it was further suggested that the aliens are too smart to let such evidence fall into our hands.

I suggest you get a copy or, at least, read the transcript. I remember watching Budd Hopkins try and prompt a little kid into pointing the "grey" out of the lineup as the bad man. It was very sad to see somebody stoop to this kind of prompting. It was also very disgusting.

If you want to believe in the abduction phenomena, feel free to do so. However, do not come in here and suggest it is a real physical phenomena unless you have something to back it up. To date, all the evidence points towards a psychological phenomena. Abduction proponents are guilty of keeping these people from seeking help by feeding their fears and suggesting they are so special that science/modern medicine can not help them.

bart5050
2008-Jun-17, 03:08 AM
Budd Hopkins is one of those who only looks at ancedotal evidence that supports his beliefs and ignores what does not.

There are only two possibilities.
{1...
There are a lot of people who are suffering from stress or mental disorder and this is how many manifest it.
Lack of physical evidence suggest this to be the case.

There will always be charletons and oppertunist who prey on the weak, not a good argument for either skeptic or believer. There will always be those who cherry pick research for data that supports their pet beliefs. More prevelent in the ley community but science is not immune.

{2...
Or the fantastic with only ancedotal evidence for support.


From the consistant inconsistancy of abduction reports I conclude this as the fantastic;

1. They can control our perceptions and memory, create unreal virtual memory.
2. They project false memory that play into the abductees belief systems.
...a. Tell some they have been selected for a special purpose
...b. Present as different entites, grays, reptoids, insectoids, tall whites, military
...c. Inform some they are here to help us rise to a higher consciousness
...d. Inform some they are here to rescue us from our folly
...e. Tell some they are here to repair their genetic weakness
...f. Show some visions of Jesus or other significant figures
...g. Just plain scare the beejesus out of some
3. Prevent physical evicence of presence so that mainstream science has reason to deny
4. Posture and display allowing only ancedotal evidence to establish two widely divergent positions UFO and Skeptic

Much confusion and lack of cohesive belief as to purpose is deliberate. Keep us from agreeing and uniting, divide and conquar mentality.

Why would confusion and hiding in plain sight suit their purpose?

They are farming us. Exact product and purpose is not clear but it is clear that it is something we would deny them if they simply asked. So they misdirect, falsify, promote divergent beliefs, and create general confusion as to real purpose.

Face the truth folks. If their intent and purpose were really honerable they would simply land on the white house lawn and say hello. They keep many in belief that soon they will present themselves publicly, yet it never happens. Others are tricked into belief in divine purpose, that is never fully revealed.

Do any of these actions sound like someone with honerable intint?

They promote distrust of our governments.
Goblins, the Devil, Demons, Elves, Fairies, Angels = They have been with us for a long time and adjust the illusions they project to fit our growth in social belief systems.

They manipulate from the shadows and stay just out of reach.
Does this sound like a friend, or a user taking advantage.

This is what the ancedotal evidence says.

Until there is physical evidence then the only conclusion that has a solid foundation for support is that our archytypal fear of the dark gets updated with our growth.

What keeps me from closing the door on the fantastic is those UFO reports just keep coming. What keeps me from opening the door wide is as you all state, no physical proof that science can put in the testube and quantify.

I concede all your points on this basis.

JayUtah
2008-Jun-17, 03:28 AM
What keeps me from closing the door on the fantastic is those UFO reports just keep coming.

Because people keep buying them hook line and sinker.

AGN Fuel
2008-Jun-17, 04:03 AM
They are farming us. Exact product and purpose is not clear but it is clear that it is something we would deny them if they simply asked.

I've been thinking deeply about this proposition.

It's difficult to imagine what the mysterious product must be, given that it is probable that any species with the technology to flip effortlessly across light years of space, could artificially manufacture any product that they may possibly need.

So what could it be that attracts ET across the void of space? What is it unique to Homo sapiens that is so fundamentally essential that the technology of the Gods is used to harvest it secretly from the 6 billion inhabitants of the planet.

And then it hit me. Belly button lint. Ubiquitous among humans, but not found elsewhere in the cosmos. Grows in the complete absence of nutrients or source products. And it is possibly the finest insulating material in the universe.

The navel-less skin of your average grey is completely incapable of generating this material. How they must envy us, able to generate tufts of the stuff without even trying. And the best way to remove it? A probe, incompletely remembered by the innocent victims of an alien lintectomy.

The truth is not "out" there, which is why the mystery has remained unsolved until now. Only an in-nie will reveal the true truth.

bart5050
2008-Jun-17, 04:24 AM
The truth is not "out" there, which is why the mystery has remained unsolved until now. Only an in-nie will reveal the true truth.

Just as valid as any other speculation. And a great theme for the next alien abduction comedy film.

Having the magic of demi-god status does not make one rise above the physical laws of the universe. There are some products that may truly be natures own. Are we more than the sum of our parts, something only life can produce.

Is emotion a packagable commodity?
How about a soul, can you hide one in your navel lint?

Maybe we can geneticly engineer ourselves free of the architypal fear of the dark and all those aliens will vanish in the mist. Maybe we need monsters to stay sane. Frankenstein will never go out of style, just dress him in the latest fashion.

AGN Fuel
2008-Jun-17, 05:13 AM
Are we more than the sum of our parts, something only life can produce.

Are your aliens not alive?


Is emotion a packagable commodity?

You propose that aliens travel across space to harvest humans for some nefarious purpose, which implies in turn that we have something they want. Are envy and desire not emotions? If your aliens have these, what makes you think they don't have the whole range?


How about a soul, can you hide one in your navel lint?

In the absence of any evidence that such a thing exists, that sounds like an admirable place to keep it.


Frankenstein will never go out of style, just dress him in the latest fashion.

Interesting choice of words. Frankenstein, of course, was the very human man who created the monster. What monsters are you trying to create, Bart?

Joe Boy
2008-Jun-17, 05:13 AM
Well, although you didn't answer me Bart I will never believe you came up with all of this in the last couple of days anyway. Too practiced at the old trade so to speak. But it really doesn't matter. It is a small and insignificant point. I was just curious. You battle hard and I respect that. Even though you lost the debate, I have to admit that I have wondered on more than one occasion during this thread if maybe there was something to this. It was nothing you said or that detractors didn't say that prompted that notion. Even the slightest chance that you might be right on this makes me nervous. Every time I feel, "this is hogwash", I am reminded of a past event in my life that left me temporarily crippled with terror as a young teen. Regardless of how illogical the argument is for this to be true, for me to side with the skeptic (generic), would be a betrayal of my own memory. I hope you're wrong pal--joe (by the way, I never saw mine fly)

zerocold
2008-Jun-17, 05:40 AM
Would you like to share your experience JoeBoy?

When i asked to bart about his experience, he inmediatly was under fire :),never wanted that, is useless to debate about these personal events, because we were not there, i know a very respected (for me) guy that had an "alien encounter", i never did debate him about it -even if i think it was a mind lapsus-, he believe that, and i was not there,so...

But i like to hear these stories, really..:)

I personally think the whole alien-UFO is a myth, sadly i have not seen any objetive citeria, the ppl that dont believe, never will,for example on other thread the EM-mind influence argument was defended in such ridicoulus way, i dont believe on aliens, but was clear for me such argument was not valid from the start

On the other side, we have the "woos",many dragged by new age stuff, many of them never have seen an UFO, btw,the "woo" industry is very profitable (at least it seems)

Im my opinion ,the abductions have some link with sleep/dreams and media influence, many cases are related at night and when ppl were on bed, that is a bit suspecting, most of them dont remember that event, and later they discover all...., but then is my opinion, and is highly speculative

I did have some "paranormal" experiences, one of them i heard my sister voice in the night while i has half-sleept, she lives far away from me, and i heard about ghosts and such, i thought something bad happened to her, really was nervious, later i found she was fine, i think that whole event was just becouse in my sub-conscience i really miss her, ...objetively i know that does not mean there are not aliens but our mind can trick us sometimes

Anyway i want to read your stories, is just curiosity

Edit : was not a nice experience if you ask me, was not only the "i heard a voice" thing, i tried to talk , and couldnt, i tried to scream and couldnt, i tried to move, walk, etc, i just were trapped on that half-sleep stage, now if i compare with some alien experiences, it looks somewhat close

jt-3d
2008-Jun-17, 07:25 AM
Anyway i want to read your stories, is just curiosity

See here, I think.
http://www.bautforum.com/conspiracy-theories/73215-shameful-painful-read-stephen-hawking-ufo-declarations-3.html#post1228484

Perhaps the aliens are farming us for the youth giving substance, peneal juice (http://mst3kfanguide.blogspot.com/2007/01/802-leech-woman.html). :)

captain swoop
2008-Jun-17, 08:17 AM
Budd Hopkins is one of those who only looks at ancedotal evidence that supports his beliefs and ignores what does not.



1. They can control our perceptions and memory, create unreal virtual memory.
2. They project false memory that play into the abductees belief systems.
...a. Tell some they have been selected for a special purpose
...b. Present as different entites, grays, reptoids, insectoids, tall whites, military
...c. Inform some they are here to help us rise to a higher consciousness
...d. Inform some they are here to rescue us from our folly
...e. Tell some they are here to repair their genetic weakness
...f. Show some visions of Jesus or other significant figures
...g. Just plain scare the beejesus out of some
3. Prevent physical evicence of presence so that mainstream science has reason to deny
4. Posture and display allowing only ancedotal evidence to establish two widely divergent positions UFO and Skeptic

I think my Ironymeter just blew.

Joe Boy
2008-Jun-17, 01:08 PM
Would you like to share your experience JoeBoy?

When i asked to bart about his experience, he inmediatly was under fire :),never wanted that, is useless to debate about these personal events, because we were not there, i know a very respected (for me) guy that had an "alien encounter", i never did debate him about it -even if i think it was a mind lapsus-, he believe that, and i was not there,so...

But i like to hear these stories, really..:)

I personally think the whole alien-UFO is a myth, sadly i have not seen any objetive citeria, the ppl that dont believe, never will,for example on other thread the EM-mind influence argument was defended in such ridicoulus way, i dont believe on aliens, but was clear for me such argument was not valid from the start

On the other side, we have the "woos",many dragged by new age stuff, many of them never have seen an UFO, btw,the "woo" industry is very profitable (at least it seems)

Im my opinion ,the abductions have some link with sleep/dreams and media influence, many cases are related at night and when ppl were on bed, that is a bit suspecting, most of them dont remember that event, and later they discover all...., but then is my opinion, and is highly speculative

I did have some "paranormal" experiences, one of them i heard my sister voice in the night while i has half-sleept, she lives far away from me, and i heard about ghosts and such, i thought something bad happened to her, really was nervious, later i found she was fine, i think that whole event was just becouse in my sub-conscience i really miss her, ...objetively i know that does not mean there are not aliens but our mind can trick us sometimes

Anyway i want to read your stories, is just curiosity

Edit : was not a nice experience if you ask me, was not only the "i heard a voice" thing, i tried to talk , and couldnt, i tried to scream and couldnt, i tried to move, walk, etc, i just were trapped on that half-sleep stage, now if i compare with some alien experiences, it looks somewhat close

I don't believe it is worth the discussion. In as much as I respect Bart for his tenacity, I personally would have conceded the battle very early on. You can go back to one of my earlier comments a few month ago, shouldn't be too hard to find. I gave a hypothethical briefly which pretty much covered that incident. If you have any questions beyond that I may answer personally ZC. I have told one trusted member that way. Not really looking for any attention about this and my comment was certainly not a veiled attempt to initiate a response such as yours, although it could very well be perceived as such. I could have started a new thread any time but it just wouldn't accomplish anything. I am really not too concerned about being attacked either. Got a pretty rough hide to say the least, but not really willing to put up a fight in a battle that cannot be won. Winning isn't everything, but you can make yourself look pretty stupid trying to achieve it. Heck, I can do that without arguing a losing battle.

I found myself at a very young age knowing something the grown-ups would have had a hard time comprehending. At that age your entire life is wrapped around what they know. I was very uncomfortable to say the least for many years after and to date I only came here to hang around the subject without making too much noise. Some kind of self therapy I suspect. I can tell you this about me: when this happened I was already a "Life" boy scout. I was an avid observer of everything and bird watching was my favorite nature quest. Observing another new bird and adding it to my journal was a real quest for me. I gained such a keen eye in the wilderness that I could spot many animals even when draped in their localized camoflage. I soon began to register mammals as well. I raised pigeons, all kinds available at the time. I left the boy scouts shortly after this incident as well as my church. I was a month short of being a confirmed Lutheran. It broke my mom's heart and I could never really tell her why I gave it up. Got my draft notice in 69 and nothing in my life ever scared me like that again with the exception of the possiblilty of losing a loved one. Time to move on--take care--j

bart5050
2008-Jun-17, 01:26 PM
Interesting choice of words. Frankenstein, of course, was the very human man who created the monster. What monsters are you trying to create, Bart?

You cought the inference, congrats. No need for me to create anything, that was already half baked. Just trying to figure it out. Monsters from the ID, fear of the unknown, blind faith in divine purpose.
Do you see a need for understanding and reason?

metathor
2008-Jun-17, 01:32 PM
Why would 8 mil US citizens make this up ? i'm sure there are many frauds and maybe one with sleep paralysis, plus the military abduction stuff.. but what about he 7 million others? they aren't all selling a book. are they?

astrophotographer
2008-Jun-17, 01:47 PM
There are only two possibilities.
{1...
There are a lot of people who are suffering from stress or mental disorder and this is how many manifest it.
Lack of physical evidence suggest this to be the case.
{2...
Or the fantastic with only ancedotal evidence for support.


Hmmm....one is likely, requires no physical evidence, and manifests itself in an organism that has been shown to suffer from mental disorders in a good percentage of its population. The other is incredible, should have physical evidence, and requires the presence of an unknown entity that has never been proven to exist. I think I will side with #1.

Before you state there are too many cases, you are wrong. How many cases? You stated millions earlier with nothing to back up that claim. I have heard Hopkins say thousands, with nothing to back up that claim. What is being discussed is a small percentage of the population that suffers from mental issues that manifest itself in this way. Considering that this is probably a percentage similar to that which seeks psychiatric help for various other issues, I don't think it is a stretch to suggest this is nothing out of the ordinary.

astrophotographer
2008-Jun-17, 01:47 PM
Why would 8 mil US citizens make this up ? i'm sure there are many frauds and maybe one with sleep paralysis, plus the military abduction stuff.. but what about he 7 million others? they aren't all selling a book. are they?

Feel free to tell us where you got the 8 million number.

zerocold
2008-Jun-17, 01:53 PM
Thanks jt-3d , i didnt see that

I agree Joe, isnt worth to discuss, i cant prove to you that was just an illusion, and you cant show me that it was real, is a dead end

metathor, 8 millions persons...is not a bit exagerated? do we have any solid data about how many adupted?, racial/social composition?

Joe Boy
2008-Jun-17, 02:08 PM
Why would 8 mil US citizens make this up ? i'm sure there are many frauds and maybe one with sleep paralysis, plus the military abduction stuff.. but what about he 7 million others? they aren't all selling a book. are they?

That sleep paralysis is the real deal from my experience. On several occasions while sleeping in my cabin I have woke up and not been able to move. Seemingly able to see, hear etc. On two occasions, one in the cabin and one while sleeping outside in the forest I found myself in this condition and was terrified to see a bear standing beside me. In the end there was no bear, but a bear is what I was worried about when I went to sleep. This seems to happen to me when I am away from home and vulnerable in some sense. The porch where I sleep in the cabin is mostly screen and not much more secure than a tent. My opinion is that most of the alien visitation phenomena can be linked to this. I was really paralyzed and really did see the bear, but the bear just wasn't there.

bart5050
2008-Jun-17, 02:19 PM
metathor, 8 millions persons...is not a bit exagerated? do we have any solid data about how many adupted?, racial/social composition?

Yes, this reads like an appeal to unrealistic numbers to stimulate interest by fear mongering.

I wonder what a real poll of the public verses the medical community would reveal? Show it is triviel, the debate ends.

gzhpcu
2008-Jun-17, 02:21 PM
Why would 8 mil US citizens make this up ? i'm sure there are many frauds and maybe one with sleep paralysis, plus the military abduction stuff.. but what about he 7 million others? they aren't all selling a book. are they?

The correct number is 3.7 million, which resulted from a Roper Poll conduct in 1991-1992. Bud Hopkins was among those asking the Roper Organization to pose questions in this area. Around 6,000 persons were questioned. However, they were not asked "were you abducted", but rather 5 questions, and Bud Hopkins then concudes that if they answer "yes" to 4 of them, it is an indication that they were "abducted" by aliens. The poll is flawed.
See

http://www.csicop.org/si/9805/abduction.html

JayUtah
2008-Jun-17, 02:31 PM
There are only two possibilities.

In pseudoscience there are always two possibilities: the desired outcome, and a silly, straw-man caricature of everything else.

{1... (the caricature straw-man)
There are a lot of people who are suffering from stress or mental disorder and this is how many manifest it.

Or there are a lot of people leading ordinary human lives accompanied by the customary attendant difficulties and limitations. Pseudoscientist arguments beg the question that life should be free of any such hardship or uncertainty, or of fear and injury, or of outlying but ordinary effects.

There will always be charletons and oppertunist who prey on the weak, not a good argument for either skeptic or believer.

That depends on how the argument is deployed and supported. The fact that emotional and financial predation does occur means we need to eliminate or substantiate it where the facts of the case seem consistent with it. Often the proponent wants little more than attention; it would be harsh to categorize that under predation.

Alleged purity of motive is not by itself grounds to eliminate ulteriority.

{2... (the desired outcome)
Or the fantastic with only ancedotal evidence for support.

Or not only just anecdotal evidence, but also supposition to account for counterindicatory evidence. Such as...

1. They can control our perceptions and memory...
2. They ... play into the abductees belief systems.
3. Prevent physical evicence of presence...
4. Posture and display allowing only ancedotal evidence...

It doesn't take much thought to recognize when someone is wishfully defining the desired speculative phenomenon exactly to excuse why the evidence doesn't point toward it, and even why the desired phenomenon even exhibits properties that malevolently explain otherwise ordinary skepticism.

Every fringe theory I have encountered (and I have encountered very many) has the element that that criticizes the mainstream either for its inappropriate maintenance of hegemony, its concealment of truth, or its inexcusable inaction. Portraying the designated authority as somehow ill-intentioned seems to be the primary goal.

Every fringe theory supposes some manner of omnipotence that enables wholesale manipulation of the evidence to make the actions of the evil agent invisible. "NASA knows about Planet X but pressures the world's astronomers to keep it quiet." "Big Oil spends lots of money to discredit free-energy theories." "The government knows UFOs are alien spaceships, but lets the aliens do their thing because the aliens share technology." And on and on.

All of that spells an exercise to support a predetermined conclusion, not a search for where the evidence points.

Why would confusion and hiding in plain sight suit their purpose?
They are farming us.

Circular. There is no evidence of a "they," hence there is no evidence of "their purpose." Therefore by subversion of support, there is no motive that requires an explanation. That whole line of reasoning simply presupposes the existence of alien abductors.

Exact product and purpose is not clear...

Hence a purpose is established by pure conjecture, guided only by what is necessary to fit the alien-abductor hypothesis to the observations -- whatever those observations might be. There is never any exercise to see whether any such purpose or motive actually exists. Citing as such evidence the good fit with the observation closes the circular logic.

Face the truth folks. If their intent and purpose were really honerable...

Face the truth: there is no evidence that any such entity exists or pursues any such purpose.

Do any of these actions sound like someone with honerable intent?

No evidence of a "someone." The line of reasoning here is a converted conditional: if beings existed and engaged in such behavior, then such behavior from them would be consistent with malevolence. That is not, however, evidence of any actual malevolence because the motive depends on the existence of something to exhibit it.

Abductophiles consider the problem of the factual observations (whether reported quantitatively, categorically, or anecdotally) combined with the preconceived impression that an extrinsic cause (usually a fairly specific one) is responsible. Thus their lines of reasoning address the combination, and are thus predictably conjectural and unparsimonious.

CJSF
2008-Jun-17, 02:41 PM
Wait.. I thought it was a government black-ops hoax that accounted for aubduction stories? When did "real" aliens come back into it?

CJSF

Fazor
2008-Jun-17, 07:01 PM
There was a show on NatGeo last night about the UFO phenomenon. The short segment I happened to catch was talking about "abductees" and the abduction experience. It was actually pretty good--the part I saw anyway. Started out with the usual Woo-ish claims and black-silhouette testimonies, but very quickly went on to conversation with psychologists and scientists about the real physical phenomenons behind many of these experience (namely sleep paralysis). I didn't watch much; maybe 5-10 minutes total... it was late and I didn't feel the need to learn stuff I already know... but it was nice to see a reasonable viewpoint portrayed without the usual cheap studio effects and narrator downplay to raise questions and doubt where there really wasn't any.

captain swoop
2008-Jun-17, 07:25 PM
plus the military abduction stuff

What military abduction stuff?

astrophotographer
2008-Jun-17, 07:45 PM
There was a show on NatGeo last night about the UFO phenomenon.

I believe that was a re-air of "UFOs: Seeing is believing" with Peter Jennings. Not a bad show if you ask me. The UFO proponents did not like Roswell being called a myth and was very angry at some of the SETI scientists reactions to UFOs. Jerome Clark suggested Frank Drake was a religious zealot and Jill Tarter was ridiculous when talking about her UFO sighting (which she would eventually figure out was the moon hidden by some clouds without calling MUFON/CUFOS/NUFORC/FUFOR etc). Stanton Friedman went as far as to refer to SETI as the "silly effort to investigate".

Fazor
2008-Jun-17, 07:59 PM
I believe that was a re-air of "UFOs: Seeing is believing" with Peter Jennings. Not a bad show if you ask me. The UFO proponents did not like Roswell being called a myth and was very angry at some of the SETI scientists reactions to UFOs. Jerome Clark suggested Frank Drake was a religious zealot and Jill Tarter was ridiculous when talking about her UFO sighting (which she would eventually figure out was the moon hidden by some clouds without calling MUFON/CUFOS/NUFORC/FUFOR etc). Stanton Friedman went as far as to refer to SETI as the "silly effort to investigate".

That's the show. I didn't see all the other stuff...but when I first saw that Peter Jennings was hosting a show on UFO's, I was a bit thrown...which just made me all the happier to see the rational treatment that segment I caught recieved.

Great varation on the typical format: Woo -> Scientific Explination -> Dramatic chord followed by vague line, eg "Or IS it?!" (unsupported statement of doubt) -> Commercial break to advertise new "scientific" ghost hunter series

bart5050
2008-Jun-17, 10:19 PM
No evidence of a "someone." The line of reasoning here is a converted conditional: if beings existed and engaged in such behavior, then such behavior from them would be consistent with malevolence. That is not, however, evidence of any actual malevolence because the motive depends on the existence of something to exhibit it.

Your analysis is interestig however since it is of ancedotal evidence which your reject as being possible to evaluate scientificly then your evaluation has no more validity than mine. Further you have an established bias that the subject is non existant and so your arguments are simply to support an opinion and not an evaluation.

Much of my statements are summary of actual research by KT and others so it is not just my unsuported thoughts. However since you have previously all such research as unworthy there is little point in discussing its merits.

None of what I stated was propsed as an establishe fact supported by physical evedence but merly an excercise of if this then that is implied.

Since you have ruled out anything but physical evedence being applicable to analysis then any conclusions made by you are baseless.

I just read project Bluebook special report 14 and I was amazed that the conclusions were not supported by the data. The unknowns were consistantly 20 to 30 percent in virtually every catagory. The low of 20 percent was attained by moving any that might be possible knowns out of the unknown group.

Quote from report.

The results of these tests are inconclusive since they neither confirm
nor deny that the UNKNOWNS are primarily unidentified KNOWNS, although
they do indicate that relatively few of the UNKNOWNS are actually astronomical
phenomena.

Here is how they class witnisess reports with high reliability of unknown.

It was decided that this process would not be carried to its logical
conclusion (that is, the determination of a linear combination of KNOWNS
that would give a negligible chi square when compared with the UNKNOWNS),
since it was felt that the inaccuracies in the reports would give a distorted
and meaningless result.

And this is how they avoided taking the unknowns to their logical conclusions.

Again it is all ancedotal evidence so I will concede any argument on that basis.

I find all of your arguments of scientific value do little to convince those who have actually seen one.

I want to thank you for your time and energy. I will take to heart the statement that I should adopt critical thinking before continuing to post as I am taking too much of this forums time and energy in continuing to ignore this premise.

You are quite knowlegable and I have learned a great deal here. It would be remiss of me not to consider your arguments at lenght so I plan to spend the next week or so following the links on critical thinking I was given here.

Given your pre requisite that only physical evedence is worthy of scientific evaluation I find it unlikly that any will be found to present to you. After the dcades of study that has so far produced none I think it shall not be produced for decades more.

regards

slang
2008-Jun-17, 10:30 PM
No evidence of a "someone." The line of reasoning here is a converted conditional: if beings existed and engaged in such behavior, then such behavior from them would be consistent with malevolence. That is not, however, evidence of any actual malevolence because the motive depends on the existence of something to exhibit it.

Your analysis is interestig however since it is of ancedotal evidence which your reject as being possible to evaluate scientificly then your evaluation has no more validity than mine.

My goodness.. this is even more silly than you saying "straw man!" on the most inopportune occasions. This "I'll use against you, what works against me"-stuff is becoming more hilarious each time I see it. And sad at the same time, since if you think the term "ancedotal evidence" applies here, do you even understand what it means when other use it appropriately? A question I fear will remain unanswered.

JayUtah
2008-Jun-17, 10:57 PM
Your analysis is interestig however since it is of ancedotal evidence which your reject as being possible to evaluate scientificly then your evaluation has no more validity than mine.

You have absolutely no clue what you're talking about. Do you honestly think that throwing together a word salad of things you've heard other people say before really constitutes an argument?

Further you have an established bias that the subject is non existant...

Correctly noting that there is no proof for the existence of space aliens is not a bias. Believing (in the absence of any evidence) that space aliens do visit Earth and are responsible for symptoms alleged or reported by so-called abductees, is.

Much of my statements are summary of actual research by KT...

You disavowed Karla Turner. You may no longer use her as a reference unless you plan to change your answers to my questions regarding the validity of her work.

...and others so it is not just my unsuported thoughts.

Here goes the backpedalling again. When you take others to task for not agreeing with the claims, you make those claims your own. You may not absolve yourself of such arrogance by simply naming the people whose claims you mindlessly repeat.

Since you have ruled out anything but physical evedence being applicable to analysis then any conclusions made by you are baseless.

What conclusions made by me are you talking about? I'm simply reminding you that your conclusions regarding the motives and actions of space aliens are highly dependent on evidence for the existence of space aliens in the first place, which has not been provided. You want to cross the finish line before you've even finished lacing up your running shoes.

I just read project Bluebook special report...

Changing the subject.

Again it is all ancedotal evidence so I will concede any argument on that basis.

You concede, but then you turn around and argue. Make up your mind.

I find all of your arguments of scientific value do little to convince those who have actually seen one.

What makes you think I'm trying to convince them? What makes you think they can be persuaded otherwise by any means?

You are quite knowlegable and I have learned a great deal here. It would be remiss of me not to consider your arguments at lenght so I plan to spend the next week or so following the links on critical thinking I was given here.

Thanks. I'll just be happy if you stop calling me biased and a government shill.

Joe Boy
2008-Jun-17, 11:24 PM
"Flying Bar Stools", ok pretty good considering the context--"word salad", that is the neatest one yet. Tell me that is a standard line out their in acadamia. It will just kill me if you made that up yourself Jay. I wouldn't be able to come up with a line like that if I spent the rest of my life trying. Even if I was on one of my mean streaks--joe

Maksutov
2008-Jun-18, 12:02 AM
Due to the wide swings in approach (It's true/ It's not true; I'm for it/I'm against it; You people haven't a clue/I've learned a lot here) that have been displayed, one wonders which bart5050 will show up in each of his posts.

My hypothesis: bart5050 actually did leave the first time he said he was going to, and has been replaced by a committee.

Maksutov
2008-Jun-18, 12:07 AM
"Flying Bar Stools", ok pretty good considering the context--"word salad", that is the neatest one yet. Tell me that is a standard line out their in acadamia. It will just kill me if you made that up yourself Jay. I wouldn't be able to come up with a line like that if I spent the rest of my life trying. Even if I was on one of my mean streaks--joeThe phrase "word salad" has been around for a long time.

It was probably coined the first time someone attempted to defend an unsupportable position by machine-gunning words at the opponents/critics/debunkers.

Then again, that debunker might have been Jay.

Sam5
2008-Jun-18, 12:12 AM
Bart, do you realize that 4 million Americans would be 1 out of every 75 Americans?

01101001
2008-Jun-18, 12:20 AM
Google define: word salad (http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLG,GGLG:2005-42,GGLG:en&q=define%3a+word+salad)

Yields such as:


Word salad is a mixture of seemingly meaningful words that together signify nothing; the phrase draws its name from the common name for schizophasia a symptom of schizophrenia, Word salad. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Word salad (computer science) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Word_salad_%28computer_science%29)

Gosh, all the definitions seem to involve schizophrenia. That usage was unfamiliar to me. Perhaps it originated as jargon in the field of psychiatry.

That flavor is never meant here, or any of the many times I've heard the phrase used, but instead has a more general meaning of: words strung together with little attention to semantics -- a little this, a little that, all chopped and mixed together.

Ah. At Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Word_salad_%28computer_science%29) is the extended, more general meaning:


When applied to a physical theory, "word salad" is a derogatory description that labels the theory as senseless or utterly devoid of meaning.

bart5050
2008-Jun-18, 12:36 AM
Bart, do you realize that 4 million Americans would be 1 out of every 75 Americans?

Would love to discuss the research, the sources, and its faulty conclusions as well as the merits and posibilities. I find many of your posts thought provoking and insightful.

However no matter what approach I take to stimulate thought provoking ideas on possibilities, Jay rides herd on any thoughts that get outside the box. Life must be difficult under the shadow of such a powerful personality.

All of you totally missed the point of my clearly cicuitous word salid. So no point in exploring your question.

regards

Joe Boy
2008-Jun-18, 01:33 AM
The phrase "word salad" has been around for a long time.

It was probably coined the first time someone attempted to defend an unsupportable position by machine-gunning words at the opponents/critics/debunkers.

Then again, that debunker might have been Jay.

Thank you sir. Appreciate the help. Maybe him saying it adds something to it, he places it in the right spot and cultivates it. My response would have problably bordered on ad-hom. More education needed here-never too late to learn

astrophotographer
2008-Jun-18, 01:38 AM
However no matter what approach I take to stimulate thought provoking ideas on possibilities, Jay rides herd on any thoughts that get outside the box. Life must be difficult under the shadow of such a powerful personality.

Apparently, you are intimidated by his approach. He wants details, as I do, that can be defended and discussed. So far, your arguments have failed to compell and you have been unwilling to support them with facts that can be checked. Instead, you often resort to UFO proponent catch phrases to defend your position.

bart5050
2008-Jun-18, 02:28 AM
Apparently, you are intimidated by his approach. He wants details, as I do, that can be defended and discussed. So far, your arguments have failed to compell and you have been unwilling to support them with facts that can be checked. Instead, you often resort to UFO proponent catch phrases to defend your position.

Any source reference I cited was quickly impuned as to motive. It was pointed out that only physical evidence accepted when all know that eyewitness accounts and researchers integrety is the evidence offered. My own integrety and qualifications became the primary basis of consideration and not the issue.

These are all standerd debunking tactics that I am rather inexperianced at dealing with. My inexperiance with the subject was obvious as I was undertaking this as a journey of personal discovery. This weakness was quickly recognized and used to full advantage. Any protest was quickly pointed out as beg to sympathy when it was not the intent.

Open and serious debate considering the posibilities and implecations of were rendered mute. When debate did start to become open and truly inquiring of the phenomena itself then Jay quickly jumped in and brought it back to the issue of debunking bart to head off where it was going.

Anyone incapable of recognizing the bias to the subject and the meathodology used to debunk is wearing blinders. Most of it was centered around my weaknesses at debate and not the merits of the issue itself.

You refer to UFO catch phrases when I am not even aware of what they are. This leads me to believe that what might be catch phrases as you call them is a way of classifying valid concerns making them easy to dismiss.

Thought I could surly find some approach to the subject that would be an honest appraisal because I am not CT nut or a forum troll but someone really looking for answers because I have legitimate questions. My position felt safe from attack because I have not had the experiance, although I know people of honesty and integrety that have. Already traumatized I cannot imagine them subjecting themselves to this kind of attack.

The bias here is purly to debunk by any means that works and no discovery of what the phenomena really comes from is possible in this environment.

Yes I am venting my frustration thank you.

Tired of your pointed questions with their thinly veiled agenda and will respond to them no more.

Have a good day.

regards

DALeffler
2008-Jun-18, 02:42 AM
However no matter what approach I take to stimulate thought provoking ideas on possibilities, Jay rides herd on any thoughts that get outside the box. Life must be difficult under the shadow of such a powerful personality.

The way Jay thinks leads to better airplanes, better computers, better medical doctors, better teachers, etc. The methods you're trying to apply don't even admit the existence of the box in the first place.

Until you figure out why research into thousands of UFO sightings, abductions, crashes, landings, and whatever have not led to the slightest advance in how to do anything better, you're going to be stuck with not knowing who to believe and when to believe it.

Jay has consistently and exquisitely championed the ONLY method found (so far) where what we think we know can be tested without regard to authority or personality.

Science is not a test of what we don't know; science is a test of what we think we know from a premise of theory falsification and predictability and not verification: Scientists don't try to prove a theory right; they try to prove it wrong.

What you're trying to do is prove something right when proving the same thing wrong doesn't have a consequence: We learn nothing.

Sam5
2008-Jun-18, 03:27 AM
Bart, do you realize that 4 million Americans would be 1 out of every 75 Americans?

Would love to discuss the research, the sources, and its faulty conclusions as well as the merits and posibilities. I find many of your posts thought provoking and insightful.

However no matter what approach I take to stimulate thought provoking ideas on possibilities, Jay rides herd on any thoughts that get outside the box.


Bart, I would be more inclined to have a “wait and see” attitude if you could provide me with only a couple of very good cases of Americans who have been “abducted”. But when you say 4 million have been abducted, that’s like saying 4 million Americans all saw the same “miracle” (which 296,000,000 Americans failed to notice), or 4 million Americans have suddenly disappeared. 1 out of every 75 Americans having been “abducted” is just too many, especially since I’ve met very many thousands of Americans who have never been abducted. According to you, 1 out of every 75 people I have seen and met and talked to in my lifetime should have been “abducted”.

By the way, I saw the docu-drama on TV titled “Fire in the Sky”. That is a great sci-fi movie. I read about that story when it was in the news back in the ‘80s.

One time, quite by chance, I found myself driving at night near Snowflake, Arizona, which is a very remote place. All of a sudden that story came back to me. Yikes!! But I survived without being “abducted”.

Another explanation for what happened to those guys was that they were maybe smoking pot or even taking acid. That is a far more logical explanation than one of them actually being “abducted”. I’ve lived in cities where more than 1 out of every 75 people I knew smoked pot or took acid. None of them had ever been abducted, although a couple of them claimed to have flown in space on their own. :)

JayUtah
2008-Jun-18, 04:36 AM
However no matter what approach I take to stimulate thought provoking ideas on possibilities, Jay rides herd on any thoughts that get outside the box. Life must be difficult under the shadow of such a powerful personality.

Poisoning the well.

You're taking whatever approach you think will get to your predetermined conclusions. And you don't seem to care that all of them have failed for clear logical or factual reasons.

You're not talking about "ideas" or "possibilities." You're trying to tell us all we're "sticking our heads in the sand" by not being as gullible as you about UFO issues.

All of you totally missed the point of my clearly cicuitous word salid.

You tried once again to throw words back at us without understanding what they mean. You're just trying to "win" (or at least appear that way to some).

astrophotographer
2008-Jun-18, 02:00 PM
You refer to UFO catch phrases when I am not even aware of what they are. This leads me to believe that what might be catch phrases as you call them is a way of classifying valid concerns making them easy to dismiss. .

"experinced observations of pilots ", "debunking tactics", "experianced air crew", "The science community, in my opinion, is in denial that the phenomena even exists at all", "the phenomena is real is undeniable", "sleep paralyses is not a good explenation", "It was a structured craft. ". Etc. etc.


The bias here is purly to debunk by any means that works and no discovery of what the phenomena really comes from is possible in this environment.

You can not debunk something if there is no bunk. Unfortunately, UFOlogy is full of a lot of bunk.

JayUtah
2008-Jun-18, 02:34 PM
Any source reference I cited was quickly impuned as to motive.

You lied about the qualifications and conclusions of your source. I caught you in the lie.

It was pointed out that only physical evidence accepted when all know that eyewitness accounts and researchers integrety is the evidence offered.

Your source admits that prima facie evidence did not exist for her conclusion. That immediately makes it scientifically untenable. Yet she persisted in that conclusion without examining any other possible cause. And got paid for it.

That was when you accused us of "sticking our heads in the sand," rather than to believe her. When all your researchers were revealed for the charlatans they were, that's when you backpedalled and tried to weasel out of any responsibility by saying you were only repeating others' claims.

These are all standerd debunking tactics that I am rather inexperianced at dealing with.

Contradiction. You are either familiar enough with them to recognize them as standard, or you're not. These are "standard" techniques only in the sense that the errors in reasoning you are making have been known and written about since Aristotle.

My inexperiance with the subject was obvious as I was undertaking this as a journey of personal discovery.

You revealed that voluntarily at a strategically advantageous time: your reasoning had been soundly refuted and you had to admit you had limited understanding of science, so you changed horses and made it seem in retrospect that everyone was picking on you for having seen a UFO.

Open and serious debate considering the posibilities and implecations of were rendered mute.

Only after you lost the debate.

Anyone incapable of recognizing the bias to the subject and the meathodology used to debunk is wearing blinders.

"Agree with me or else!"

Most of it was centered around my weaknesses at debate and not the merits of the issue itself.

The debate was around your inability to provide and correctly represent the merits of the issue, yet your demand that it be taken seriously anyway. You want the discussion to go in your preplanned direction, the way most UFO discussions with skeptics go. You aren't prepared for the direction in which they're actually taken, and the speed with which people catch your straw-man arguments and hype. So now you're frustrated. Understandable, but unacceptable.

You plan to "win" with stupid debate tricks and now you're frustrated that it didn't work here as well as it did on the other forums you posted at about the alleged spaceship on the Moon before coming here.

You refer to UFO catch phrases when I am not even aware of what they are.

Or so you say.

I am not CT nut or a forum troll but someone really looking for answers because I have legitimate questions.

Utter hogwash. You were given answers. You didn't like them, so you called everyone names for pointing out what was wrong with your preconceptions. You've used the same rhetorical approach four times with little modification.

Your approach is entirely inconsistent with people looking for answers. It is entirely consistent with someone pushing his own preconceived ideas. You go from forum to forum with the same martyr tactics every time people catch you.

Tired of your pointed questions with their thinly veiled agenda and will respond to them no more.

You don't answer any of my questions anyway.

Is this another threat to go away (the fifth in turn)? Will you be back in a day or so to make sure everyone knows you're leaving?

Spare us the drama. You know what evidence science expects.

NEOWatcher
2008-Jun-18, 03:01 PM
Tired of your pointed questions with their thinly veiled agenda and will respond to them no more.
Gee, that phrase sounded so odd, that I did a bit to look it up.

So; you are tired of questions "aimed to get to the real truth (http://www.usingenglish.com/forum/english-idioms-sayings/11512-idioms.html)" while you are trying to get to the real truth?

And, revealing the real truth is an agenda?

01101001
2008-Jun-18, 03:45 PM
I just want to share a word image with the valiant soldiers: fighting a dough ball.

Google seems unfamiliar with the phrase (but its spidery agents will soon report this instance back to home base, for all the world to enjoy). I heard it applied to trying to change a large institution: you push here, and it pops out over there. You can wear yourself out and in the end the dough ball is still a dough ball.

I've never so much witnessed the doughball effect in a single individual, as demonstrated here. It takes a special skill for one to present so many different faces, to appear to be so unresisting, yielding, yet refusing any real change. It's awesome to behold this special glutinous power.

Hang in there, lovers of reality. Keep asking for the evidence. And, be careful. Don't let the dough ball exhaust you -- or smother you.

jt-3d
2008-Jun-18, 03:52 PM
I just want to share a word image with the valiant soldiers: fighting a dough ball.


Perhaps you mean tarball (http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/T/tarball.html)? Probably a polically correct form of tarbaby. Tarbaby-tarball-doughball. At any rate, I get the jist though I fear this one will be wiped from our lexicon, for no reason really. I fear such subtle terms may be lost to the ages once the likes of me are gone from this planet.

Gillianren
2008-Jun-18, 04:13 PM
Have I asked the "what would convince you you're wrong?" question?

JayUtah
2008-Jun-18, 04:30 PM
Have I asked the "what would convince you you're wrong?" question?

I'm sure you have. When you prod the dough ball in that fashion, the lobe that emerges in response reads, "I'm not making any arguments; I'm just trying to find answers to my questions that are part of my personal journey."

When you mash on that lobe by pointing out that the questions he proposes to answer by UFOs, alien abduction, and government-intelligentsia coverup are better answered by intrinsic factors, the dough-ball lobe you let go of to do that mashing springs back out and says, "You're all in denial if you can't see that this is a real phenomenon that science is ignoring."

Let's hear it for Binary Man.

01101001
2008-Jun-18, 06:20 PM
Perhaps you mean tarball (http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/T/tarball.html)?

Does't work for me. Tarballs -- more common usages: neither the Unix kind, nor the ones floating at sea -- aren't it. Tar babies (Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tar_baby)) are sticky and cling to you, become yours if touched, are defeated just by detaching.

Dough balls, properly floured of course, are just soft, essentially unalterable blobs, that just wear you out by taking different shapes, but not really changing.

slang
2008-Jun-18, 06:43 PM
Luckily, if you keep prodding a good doughball, fold it over a couple of times, and prod it some more, you'll end up with a great pizza crust :)

JayUtah
2008-Jun-18, 07:26 PM
I really did mean to compliment 01101001 on his extremely literary usage of the word "glutinous."

bart5050
2008-Jun-19, 12:42 AM
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=d6e_1213599349

John Jones
2008-Jun-19, 12:48 AM
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=d6e_1213599349



I don't do youtube and such except for pure musical entertainment.


Have you read anything about critical thinking and logical fallacies?

astrophotographer
2008-Jun-19, 01:02 AM
Hmmm...Jaimie Maussan.

http://www.ufowatchdog.com/hall4.html

Personally, I don't put much weight on a guy that peddles videos of the planet Venus during a solar eclipse as a record of UFOs. Any claims made by Maussan about analyzing the tape for hoaxes just has zero credibility based on his track record. To me the UFO looks like a lamp post.


Royce Myers hit it on the head:

clowns belong in the circus, not doing investigations

JayUtah
2008-Jun-19, 01:40 AM
Bart, give us a reason why we should spend time looking at your latest and discussing it with you? You know what our reaction is likely to be, and you don't like it. Why, frankly, do you continue to post here?

Maksutov
2008-Jun-19, 02:26 AM
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=d6e_1213599349
Hey, another member of the doughball committee has shown up! Has to be a new one, since all the others said they were leaving permanently.

John Jones
2008-Jun-19, 02:52 AM
Hey Bart,

Save us all the trouble and tell us that we're close-minded gov't shills right up front.

Don't forget to say that you have formed no opinion, but are looking for answers from open-minded members of the scientific community.

bart5050
2008-Jun-19, 03:46 AM
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=baa_1194994414

Does this guy look like he aint wrapped too tight?
No matter what, they just won't go away.
Yes, I know what your conclusion will be.

I really will quit bothering you now.
You guys don't get the bee in my bonnet. My education was in engineering, job experiance in electronics designs, sign mfg, video production, graphic arts and advertising. Science has been a major part of my life and it is to science I have always turned for answers. People I trust tell me fantastic things. Saw something myself.

For the first time in my life I look to science for an answer and find failure. It is just difficult to find what I have always placed my trust in as somehow inadiquate to the task.

I tried ignoring this myself for a long time. Maybe I just have too much time on my hands since retiring. There is a lot of hoax and mis interpretation. But there is something real at work here as well, and much of it just makes no sense.

Not big into CT and do not acuse you of being gov shills. Just know that defense has to consider everything or risk getting surprised. Know that they classify much just to keep from looking silly for being required to consider all possibilities. Looked into remote viewing just because the Russians were during the cold war, for example.

It would be remiss of them to not consider the implecations of this, so therfore I know they have. There is something going on here, just don't know what exactly it is.

You might not think so from some of my posts, but I'm pretty good at solving problems and finding answers. Just frustrated at not finding an answer that covers all the issues.

I realize what all your answers are before I ask the questions. No hard feelings about it either. If I needed an engineering solution for an aircraft I would consult you. On this I will have to look elsewhere.

Sincirely appreciate what I have learned here.
Just wanted to let you know I wasn't going away with a chip on my shoulder.

regards

Maksutov
2008-Jun-19, 04:04 AM
There you go again.

JayUtah
2008-Jun-19, 04:13 AM
I really will quit bothering you now.

Go or stay. Just quit saying one thing and doing another. It smacks of drama, and we can do without that.

For the first time in my life I look to science for an answer and find failure.

The problem is that you're not looking to science. You're looking at the caricature of science you've drawn as the straw-man you're going to disembowel in order to maintain the comfort in believing you saw something fantastic. What you think science is or should be is nothing like what it is. You've been given references to some of the best writings on the subject. I will also add Popper's Conjectures and Refutations.

Not big into CT and do not acuse you of being gov shills.

Thanks, but heard that before. What will you say tomorrow? You can't seem to make up your mind from day to day. One day I'm on your good side and the other I'm your worst enemy. Your inconsistent approach is irritating.

You might not think so from some of my posts, but I'm pretty good at solving problems and finding answers.

That doesn't matter to me if you're not willing or able to display that skill here.

Just frustrated at not finding an answer that covers all the issues.

The problem is that along with "all the issues" you include the unfounded claims of fringe theorists as if they were fact. You're trying to solve the problem the way they want it solved, which results in a quandary because that's what they want to happen. Answers don't get them appearance fees and attention; only continued controversy. Hence their approach is meant to perpetuate controversy, not determine answers.

I realize what all your answers are before I ask the questions. No hard feelings about it either.

What do you mean? You recently subjected us to a long harangue about how inadequate my and others' answers have been and how malevolent we are for proposing them. Sorry, you don't get to ask questions to solicit the answers you expect, then sound off about how inappropriate they are, then tell people you're not a troll.

If I needed an engineering solution for an aircraft I would consult you. On this I will have to look elsewhere.

The problem with that attitude is the failure to realize that the same rules of physical law and investigative method apply. Other places will make you feel better. But few places will get you closer to the truth. You will have to choose.

Joe Boy
2008-Jun-19, 04:53 AM
You have been tutored by the best of the best for days now. Do you realize how much time Jay and others have spent trying to make you understand the logic behind scientific meathod? What exactly would satisfy you? What would they have to say to you to make you happy? As an interested uninformed observer I have completely lost track of what your purpose might be here. I will make a prediction: whereever you go, you will never again find a more informed group of people who are willing to spend half the time these guys did, educating you. Good luck Bart--joe

slang
2008-Jun-19, 06:38 AM
Sincirely appreciate what I have learned here.

I'm really curious what that would be.

astrophotographer
2008-Jun-19, 01:44 PM
There is a lot of hoax and mis interpretation.

In this case, one has to consider the source of the video. While a great deal of UFO reports are simple misperceptions, many photographs/videos are known or suspected hoaxes. Allan Hendry wrote:

I noted earlier in examining the conclusions of the 1,307 UFO reports that hoaxes did not figure at all into the scheme of things--rather misperceptions of some existing stimulus were responsible. This situation is not the case, however, when it comes to cases involving photographs, where a significant population of deliberate fraud exists. The failure of photographs to serve as impersonal proof of the existence of UFOs up to now lay largely in the ease of fabricating fake photos of small models that couldn't be distinguished from the real thing.

The instant I saw Maussan linked to this video, alarm bells began ringing. You have to consider the source in these cases.



But there is something real at work here as well

Another UFO catch phrase. The thing that is real is that people misidentify ordinary (and sometimes unusual) phenomena for something extraordinary. Until it can be shown that people can not make such mistakes, the UFO phenomena will be mired in "but it could have been a structured craft of unknown origin/alien spaceship and not just a star/planet/fireball/balloon/etc." and "the witness was too experienced to make such an obvious error in perception".

Gillianren
2008-Jun-19, 04:14 PM
I have to say, I don't understand why people expect one explanation to cover everything. What's wrong with having Venus and other natural things explain a lot of sightings and having manmade craft explain the others?

captain swoop
2008-Jun-19, 04:21 PM
That's too easy. They propose that they are Alien Spaceships, that's one cause. Obviously i fyou propose a number of causes for a number of different sightings you don't know what they were so by default you lose.

JayUtah
2008-Jun-19, 05:14 PM
You have to consider the source in these cases.

Unfortunately in Bart5050's world. "considering the source" equates to an unfair personal attack on the promoter. Apparently unless one has murdered a busload of nuns, his personal integrity must be considered above reproach and therefore his testimony impeccable.

Joe Boy
2008-Jun-19, 05:33 PM
You have to consider the source in these cases.

Unfortunately in Bart5050's world. "considering the source" equates to an unfair personal attack on the promoter. Apparently unless one has murdered a busload of nuns, his personal integrity must be considered above reproach and therefore his testimony impeccable.

BEGGING THE QUESTION . . . ? (oh, sorry Jay, I just always wanted to say that-j)

slang
2008-Jun-19, 06:12 PM
Unfortunately in Bart5050's world. "considering the source" equates to an unfair personal attack on the promoter. Apparently unless one has murdered a busload of nuns, his personal integrity must be considered above reproach and therefore his testimony impeccable.

Not to mention their infallibility. And they are NOT straw men, however often you say it, they are Real People!

astrophotographer
2008-Jun-19, 06:41 PM
Unfortunately in Bart5050's world. "considering the source" equates to an unfair personal attack on the promoter. Apparently unless one has murdered a busload of nuns, his personal integrity must be considered above reproach and therefore his testimony impeccable.

If the Lowell observatory personnel photographed this object with many others witnessing the event or it was photographed by numerous people over a major city (from different locations), I would consider the source fairly reliable and it worthy of examining. However, when Joe Texas videotapes an object hovering in the air that looks like a light fixture from his backyard and then immediately contacts Jaimie Maussan (again, look at the hall of shame entry) to investigate the case (and not a university or observatory), the alarm bells just start ringing. This is what I mean about considering the source.

JayUtah
2008-Jun-19, 06:59 PM
...immediately contacts Jaimie Maussan ... to investigate the case ..., the alarm bells just start ringing. This is what I mean about considering the source.

Yes, me too. Unfortunately Bart5050 doesn't see anything wrong with marketing one's claims of the unknown to people who have very clear beliefs about what it is.

gzhpcu
2008-Jun-19, 07:13 PM
A couple of quotes by Carl Sagan:


“It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring [that may be]. . . . Superstition and pseudoscience keep getting in the way [of understanding nature], providing easy answers, dodging skeptical scrutiny, casually pressing our awe buttons and cheapening the experience, making us routine and comfortable practitioners as well as victims of credulity. . . . [Pseudoscience] ripples with gullibility. . . .and:


The whole idea of democratic application of skepticism is that everyone should have the essential tools to effectively and constructively evaluate claims to knowledge. . . . But the tools of skepticism are generally unavailable to the citizens of our society. . .Source: http://www.csicop.org/si/2007-01/sagan.html

Rm Riberra
2008-Jun-19, 07:33 PM
“It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring [that may be]. . . . Superstition and pseudoscience keep getting in the way [of understanding nature], providing easy answers, dodging skeptical scrutiny, casually pressing our awe buttons and cheapening the experience, making us routine and comfortable practitioners as well as victims of credulity. . . . [Pseudoscience] ripples with gullibility. . . .

The whole idea of democratic application of skepticism is that everyone should have the essential tools to effectively and constructively evaluate claims to knowledge...

Part of the situation may be caused by the Drake equation formulated in 1960, in an attempt to estimate the number of extraterrestrial civilizations in our galaxy with which we might come in contact.

ET's promotors using it as an approbation of the scientific community about possible ExtraTerrestrials visitation probability.

JayUtah
2008-Jun-19, 07:59 PM
ET's promotors using it as an approbation of the scientific community about possible ExtraTerrestrials visitation probability.

Ask Frank Drake what he thinks about UFOs and UFO "researchers."

Rm Riberra
2008-Jun-20, 03:18 AM
ET's promotors using it as an approbation of the scientific community about possible ExtraTerrestrials visitation probability.

Ask Frank Drake what he thinks about UFOs and UFO "researchers."

I think you miss my point to be more clear:
Et's and Ufo's promotors use the Drake equation in a fraudulus way.

JayUtah
2008-Jun-20, 03:43 AM
Et's and Ufo's promotors use the Drake equation in a fraudulus way.

Ah, yes. And Dr. Drake agrees with you.

Halcyon Dayz
2008-Jun-20, 03:49 AM
I would say they use it in wishful-thinking way.

As long as you don't have any reliable numbers to put into the Drake equation it is just an intellectual exercise. Not 'proof' of anything.

JayUtah
2008-Jun-20, 03:55 AM
Even with speculative numbers that are aided by our best scientific reasoning, the Drake equation covers only radio (i.e., electromagnetic) contact. It does not count toward visitation, which would require different formulation and not just different numbers.

Rm Riberra
2008-Jun-20, 03:55 AM
I would say they use it in wishful-thinking way.

With the insidious effect leading to the false concept of the possibility that the ET's civilisations can and are visiting us.

Rm Riberra
2008-Jun-20, 04:01 AM
Even with speculative numbers that are aided by our best scientific reasoning, the Drake equation covers only radio (i.e., electromagnetic) contact. It does not count toward visitation, which would require different formulation and not just different numbers.

that is why I say that by twisting the radio contact possibility , they lead people to believe into a physical contact by advanced extraterrestrials civilisations technologically millions of years in advance compare to us.

Rm Riberra
2008-Jun-20, 04:16 AM
I think some may like to play with
Macromedia Flash page allowing the user to modify Drake's values from PBS Nova

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/origins/drake.html

Rm Riberra
2008-Jun-20, 04:24 AM
It does not count toward visitation, which would require different formulation and not just different numbers.

Do you have some guesses about these different formulation(s) ?

I think that would be hard to determine.

Halcyon Dayz
2008-Jun-20, 04:39 AM
Even with speculative numbers that are aided by our best scientific reasoning, the Drake equation covers only radio (i.e., electromagnetic) contact. It does not count toward visitation, which would require different formulation and not just different numbers.
Ah yes, of course.
The parameter "the fraction of civilisations that develop a technology that releases detectable signs of their existence into space" would have to be "the fraction of civilisations that develop a technology that allows for interstellar exploration", which puts it into a completely different ball park.


With the insidious effect leading to the false concept of the possibility that the ET's civilisations can and are visiting us.
I know of no facts that exclude the possibility, but the probability is a lot lower (and I mean lots and lots) then the probability of there being a civilisation detectable by radio.

Also, a star traveling civilisation would have to develop radio first.

bart5050
2008-Jun-20, 09:17 AM
Just because I don't have a lot of experiance with this issue and don't know the people dosn't mean I can't investigate the evidence and evaluate.

The one associated with Jaimie Maussan is a hoax. The one with the Japanese pilot in Alaska is real. The question is a real what?

These are real. Are they real plasma balls, don't know yet. One balloon, and a lot of uknowns.

http://s292.photobucket.com/albums/mm17/Cosmic_Traveler/

eburacum45
2008-Jun-20, 09:46 AM
As I have stated before, I am very sceptical of the idea that extraterrestrials are visiting us currently; but if we allow for the possibility of interstellar colonisation, then that becomes the most likely form of contact, simply because they would be here already and would have been here (most probably) for billions of years.

Some things cannot be ruled out at the moment;

1/the possibility that we are alone in the Milky Way Galaxy;
2/the possibility that we have neighbours, but they do not emit radio signals that are strong enough to detect
3/the possibility that we are embedded in a galactic civilisation which hides itself from us for some reason.

All three of these possibilities have problems associated with them.
1/ seems to violate the Copernican principle of mediocrity; why are we so special?
2/ seems to suggest that civilisations can only ever reach a level comparable to ourselves, and are undetectable for that reason; an alternate explanation is that one a civilisation becomes very advanced, it becomes intrinsically invisible in some way. Perhaps they never use radio for communications, never colonise extensively and and limit their waste energy output to undetectable levels.
3/would possibly allow the Extraterrestrial Hypothesis to be true, and that might mean that (some of) the stories of abduction could be true, no matter how absurd. But this would require that the Earth has been under quarantine for at least hundreds of millions of years, as no evidence for past visits can be found in palaeontology, geology, genetics or archaeology. Or perhaps the civilisation which is sending UFOs to our system has only recently emerged, although to odds of this happening are very long indeed. Why would they emerge in the same period as ourselves, a period which is a mere eye-blink in geological time?

Stuart van Onselen
2008-Jun-20, 12:25 PM
eburacum45: Your discussion of the implications of possibility (2), as well part of your objection to (3), hinges around the "Apes and Angels" problem, don't they?

If I may elaborate for anyone not familiar with that issue:

As implied in the Drake equation, we need to do more than just calculate the probabilities of life evolving elsewhere in the universe. We also need to factor in the chances of intelligence evolving. What's more, we need to know that probability of it evolving at roughly the same time as ours.

If we use Earth as a guide, then the evolution of intelligence occurs in an eye-blink of cosmological time. So the chances of coincident evolution of intelligence are very, very small.

Which means that any life "out there" at the moment, will almost certainly be either pre-intelligent, even microbial (the "Apes"), or it will be "post intelligent", something so far beyond us that we can't even grasp it (the "Angels").

Look how far a bunch of scruffy apes has come in 100,000 years. Look how much their technology has improved in just 100 years! Is it even remotely possible that we can accurately predict what will happen to humanity in one million years? Yet it is entirely possible that other current intelligences are billions of years older than ours!

Radio? Why would they bother with the technological equivalent, to them, of smoke signals? Waste energy? Maybe they're too frugal to waste energy, or maybe they waste it on such a scale that we mistake their waste for cosmological processes! Invisible to us in all ways? How much awareness of humanity do microbes have?

By the way, everything I know about the Apes and Angels problem I learned at Atomic Rockets (http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/rocket3aa.html). And their presentation lacks the pompous tone that I cannot help at times to use when describing something.

I would heartily recommend Atomic Rockets (http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/) to Kai Yeves or any other aspiring Sci-Fi/Space Opera author. That's who the site is specifically created for.

JayUtah
2008-Jun-20, 01:36 PM
Just because I don't have a lot of experiance with this issue and don't know the people dosn't mean I can't investigate the evidence and evaluate.

Agreed. Your complete disregard for scientific method, your inability to formulate a sound line of reasoning, and your gullibility are what mean you can't investigate and evaluate the evidence.

Bart, I asked you what you hoped to gain by continuing to post here on this topic, since you said you're well familiar with what our answers are going to be and you don't seem to like any of them. I'd reall like you to state your goals for continuing to engage us on this topic.

astrophotographer
2008-Jun-20, 01:52 PM
,
http://s292.photobucket.com/albums/mm17/Cosmic_Traveler/


What is the purpose of this link? I see a lot of images and film clips. Many can be stars that scintillate/balloons/daylight videos of venus/etc. I don't see anything compelling.

bart5050
2008-Jun-20, 04:34 PM
Bart, I asked you what you hoped to gain by continuing to post here on this topic, since you said you're well familiar with what our answers are going to be and you don't seem to like any of them. I'd reall like you to state your goals for continuing to engage us on this topic.

Why do you continue to post here? I read a lot of forums, sometimes I post an observation or opinion on them. Sometimes I agree with others and sometimes not. Its called open debate, sharing information and opinion for purpose of discovery.

Do you require that I adopt your views to post my observations and opinions? Is being in agreement with you a prerequsite to posting?

If this forum is not for open debate and sharing information, then it is just for the purpose of proping up your belief systems. In that case you are correct and I should not continue to post.

What is the purpose of this link? I see a lot of images and film clips. Many can be stars that scintillate/balloons/daylight videos of venus/etc. I don't see anything compelling.

Most of these objects are below the clouds. Not saying I know what they are. Was hoping someone here did. If you class them as stars or Venus, then I question that opinion.

PetersCreek
2008-Jun-20, 04:41 PM
Why do you continue to post here? I read a lot of forums, sometimes I post an observation or opinion on them. Sometimes I agree with others and sometimes not. Its called open debate, sharing information and opinion for purpose of discovery.

Unresponsive to the question.

Do you require that I adopt your views to post my observations and opinions? Is being in agreement with you a prerequsite to posting?

Unresponsive to the question and it looks to me like a veiled and baseless accusation.

If this forum is not for open debate and sharing information, then it is just for the purpose of proping up your belief systems. In that case you are correct and I should not continue to post.

And another one.

Bart, is it really too much to expect you to directly answer the questions put to you?

astrophotographer
2008-Jun-20, 04:48 PM
Most of these objects are below the clouds. Not saying I know what they are. Was hoping someone here did. If you class them as stars or Venus, then I question that opinion.

1. How can you tell they are below the clouds. I only watched one clip and looked at a few images. The clip showed a point source that looked above the clouds. To me, it looked like a daytime filming of Venus.

2. Feel free to provide specific images/clips you find the most compelling. I am not going to go through an entire barrage of what about this one? I explain what it may be and then you go on to the next one.

edit: I looked again and saw some objects that were below the clouds. However, they were "tumbling" as they floated in the sky. To me they looked like a mylar balloon floating some distance away. I did not see anything unearthly associated with that clip.

LotusExcelle
2008-Jun-20, 04:51 PM
Not entirely on subject but I'd like to say that i'm impressed - this is remarkably non-flame. It is refreshing to find people that discuss rather than yell.

John Jones
2008-Jun-20, 05:12 PM
Not entirely on subject but I'd like to say that i'm impressed - this is remarkably non-flame. It is refreshing to find people that discuss rather than yell.



WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY THAT????


(j/k)

JayUtah
2008-Jun-20, 05:24 PM
Sometimes I agree with others and sometimes not.

But that doesn't stop you from issuing a blanket condemnation of the entire approach being taken here. Please reconcile that statement with your prior actions.

Its called open debate, sharing information and opinion for purpose of discovery.

This particular part of the forum is for presesnting, testing, and defending conspiracy theories. Are you doing that?

What part of your purpose is served by suggesting that science as a whole is misguided and irresponsible?

"Open debate" here does not mean you won't be held accountable for the logical and factual validity of your claims. It does not mean you won't be held accountable for your approach, including attempts to evade hard questions.

Do you require that I adopt your views to post my observations and opinions?

No, and you know it doesn't.

However the forum does require you to take questions seriously and respond to them with something more substantial than well-poisoning, handwaving, evasion, and straw-man dismissals.

Since you habitually sidestep or ignore questions that test the strength of your claims on grounds except those you have preconceived, and you seem to think that approach is inappropriate, then I wonder what your real purpose is in continuing to subject us to claims whose response you both anticipate and reject as at odds with what you want in terms of "open debate."

You are the one characterizing the debate here as inappropriate. Why do you continue to engage it debate you think is merely dismissive?

Is being in agreement with you a prerequsite to posting?

No, and you know it isn't.

But you are required to give an informed reason for your disagreement. Trying to dismiss your critics as overly skeptical ne'er-do-wells does not constitute a sufficient grounds for disagreement.

Since you say you know we will disagree, and since you say you know the manner of our disagreement well enough to characterize it as "typical debunking," and since you have previously identifed that expected manner of disagreement as inappropriate to your desired mode of debate, I ask again: what do you hope to attain by continuing your present course of action?

If this forum is not for open debate and sharing information, then it is just for the purpose of proping up your belief systems. In that case you are correct and I should not continue to post.

This forum is intended to test space- and astronomy-related conspiracy theories for the rigor of their formulation and the strength of their facts. If doing so is not your intent, and you are not posting a conspiracy theory or defending one promoted by others, then what purpose do you have in mind?

JayUtah
2008-Jun-20, 05:42 PM
Do you have some guesses about these different formulation(s) ? I think that would be hard to determine.

You are correct.

The interesting part of Drake's approach is not the simple probabilistic compilation but the science behind estimating each of the terms. While in the end each term includes considerable speculation and extrapolation, there is nevertheless a lot of science to be looked at there.

As has been said, to apply Drake's equation to actual Earth visitation, the term "fraction of civilizations that develop EM-emissive technology" has to be revised to "fraction of civilizations that develop interstellar spacefaring technology," and a new term must be added: "fraction of spacecrafting civilizations that explore life-bearing planets."

Earth's emission of electromagnetic energy is largely accidental. Except for narrow-casting to our outbound exploratory spacecraft and to our communication satellites, most of our transmissions radiate broadly because that's the natural behavior of such energy and there's no case for restricting it. Drake's "EM-emissive" term addresses such broadcasts -- that is, the notion that we would most likely receive a sort of alien version of "I Love Lucy" (perhaps "I Love Zarquon") and only because it was accidentally radiated into space and was actually intended for some other use.

Spacefaring is not accidental. It is deliberate. While we can expect a non-zero possibility of contact as an accidental result of some other mission (e.g., the scenario in Star Trek: First Contact), the fact remains that spacefaring for any purpose differs qualitatiively from accidental emission of electromagnetic energy and thus entails significantly lower quantitative estimates of probability.

Spacefaring is also discriminate. The aliens choose to go into space, and only to the places they deem worthy.

Spacefaring is linear in time, as opposed to EM-emissions that consitute broadcasts. A single broadcast reaches many points simultaneously, albeing at a strength attenuated by the inverse square law. Spacefaring reaches only one point at a time, limited by causality.

All that requires substantially different (and necesarily lower) estimates of probability.

The new term supposes an intential search for life (or perhaps at least the acceptance of the eventuality of contacting new life) arising conditionally from spacefaring in general. The probability of contacting Earth in that search necessitates the numer of life-supporting planets as a divisor in this term. That is where the math which ensures the Drake equation will never give a practically zero probability for the existence of detectable life would also give a practically zero probability that such life physically contacts Earthlings. Up until now the vast number of planets has been a multiplier. As a divisor it has the opposite effect.

bart5050
2008-Jun-20, 06:43 PM
I thought it clear. My purpose for posting was to get opinions, evaluations of these objects. They do not look like spaceships to me. They are being seen all over the world. Thats a lot of balloons. Lots from Australia and UK. Plasma?

Could be a prosaic explenation for a lot of sightings?

Here is an intersting one, to avoid five pages worth is a reasonable request.

http://s292.photobucket.com/albums/mm17/Cosmic_Traveler/?action=view&current=PurpleSparkleZoom1_12fps.flv

Here is one seen less often but accounts maybe for the cigar shaped sightings,

http://s292.photobucket.com/albums/mm17/Cosmic_Traveler/?action=view&current=HagenGermany1980.flv

Which looks a lot like the one in this report.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ffa_1184095765

John Jones
2008-Jun-20, 06:48 PM
I'm not biting this time.

JayUtah
2008-Jun-20, 06:55 PM
I thought it clear. My purpose for posting was to get opinions, evaluations of these objects.

I think it's more likely your purpose is to bait people into a discussion in which they will have first assumed some burden of proof.

What is your conspiracy theory? If you don't have one, why are you posting this material here? This is not a research service.

There are several dozen examples. Since it is your evidence, please provide your explaination or theory for each one. No one is obligated to research and evaluate dozens of photographs just because you think such an exercise would be nifty.

gzhpcu
2008-Jun-20, 07:23 PM
I thought it clear. My purpose for posting was to get opinions, evaluations of these objects. They do not look like spaceships to me. They are being seen all over the world. Thats a lot of balloons. Lots from Australia and UK. Plasma?

Bart,
Just looks like a lot of out-of-focus, poor quality filming to me. No frame of reference, no clear image, just fuzzy views. Ever read up on the "rods hoax"?

bart5050
2008-Jun-20, 08:42 PM
Rods are out of focus insects. Anyone should be capable of seeing that.

I don't know what the object in photobucket is. They are being filmed all over the world. Thats a lot of balloons.

OK, you won't bite so I will.

The Japanese Airline sighting. Phillip Klass said they were chased by Venus. Yet the radar says the object stayed on their six during a turn. The crew also saw Venus and stars and recognized the difference. Its classic UFO.

And if the one from Russia is valid it is clasic UFO as well.

I would like to see a prosaic explenation that covers all points and does not leave me saying, but what about this?

And I would like this explenation to not have as its hingepost that I am incapable of using my brain properly. Because every time you do that it looks like a tap dance of evade and baffle.

Thats why it puts a bee in my bonnet. I have solved some major problems in the past with brain power and persistance. Every where I ever worked I became the problem solver. When others found no design solutions they called me in because I refused to give up till it was all figured out.

Not one of your arguments made a point that was not centered on the premise that my thinking is faulty. If you can support the arguments strictly on the facts fine.

If you have to support your arguments on me being incapable of rational thought then they fail and I agree there is no point in further debate.

slang
2008-Jun-20, 09:06 PM
I would like to see a prosaic explenation that covers all points and does not leave me saying, but what about this?

One explanation that covers everything? Don't you see that such a request is beyond all reasonable thinking?


And I would like this explenation to not have as its hingepost that I am incapable of using my brain properly. Because every time you do that it looks like a tap dance of evade and baffle.

You are the one evading questions, and picking and choosing what you respond to. Why the use of the word 'baffle'? What do you intend to convey here? I require you to answer these.


Thats why it puts a bee in my bonnet. I have solved some major problems in the past with brain power and persistance. Every where I ever worked I became the problem solver. When others found no design solutions they called me in because I refused to give up till it was all figured out.

Presumably in a field or situation where you had sufficient knowledge of the problems at hand to make reasonable assumptions to get to the root cause of a problem. In this field you severely lack knowledge in several areas, i.e. physics, astronomy, photographic distortions, etc. It shows in how easily you dismiss valid answers, or assume there are no valid answers.


Not one of your arguments made a point that was not centered on the premise that my thinking is faulty. If you can support the arguments strictly on the facts fine.

But these cases are called UFOs precisely because facts are not in abundance. Hence proper, logical, inference and deduction from what is available is needed, and Occams Razor needs to be applied.


If you have to support your arguments on me being incapable of rational thought then they fail and I agree there is no point in further debate.

Strawman. Nobody claims you to be incapable of rational thought. It is you that assumes that your thinking is infallible. You have been shown over and over again to apply logic wrong, yet when shown this, you simply ignore it and move on to the next picture instead of discussing how you apply logic wrong.

JayUtah
2008-Jun-20, 09:17 PM
Rods are out of focus insects. Anyone should be capable of seeing that.

Straw man. It is not necessary that they be out of focus.

I don't know what the object in photobucket is. They are being filmed all over the world. Thats a lot of balloons.

What do balloons have to do with anything?

OK, you won't bite so I will.

The rules of the forum require you to state your conspiracy theory. Simply posting pictures without any commentary or conclusions does not establish an obligation on someone else's behalf.

The Japanese Airline sighting. Phillip Klass said they were chased by Venus.

Good for Mr. Klass. And your theory is?

And if the one from Russia is valid it is clasic UFO as well.

What is a "valid UFO?"

I would like to see a prosaic explenation that covers all points and does not leave me saying, but what about this?

But since you don't like or accept prosaic explanations and you take people to task for providing them, I don't see why anyone should oblige you.

At this point it's more likely you're simply trolling. What is your conspiracy theory?

And I would like this explenation to not have as its hingepost that I am incapable of using my brain properly.

What if an inability to think defensibly is the problem with your theory? You simply want to beg the question that you can't possibly be wrong for that reason. Sorry, investigation doesn't work like that.

I have solved some major problems in the past with brain power and persistance.

And what does that have to do with the blatantly illogical patterns of reasoning you have employed here? I neither know nor care about what you may have done elsewhere or at other times. I'm basing my assessment strictly on what I have seen you do here and at other Internet forums where you have posted. At those times and places you have behaved illogically, and it is upon that basis that I evaluate your reasoning.

If you want to be characterized as logical, exhibit logical thought. Don't simply demand that you are logical.

Not one of your arguments made a point that was not centered on the premise that my thinking is faulty. If you can support the arguments strictly on the facts fine.

Begs the question that your thinking is not faulty. Again, you simply want this "open debate" to proceed along predetermined lines for which you likely already have pat answers and responses. Not gonna happen. If the problem with your argument is that it's poorly reasoned, no one here is going to ignore that just because you say it hurts your feelings.

You clearly don't care about answers if you aren't willing to accept that they may not come in the form you anticipated. Your approach is more consistent with a caricature of debate in which you can seem to prevail by guiding in in ways that lead only to inconclusion and controversy.

If you have to support your arguments on me being incapable of rational thought then they fail and I agree there is no point in further debate.

If you cannot pose a rational debate then that's your problem.

You have presented material that seems to be evidence. That puts you in the position of claimant, yet you have made no claim. Please make your claims. Demanding others' identification of various items is not a claim.

gzhpcu
2008-Jun-20, 09:29 PM
Rods are out of focus insects. Anyone should be capable of seeing that.
Apparently not. Lots of people have been taken in.

I don't know what the object in photobucket is. They are being filmed all over the world. Thats a lot of balloons.
How can anyone know what a fuzzy, out-of-focus object is? Why balloon by the way?

OK, you won't bite so I will.

The Japanese Airline sighting. Phillip Klass said they were chased by Venus. Yet the radar says the object stayed on their six during a turn. The crew also saw Venus and stars and recognized the difference. Its classic UFO.

And if the one from Russia is valid it is clasic UFO as well.

I don't follow the logic here. You were discussing photobucket images (which you say you do not consider to be alien spaceships), then suddenly lash out with the JAL sighting and some Russian sighting as "classic ufo". What are you trying to say? And what do you understand by "classic ufo"?

astrophotographer
2008-Jun-20, 09:29 PM
I thought it clear. My purpose for posting was to get opinions, evaluations of these objects. They do not look like spaceships to me. They are being seen all over the world. Thats a lot of balloons. Lots from Australia and UK. Plasma?

Could be a prosaic explenation for a lot of sightings?

Here is an intersting one, to avoid five pages worth is a reasonable request.

http://s292.photobucket.com/albums/mm17/Cosmic_Traveler/?action=view&current=PurpleSparkleZoom1_12fps.flv (http://s292.photobucket.com/albums/mm17/Cosmic_Traveler/?action=view&current=PurpleSparkleZoom1_12fps.flv)


Looks like a mylar balloon in the wind to me. Maybe or maybe not. Not doing anything unusual to suggest it is being flown by ET.



Here is one seen less often but accounts maybe for the cigar shaped sightings,

http://s292.photobucket.com/albums/mm17/Cosmic_Traveler/?action=view&current=HagenGermany1980.flv


This also looks like a cylindrical balloon of some kind. Again, it seems to be tumbling in the wind and not demonstrating any unearthly characteristics.




Which looks a lot like the one in this report.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ffa_1184095765 (http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ffa_1184095765[/quote)

This one could be something interesting but I am curious as to where the video originated from. Details, details, details.

astrophotographer
2008-Jun-20, 09:40 PM
OK, you won't bite so I will.

The Japanese Airline sighting. Phillip Klass said they were chased by Venus. Yet the radar says the object stayed on their six during a turn. The crew also saw Venus and stars and recognized the difference. Its classic UFO...

Hmmmm....are you aware of any details with this case or are you just repeating what you read somewhere? BTW, the FAA evaluated the tape and stated the "blip" you referred to was a "uncorrelated primary and beacon target". The radar was seeing the transponder signal and the primary return as two separate blips. This is not uncommon because the timing for the two signals to arrive at the same time is very critical.

Additionally, a USAF C-130 was in the area that night and could see the JAL flight. However, they saw no other craft or UFOs. We also have the pilots in United #69 that was also in the area and could see the JAL flight. They could not see any UFOs or other craft.

I realize that this is what Klass wrote in his book about the subject but I have never heard of anybody refuting these points. Feel free to address those points.


And if the one from Russia is valid it is clasic UFO as well..

Which Russian case? The video? I ask for more details. We can start with the videos origin. I find it amazing that you see one video and it is now a classic UFO? You have a low standard.

JayUtah
2008-Jun-20, 09:50 PM
Here is an intersting one, to avoid five pages worth is a reasonable request.

What makes it "interesting?"

bart5050
2008-Jun-20, 10:01 PM
Good tap dance that falls back on your standerd tactics.

The four cases are likely not related and did not try to say so. Therfore it is a given that there are more than one cause as to explenation.

If we were to asume UFO's are real and abduction stories are related then there is only one conclusion.

ET uses biological technology and are farming us for raw materials.
Defense industry is aware of this but is likely unable to do anything about it at this point.
Any competing technology to come up with strategic defense and negotiation of equality would raise moral questions that society would be unwilling to accept so research must be classified.

The alternative is that there is nothing to any of it and it's all a big misunderstanding. Your arguments will be to this end with no consideration of any other possibility. Your arguments will be based on my inability to use reason properly.

However logic tells me that there is only one reason for ET to stay hidden. They can tap dance as well as you can.

They take what they want and give back nothing. The very concept is counter to our moral fabric and so must remain classified.

What better technology than an intelligent spaceship, with a math coprocessor, capable of telepathic command and eager to serve.

If you think that this possibility has no logical merit then you better re evaluate your own ability to reason.

JayUtah
2008-Jun-20, 10:04 PM
Here is one seen less often but accounts maybe for the cigar shaped sightings...

"Accounts for" implies a commonality between disparate sightings. The object in this example can be considered "cigar shaped," but that does not mean it has anything causally to do with other sightings of "cigar shaped" objects.

I note that the attributed author of this film is quite prolific in producing "UFO" films. How does this affect your interpretation of the contents?

captain swoop
2008-Jun-20, 10:06 PM
This is just a wind up isn't it?

You have no evidence for any of this. In fact, it seems that the lack of evidence is your evidence.

Amazing.

gzhpcu
2008-Jun-20, 10:10 PM
What?? You say you are trying to investigate and come up with this conclusion??? Intelligent spaceship with math coprocessor??? Telepathic command?? Eager to serve???

slang
2008-Jun-20, 10:11 PM
""

Answer the questions.

gzhpcu
2008-Jun-20, 10:12 PM
Oh, and farming us for raw materials and the Defense Dept. knows it, but can't do anything????

JayUtah
2008-Jun-20, 10:13 PM
The four cases are likely not related and did not try to say so.

You asked for a comprehensive prosaic cause. Some may have interpreted comprehensive to mean one explanation for all examples, not an explanation in each case that accounts for all the observations in each case.

It is rarely the case that any explanation for a happenstance occurrence can explain all that is observable. There are several reasons for this, and real investigators are not especially bothered by it.

However it is a common tactic of the pseudoscientist to bait the opponents into making the first attempt at explanation, to demand that such an explanation account for all observations, and to then claim victory by default based on whatever observations remain unexplained -- all without posing any substantively better or more parsimonious explanation.

That will not happen here. As the claimant you will state and defend your theories.

If we were to asume UFO's are real and abduction stories are related then there is only one conclusion.

If you were to do that, then you would be begging the question.

ET uses biological technology and are farming us for raw materials.

...and this would be circular.

Defense industry is aware of this but is likely unable to do anything about it at this point.

Prove your claim that the defense "industry" is aware of what you claim they are aware of.

Your arguments will be to this end with no consideration of any other possibility.

Shifting the burden of proof. Do you claim any or all of those examples represent alien spacecraft?

Your arguments will be based on my inability to use reason properly.

You are unable to use reason properly. To ignore that would be to ignore the problem with your claims.

However logic tells me that there is only one reason for ET to stay hidden. They can tap dance as well as you can.

Converted conditional.

If you think that this possibility has no logical merit then you better re evaluate your own ability to reason.

It has no evidence. It has no prima facie plausibility. You are simply interpreting observations circularly. The circularity has been explained to you ad nauseam, but you categorically reject any statement that implies your reasoning is in error, so you are reduced simply to making noise.

gzhpcu
2008-Jun-20, 10:27 PM
This is just a wind up isn't it?

You have no evidence for any of this. In fact, it seems that the lack of evidence is your evidence.

Amazing.

Apparently, lack of evidence is evidence of a massive coverup...:)

bart5050
2008-Jun-20, 10:41 PM
There is the possibility it is all a big misunderstanding.

If not then the rest is the only thing that fits all the ancedotal information.

Personally I would prefer the misunderstanding. But it would seem that all parties have different but converging motivation to avoid letting proof fall into the wrong hands.

astrophotographer
2008-Jun-20, 10:42 PM
I was looking at the clip of the Russian Mig-21 "chase" on Youtube and one of the comments stated the ejection seat (which is visible in the frame) is not of Russian manufacture. When I looked it up on the web, I noticed that it indeed look like an American ejection seat and not like the ejection seat for a Mig-21.

Why would a video, which is supposed to be a russian Mig-21, be shot from a US made aircraft? The answer is the image probably is a hoax. It is probably a video shot from the rear seat from a US trainer (Like the two seat F-16). The anamoly may be a reflection off the window or possibly have been inserted digitally. The important thing to note is the ejection seat is not what one would find from a Mig-21. As far as I am concerned, this video has very low value as evidence because it is not what it claims to be. So much for it being a classic UFO case.

gzhpcu
2008-Jun-20, 10:46 PM
But it would seem that all parties have different but converging motivation to avoid letting proof fall into the wrong hands.

Huh? What parties? What would seem? What proof?

slang
2008-Jun-20, 10:47 PM
'''

You have some nerve accusing anyone here about evading.. answer my questions please.

JayUtah
2008-Jun-20, 10:51 PM
But it would seem that all parties have different but converging motivation to avoid letting proof fall into the wrong hands.

You have made specific claims. Prove them.

You have been asked specific questions. Answer them.

bart5050
2008-Jun-20, 11:12 PM
There is no proof. The conclusion is the only thing that covers all the bases.

It is an all or nothing scenario. Either it is nothing but misconception.

Or it is all of it carried to the ultimate conclusion.

gzhpcu
2008-Jun-20, 11:28 PM
There is no proof.


The conclusion is the only thing that covers all the bases.

You mean farming humans by means of intelligent spacecraft with math coprocessors eager to serve??? How did you ever come to this conclusion?

It is an all or nothing scenario.

Why?

Either it is nothing but misconception.

Or it is all of it carried to the ultimate conclusion.

Carried to what you consider the ultimate conclusion?

So you promote a conspiracy theory based on absolutely no proof?

PetersCreek
2008-Jun-20, 11:31 PM
There is no proof. The conclusion is the only thing that covers all the bases.

Found in the dictionary under baseless conlcusion.

It is an all or nothing scenario. Either it is nothing but misconception.

False dilemma much?

All this and you're still not answering the questions put to you.

JayUtah
2008-Jun-20, 11:34 PM
There is no proof. The conclusion is the only thing that covers all the bases.

Circular.

It is an all or nothing scenario. Either it is nothing but misconception. Or it is all of it carried to the ultimate conclusion.

False dilemma.

Since you have no proof for your claims, please withdraw them.

slang
2008-Jun-20, 11:42 PM
Still evading my (and others) questions huh?

bart5050
2008-Jun-21, 12:07 AM
Why does ET remain hidden?
Why all this?
abductions
collect genetic material
Modify memory but leave some beliefs intact as to purpose
varied notions
they are here to help us for various reasons
soon they will reveal, never happens
play with crop circles as if it had meaning
humans with divine thoughts create more circles and feed on the myth
false memory
create just a whole bunch of crap for the foolish to buy into.

I have to believe our defense industry true to their purpose must consider all possibilities. Further they must research countermeasures. To this end defense has investigated the possibilities thouroughly and know if it is all much ado about nothing or if there is something real going on.

So the conclusions are that there is nothing to it but a lot of nisconception and foolish belief.

Or it is as it seems and ET plays us for their own agenda. If their intentions were honerable they would land and open negotiation.

Why all the abduction, sperm and egg collection ** to begin with.

So it comes down to an all or nothing scenario.

If nothing then we chalk it all up to the same as religion and it becomes a matter of faith and wishfull thinking.

If something to it then they are users.
Carry that to its ultimate conclusion.
I refuse to believe th CT ** that our governent and defense would be working against our interests. Reason to classify and keep undercover would have a solid foundation.

No proof of anything, it is all speculation. Clearly state it as such so I will withdraw nothing.

No ET, fine.
ET remaining hidden and playing house, we need to understand and act accordingly. Drop all the new age etherial, they really love us **, and deal with cold hard truth.

Van Rijn
2008-Jun-21, 12:41 AM
This is well and truly an invisible elf argument. :doh:

JayUtah
2008-Jun-21, 12:50 AM
If this all speculation then why is it wrong for us to point out when you use that speculation as the premise for arguments that try to critcize science and skepticism?

bart5050
2008-Jun-21, 01:20 AM
If this all speculation then why is it wrong for us to point out when you use that speculation as the premise for arguments that try to critcize science and skepticism?

It is not wrong. Many of your arguments made quite an impression. Skepticism has great value. It seperates what is a provable truth from a speculation.

Even in speculation one has to adopt some logic and skepticism. So conclude that this speculative ET fits the model of a user. Read Shakespere and Macbeth is comparable. This speculation is the Hypotheses that awaits proof of validity or falsehood.

It is not a horror story but an application of science. We try to build computers to emulate human intuition and logic. Genetic engineering is in its infancy. As it develops we will probobly find it easier to modify a neural brain interface to control the machine with inteligence. Computer memory and math coprocessor means precision. Neural control means intelligence and intuition. Telepathy means control the complex with a simple thought.

It would be remiss of our defense industry to not consider the implications of such an application of technology. Have to assume they are bright. Much of our technology was first concieved as fiction.

John Jones
2008-Jun-21, 01:22 AM
Let me guess. You're going to leave BAUT yet again?

John Jones
2008-Jun-21, 01:31 AM
Good tap dance that falls back on your standerd tactics.

The four cases are likely not related and did not try to say so. Therfore it is a given that there are more than one cause as to explenation.

If we were to asume UFO's are real and abduction stories are related then there is only one conclusion.

ET uses biological technology and are farming us for raw materials.
Defense industry is aware of this but is likely unable to do anything about it at this point.
Any competing technology to come up with strategic defense and negotiation of equality would raise moral questions that society would be unwilling to accept so research must be classified.

The alternative is that there is nothing to any of it and it's all a big misunderstanding. Your arguments will be to this end with no consideration of any other possibility. Your arguments will be based on my inability to use reason properly.

However logic tells me that there is only one reason for ET to stay hidden. They can tap dance as well as you can.

They take what they want and give back nothing. The very concept is counter to our moral fabric and so must remain classified.

What better technology than an intelligent spaceship, with a math coprocessor, capable of telepathic command and eager to serve.

If you think that this possibility has no logical merit then you better re evaluate your own ability to reason.


Bart, I thought you were going to take a few days to read-up on critical thinking and the discipline of science.

You sound like you're coming unwrapped lately.

bart5050
2008-Jun-21, 01:42 AM
Let me guess. You're going to leave BAUT yet again?

Not necessarily. You tought me a lot and I appreciate it. Learned to seperate speculation from what is provable by physical proof. Also learned there is nothing wrong with applying logic and skeptical thought to speculation. Had to get past my knee jerk reactions and ask myself some hard questions. And that only physical proof moves it from speculation to fact.

Maybe you learned something as well.

However now that I have found a speculation that pretty much covers the bases there is not a lot more to say is there. Months ago when I started this study I assumed ET a given. Now assume it as an unproven speculation till found otherwise. Not sure I could have grasped all the implications had I not made that important distinction.

astrophotographer
2008-Jun-21, 01:43 AM
I am not even sure he can pay attention to the discussion anymore. He posts a link to a "Classic" UFO case and I discover that the film is not what it is presented to be. Since his "classic UFO" is exposed to be potentially false, he ignores it. Now he goes into some vague incoherent rambling. Darned if I can understand his point. This is like fighting the hydra. Chop a head off and two more spring in its place. Anybody have a torch?

bart5050
2008-Jun-21, 01:46 AM
You sound like you're coming unwrapped lately.

LOL Who says I was ever sane to begin with? Actually I think it pretty sane to place speculation and truths in seperate boxes.

Et is speculation. Glast and CERN are truths. Do you find that grounded enough?

Joe Boy
2008-Jun-21, 01:47 AM
This is well and truly an invisible elf argument. :doh:

That makes more sense to me than anything Bart has been saying lately. Just don't get him going on elves, please. No offense intended Bart. I think you are probably a great guy and I am cetainly in no position to talk down to anyone, but frankly, you lost me a long time ago and it is blatently clear to me that your respondents have shown a consistent level of patience and good will beyond anything I thought possible. Take a step back and consider the possibility that you may have some unreasonable expectations here. I do not understand why you persist in this failed line of reasoning and logic. You make me dizzy--(dizzier maybe?)--joe

JayUtah
2008-Jun-21, 01:52 AM
It is not wrong.

So when you dismiss our unwillingness to buy your speculation, calling our objections "standard debunking methods," that's just hogwash on your part?

The dough ball is really getting a workout tonight.

Even in speculation one has to adopt some logic and skepticism. So conclude that this speculative ET fits the model of a user.

But to identify it as a workable conclusion on that basis alone is blatantly circular reasoning. So much for logic.

It would be remiss of our defense industry to not consider the implications of such an application of technology. Have to assume they are bright.

They are bright but not delusional.

Sorry, at this point you're just yanking chains.

JayUtah
2008-Jun-21, 01:56 AM
Had to get past my knee jerk reactions and ask myself some hard questions.

Sorry, heard it all before from you. You keep flip-flopping between semi-rational and mostly-foaming. Please choose a persona and stick with it.

bart5050
2008-Jun-21, 01:59 AM
The new ET.

http://video.aol.com/video/tv-the-hasty-hare/1813945

bart5050
2008-Jun-21, 02:03 AM
They are bright but not delusional.

So you consider it delusional to consider a brain capable of controlling a machine? There is now research going on to use thought control of a microchip to bypass nerve damage.

The hand is a machine.

Joe Boy
2008-Jun-21, 02:59 AM
I am not even sure he can pay attention to the discussion anymore. He posts a link to a "Classic" UFO case and I discover that the film is not what it is presented to be. Since his "classic UFO" is exposed to be potentially false, he ignores it. Now he goes into some vague incoherent rambling. Darned if I can understand his point. This is like fighting the hydra. Chop a head off and two more spring in its place. Anybody have a torch?

This thread is beginning to resemble a bad episode of the "Adams Family". Something like a family reunion featuring my in-laws! Truth stranger than fiction. What are the chances that you would bring up "hydra" in an astronomy forum within whispering distance of a guy who used to work in a research lab that tried to mass produce them under controlled conditions!!??! We raised them in various treated solutions that were meant to replicate their natural environment. The 70's had a bit of everything huh? Go figure--joe

JayUtah
2008-Jun-21, 03:14 AM
So you consider it delusional to consider a brain capable of controlling a machine?

No, I consider it delusional that your notion of space aliens has anything to do with this.

And I'm sick of you putting words in my mouth. Stop it.