Abductions (A Genuine Puzzle?)
cl...@columbia-center.org
In article <Geoff-09079...@max1-100.snlo.dialup.callamer.com>,
Ge...@CalibanMW.com (Geoff Price) wrote:
Given the usually abysmal level on the newsgroups, I decided that this
thoughtful and provocative post deserved more bandwidth. So I am including
all of the original post along with my comments on a few sections.
> There has been some scattered tangental discussions of the abduction
> phenomenon in these groups, but rarely is the actual phenomenon in all
its
> bizarre power squarely addressed.
>
> For example, it is common for skeptics of the phenomenon to account for
> the convergence of detail within and across cases by appealing simply to
> contagious, culturally-driven science fiction themes. As Ian wrote:
>
> >To me, the significant point about the similarities between the
> >abductees stories is that they are describing what an ordinary person,
> >who is not scientifically literate, would imagine alien beings might
> >do, based largely on popular science-fiction and the memetic spread of
> >other accounts of alleged alien abduction.
>
> Others flat out deny there is any surprising convergence of detail in
> abduction experiences, as Gratuitous Pseudonym wrote:
>
> >UFO abduction reports are a fad, aided and abetted by people who have a
> >monetary interest in encouraging it. There has been no corroboration
that I
> >would consider "eerie", only pathetic.
>
> Others scratch their heads and wonder what the fuss is about when the
> phenomenon seems indistinguishable from simple hypnagogic imagery and
> sleep paralysis combined with investigator-assisted embellishment.
>
> Yet, the fact remains that none of these perspectives really addresses
the
> core characteristics of the phenomenon in an adequate (or even
> meaningful?) way.
>
> With no particular goal in mind, and certainly not out of an attempt to
> "force" those who are skeptical to accept any particular interpretation
of
> abduction experiences, let me suggest some thorny aspects of the
abduction
> phenomenon for conversation.
>
> First, a dual abduction account from a CUFOS report by John Carpenter.
> This is an example of an abduction independently corroborated under
> hypnosis, where the two individuals initially do not have conscious
recall
> of the abduction, but realize they're "missing" a certain amount of time
> (in this case, taking three hours to drive 72 miles on a highway). This
> is the standard "missing time" experience, which can be simply a
discreet
> loss of anywhere between a half hour and a couple of hours, or a more
> dramatic "skip" in waking events, as when an abductee suddenly finds
> his/herself driving on a completely different road and in a completely
> different direction that s/he remembers doing just a moment ago.
>
> While the Betty and Barney Hill abduction is considered the prototypical
> example of a corroborative dual abduction, it is not, in fact unique or
> even uncommon among documented abduction cases (I'll address some common
> skeptical takes on this below.) For example, see
> http://www.cufos.org/webbrev.html (abstract on Webb's report on the
Buff
> Ledge case.)
>
> Carpenter's case of "Jennifer" and "Susan" took place in late 1989. The
> two women were driving across country toward their homes in St. Louis
when
> they encountered an an oval bright light in the sky. Both recall seeing
> this light and a "cone" or "V" of pastel-colored light rays, as
described
> later during independent interviews:
>
> Jennifer: "This cone ... streaks of colored light coming downward ...
> like purple and blue and white and pink ... crossing at the bottom like
--
> like beams, like sunrays in a way, at the bottom of the 'V' or cone. ...
> This cone was real close to us, like a hundred feet or so. It was close
> over on the righthand side."
>
> Susan: "These two color lines are coming out of it simultaneously from
> each side ... and they look like a 'V' -- and they form a 'V' down to
the
> Earth. ... Close ... close, uh, maybe a hundred feet."
>
> Both women consciously claimed that following this sighting of the UFO
> they had simply proceeded on their trip without interruption. Upon
> arrival in their motel room, they noted the unexpectedly late hour and
> were startled by Susan's extreme pallor. Upon return to St. Louis,
still
> feeling anxious, irritable and confused, they found and contacted
Missouri
> MUFON, who alerted Carpenter.
>
> Both women stated that they had never given the subject of UFOs any
> attention nor read any books on the matter. They were eventually
> administered three objective psychological tests by CUFOS, and neither
> showed any overt signs of pathology or psychological problems as
measured
> by the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI). Both had low
> to moderate scores on the Index of Childhood Memory and Imagination
> (ICMI), which measures a tendency toward fantasy-prone behavior and
> thought (making neither an appropriate target for Dr. Imrie's kindly and
> entirely empathetic "services". :)
>
> Five days after the event, Carpenter met with Susan and, under hypnosis,
> an abduction narrative emerged. Afterward, Carpenter emphasized the
need
> for her to abstain entirely from communication with Jennifer regarding
the
> session. In Carpenter's words, "Susan indicated that she would have no
> difficulty maintaining her silence because she and Jennifer were only
> acquaintances living miles apart with no regular communication or
routine
> contact with each other."
>
> Carpenter next contacted Jennifer, who was also curious about the event
> and maintained that upon seeing the UFO she had neither left the car nor
> seen anything further. He was able to meet with her 12 days later. She
> confirmed that "Susan had not revealed any information whatsoever."
>
> Both recalled being approached and floated (in typical abduction style)
by
> two beings toward the round craft.
>
> Jennifer: "I *do* seem to see the car from outside ... I'm behind it,
> looking down at an angle, above the right side of the roof ... I'm
higher
> than just a bit ago! ... it's real tiny now!"
>
> Susan: "[The car is] way down there... It's real small... the more I
look
> at it the tinier it gets."
>
> Neither recalls exactly how they got inside the craft. Inside, both
> describe a round room, and a standard "examination" commences. Some
> samplings of convergent details:
>
> Jennifer: "There's some tall columns that go from the floor upward ...
> I'm lying on a table, I can see the pole above, and the bright light
above
> -- right in the center."
>
> Susan: "There's a column that comes down -- real close to the table."
>
> Jennifer: "A panel of lights light up ... It's as if they're getting
data
> from their panel of what looks like very sophisticated equipment -- kind
> of all one moulding ... it's all smooth ... lots of different colored
> lights..."
>
> Susan: "There's some instrument-looking things -- like panels ... some
> cabinet-things .. built into the wall."
>
> Jennifer: "[The large room is] kind of an auditorium -- like
oval-shaped
> ... seats that go, oh, six or eight levels, and they all look alike on
> each side observing us."
>
> Susan: "Oh! I'm in a *big* room -- a big oval shape with a domed
ceiling
> with windows up high .. like a cathedral but not ornate ... tiers of
seats
> ... and there's a lot of smaller [beings] now!"
>
> Jennifer: "I see something moving, but I don't know what it is ... It
has
> arms and legs ... they have one-color suits; the hands or gloves ... are
> white..."
>
> Susan: "I don't really see clothing. It looks like everything molds
> together ... they're not naked, off-whitish..."
>
> Jennifer: "Those things move around -- almost like a floating action
...
> but a controlled weightlessness -- like, like they glide .. they just
> glide!"
>
> Susan: "They slide ... very smooth and graceful."
>
> Jennifer: "The eyes are kinda big but they don't look like our eyes,
> black ... elongated on each side -- but narrowing down ... smaller,
going
> toward the ears ... It's wider toward the middle, and then it narrows
> down, almost like teardrops. The bulbous area (nearest the nose) kind
of
> narrows down toward the outside ... dark ... all one color."
>
> Susan: "It has huge eyes. They are really dark ... huge eyes ...
slanted
> eyes. No eyelids ... don't blink ... real intense. Huge and slanted --
> real slanted -- they stand out in contrast to the white (face) ... The
> eyes are enormous and take over the face ..."
>
> And the corroborative accounts continue, with further similar
descriptions
> of the grey beings, both recalling being calmed by assurances that "we
> mean you no harm" and by hands being waved over their foreheads,
Jennifer
> is placed on a table surrounded by three beings and Susan watches and
> describes this. They note a strap around Jennifer's ankles:
>
> Jennifer: "Something's around my ankles like a strap -- but not to tie
me
> down. It's a strap. It's like something goes completely around each
> ankle."
>
> Susan: "There are these little, um, they look like, um, stirrups ...
> they're at the end of the table and her legs can just like kind of fit
in
> them ... maybe so she won't kick. Her feet are in these things."
>
> etc.
On the face of it, this case indeed is very convincing. I hope that full
details will be published on the Web at some point.
> Plainly, vague assertions of cultural contamination don't address this
> degree of corroboration. A skeptical perspective can deal with this
> conundrum in a couple of ways.
>
> First, like Gratuitous Pseudonym quoted above, one can simply howl hoax,
> either on the part of the abductees or the investigators. For example,
> many skeptic FAQs routinely refer to Betty and Barney Hill as having
> secretly coached each other. This is an understandable perspective, but
> you have to be honest about the scope of the assumption you're invoking.
> Many abductees request official anonymity outside of investigative
> circles, and lack any reasonable motive to defraud (with rare
exceptions,
> such as the few celebrity abductees and debunking plants.) These
> abductees are available for cross-investigation and uniformly impress
with
> their sincerity, self-doubt, and intensity of experience. Few who
> investigate investigators such as John Mack or David Jacobs believe they
> are bald conspirators engaged in massive hoax (a hoax that would
> necessarily include many dozens of investigators, psychologists and
> independent journalists).
>
> The fact is, any interested individual can easily evaluate for himself
the
> likelihood of the widespread hoax hypothesis, simply by contacting
> abductee groups and investigators, and, if reasonably objective and
> non-hostile, sitting in on their world for a bit. They'll quickly find
> that mass hoax simply doesn't cut it.
Unfortunately, the ones who are "reasonably objective and non-hostile" are
not the ones we hear from. Why would anyone, for example, want to help
Phil Klass "prove" that they're committing a hoax? And then, of course, we
get to hear that so-and-so didn't cooperate with Phil Klass, and is
therefore committing a hoax. In short, there is a vicious loop involved.
The more the "skeptics" cry hoax, the less the experiencers want to do
with them; and the less the experiencers are willing to deal with the
"skeptics", the more the "skeptics" cry hoax....
> Other skeptics, such as Carl Sagan, address dual corroboration more
> honestly, but vaguely suggest that the convergence of detail can be
> accounted for in a variety of ways, possibly through various
> as-yet-poorly-understood mechanisms, and move quickly to emphasize the
> lack of unambiguous physical evidence of alien technology (implicitly
> taken to be prima facie evidence that abductions are purely
> psychological). As Mack puts it:
>
> "Often what will happen is you'll have the investigators who are
speaking
> at the level of the actuality of the experience and the power of it,
with
> *some* corroborative physical evidence, and then you will get the
official
> debunker coming in and arguing entirely on the basis of how robust the
> lack of physical evidence is in terms of the *grossest* measurements of
> physical science. It's that sort of argument that totally disregards
the
> complexity and strength of the experiential dimension and its utter
> inexplicability from the standpoint of psychology or even a psychosocial
> explanation. ... [The demand for hard evidence is] not irrelevant --
it's
> confirming, supportive, corroborative, it's important ... And people
*are*
> working on that. But that's not where my contribution is. If somebody
> says, 'Well, how do you know that this little scar that occurred after
an
> abduction was from the abduction?' I can't prove that. But it's the
> company that it keeps. It's the case after case after case..."
>
> In terms of narrative consistencies *between* cases, there is the issue
of
> unique, unusual, and unpublished symbols seen repeatedly by independent
> abductees. Journalist C.D.B. Bryan, in his detailed, interesting, and
> (IMO) admirably objective investigation of the topic in "CE4: Alien
> Abduction, UFOs, and the Conference at MIT" writes:
>
> "[The symbols in question] are a form of writing that many witnesses
have
> observed within the 'craft'. I have seen Budd Hopkins' scrapbook
> containing the various witnesses' attempts to reproduce that 'writing'.
I
> will not describe it here because of Hopkins' use of it as a form of
> verification of a witness's experience. Suffice it to say it resembles
no
> form of writing, real or imagined, that someone fantasizing such an
> experience might create."
I would very much like to see these symbols -- and the different versions
of them the experiencers have produced.
As for the last sentence, I would expect "someone fantasizing such an
experience" to create just about anything. I'd need some strong,
unexpectable feature of the symbols to corroborate this.
> There are other very thorny aspects of the phenomenon. For example, the
> close association with independently reported dramatic UFO events. Also
> the many well documented cases -- dating back well before greys were
> adopted as a merchandising gimick -- of very young children identifying
> greys in lineups of fanciful characters and recounting largely typical
> abduction-like narratives.
I would like to see some documentation of this claim.
> When considering science fiction as a possible influence on abduction
> narratives, there are some striking dissonances between the convergent
> abduction stories (not all fit standard patterns by any stretch, of
> course) and typical sci-fi lore. For example, "Tall Greys" are
routinely
> described using what seems to be a form of hypnosis, using suggestion to
> manipulate mental states -- how many times have you seen aliens
> hypnotizing humans in the movies? (Or even using telepathy?)
Aliens in sci-fi flicks frequently use telepathy and mindcontrol on
humans. It is certainly much more common in abduction accounts, on the
other hand. So the point is mixed. The difference is largely statistical.
> The described "examinations" have some consistent differences from
earthly
> ones. John Miller, and emergency physician from Los Angeles, states
"You
> know, in my paper on alien medical procedures, I mentioned that their
> examinations really shortchange the cardiopulmonary system, which is
> central to Western patients, certainly Americans. If, as a physician,
you
> see anyone for any sort of complaint that has an internal-medicine
flavor
> to it, if you don't pro forma listen to their heart and lungs with a
> stethoscope -- even though you know it's not likely to be contributory
--
> the patients will perceive they weren't examined at all. And yet, when
> you hear these stories of alien exams, the cardiopulmonary examination
is
> of very low conspicuousness, if present at all."
This is a very good point.
> Many investigators are struck by the fact that their patients report the
> same absences of food preparation facilities, sleeping quarters,
> bathrooms, and imaginitive decor.
Another good point.
> None of these sorts of observations constitute specific evidence that
> abductions are literally real, but it does raise questions about the
> already difficult to swallow idea of cultural contamination as the
> sole/primary cause of the abduction phenomenon.
In my opinion, the various consistent correlations of this type (there are
many this poster has not addressed) fairly well demolish the cultural
contamination hypothesis.
> We're left with the question presented by John Mack: If the cause of
> these experiences isn't what these people say is happening, then what,
> exactly, is?
>
> Stacked *against* the possibility of some objective reality at the root
of
> the phenomenon is, of course, the many inconsistencies in the stories,
> and, ultimately, their utterly fantastic content, sometimes going well
> beyond the simply absurd (e.g. the time the Small Grey tried on a
woman's
> high heels as a joke.)
>
> As Miller puts it, "The whole phenomenon is so bizarre, isn't it?
> Mysteries exist. I guess that's the bottom line: Mysteries do exist!"
>
> I highly recommend the aforementioned book by C.D.B. Bryan for those
> interested in further reading about the abduction conundrum. It works
as
> a comprehensive treatment of the topic of both UFOs and abductions, and
> includes lots of interesting case studies.
I recommend the book as well, thought I would have to qualify the
recommendation somewhat. Hopefully some qualified scientist (but what
qualifies one for it?) will write a full-length study of the phenomenon,
reviewing, summarizing, and critiquing all of the literature.
At this point, about all one can say, is: "?"
Or perhaps: "?!?"
> --
> Geoff Price
> Ge...@CalibanMW.com
----------------------------------------
Dan Clore
mailto:cl...@columbia-center.org
The Website of Lord We˙rdgliffe
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/index.html
Welcome to the Waughters....
The Dan Clore Necronomicon Page
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/necpage.htm
Because the true mysteries cannot be profaned....
"Hziulquoigmnzhah" (hziulquo...@cykranosh.com) wrote:
> Iqhui dlosh odhqlonqh!
[if you don't send me a cc of your reply to this post, I might not see it]
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
cl...@columbia-center.org
In article <5q45u1$7...@camel3.mindspring.com>,
al...@pipeline.com wrote:
I'm glad to see that Dr. Alvin Lawson has joined this debate. His work is
always highly interesting and provocative.
> Ge...@CalibanMW.com (Geoff Price) wrote:
<snip>
> >First, a dual abduction account from a CUFOS report by John Carpenter.
> >This is an example of an abduction independently corroborated under
> >hypnosis, where the two individuals initially do not have conscious
recall
> >of the abduction, but realize they're "missing" a certain amount of
time
> >(in this case, taking three hours to drive 72 miles on a highway).
This
> >is the standard "missing time" experience, which can be simply a
discreet
> >loss of anywhere between a half hour and a couple of hours, or a more
> >dramatic "skip" in waking events, as when an abductee suddenly finds
> >his/herself driving on a completely different road and in a completely
> >different direction that s/he remembers doing just a moment ago.
>
> A welcome attempt at a balanced article on CE3s!
Agreed!
> One can agree that there are some interesting synchronicities in some
> multi-case CE3s, but you are not, I presume, saying that these
> examples here are anything other than anecdotal evidence. The
> argument runs perilously close to the usual, in which proponents
> can't point to any single "proving-it-all" CE3 case, but wave an arm
> at the forest of other near-proof ones out there somewhere. Mack does
> that in your quote from him.
The case in question is reported in _The Journal of UFO Studies_, New
Series, Vol. 3, 1991. (Let's all encourage CUFOS to put the back issues of
this excellent journal up on the Web. It includes much high-quality,
peer-reviewed work.)
You are right to call the evidence annecdotal. It is, however, a very
convincing annecdote, as we shall see.
> We don't know how much talking the two ladies did before, during, and
> after their experience.
According to them (and we only have their word for it, it is true), after
seeing the UFO hover near them, they both had a period of "missing time".
> A couple of phone calls or a letter could have cued everything.
They underwent their hypnosis sessions seperately and claim that they did
not share any information about them (which was easy for them, because
they had no regular contact).
> One of them could have been the dominant
> abductee (a typical pattern) who led the other during their
> fantasy/hallucination. And what conversation did they have during
> that time?
I am not sure what you're suggesting here. Do you intend that one may have
hallucinated it all, and told the other about it, -- only to have them
both forget it all and then remember it under hypnosis?
> Dr. Simon found that Betty Hill had had a dream, which she had talked
> about so much (long before the sessions) that Barney assimilated it,
> and gave it up when hypnotized. Yet each of them was supposedly
> locked up tight and didn't know anything about the other's
> narrative...?
Indeed. Betty and Barney were given post-hypnotic instructions to *not*
remember anything revealed during the sessions. If you compare their
accounts under hypnosis with Betty's dream (which indeed took place before
and was well-known to Barney as well), you might notice that some details
change. But in both cases, the details change the same way, and in the
direction of standard abduction accounts. For example, in the dream the
aliens have big noses like Jimmy Durante. But in the two hypnotic
accounts, they've disappeared, leaving only the standard no-nose aliens.
> The details which you cite include a lot of archetypal imagery,
> specifically perinatal -- umbilical columns, and post-natal-expansion
> "big rooms" -- which are a standard part of many abductee's yarns. We
> can choose to believe that most people don't know anything about
> abductions, but they surely do: it is one evidence that our brains are
> of a common species, and that there are only so many ways our brains
> can respond to peak situations.
The presence of perinatal imagery is clear. But there is also a lot which
cannot be explained that way. For example: "... they both remember at
least two rooms distinctly different with many details -- including a
memorable window-view of an 'inky-blue' celestial object."
> Also, we have no way of knowing how much UFO stuff they had read.
"Susan" tells us that she "had never given the subject of UFOs any
attention and had not read any books on the subject. In fact, she stated
that she had never even heard of Betty and Barney Hill's famous
'abduction' experience (Fuller 1966), nor ever read a science fiction
novel."
"Jennifer" said "that she has not read any books or seen any movies
concerning the subject of UFOs." (But now she's interested....)
> (They used "Grays" so they have absorbed Strieber, et al.)
If you mean that they used the term "Grays", they did not. If you merely
recognize their aliens as standards Greys, then you're on target. In any
case they seem to deny any knowledge of Strieber; that of course is their
word.
> I'm glad
> they passed CUFOS' sanity test, but it is irrelevant. All of us, sane
> and looney, honest and hoaxer, are capable, given a bit of verbal
> gabbiness, of a rip-roaring abduction yarn. One that has a bit of
> Betty Andreasson, Travis, Hickson, and maybe Whitley too. All the
> best ones do....
But would we all match the consistent features that Bullard discovered in
his study of abduction accounts? I'm frankly doubtful.
> But abductees don't come back with any alien cigarette butts or velcro
> whatzises. Nothing but ambiguous scars and implants, and
> transcendental tales that only a John Mack or RW Emerson clone would
> want to believe.
Agreed.
> If we want to make progress in CE3 study, we have to separate
> abductions from UFO sightings reports -- they have nothing to do with
> each other. UFOs are a true mystery, still. But CE3 fantasies are
> psychological, with roots going back tens of thousands of years in
> shamanic rituals -- they are depicted in cave drawings. The
> psychologists have to get involved. We can't use our conviction that
> UFOs are real to pump up the sad case for CE3s. I am not saying you
> do this, but there is no other source for any conviction about
> abductions than the rare-but-there strong radar-visual UFO cases.
> Meantime, no abductions can be cited as proving anything about their
> physical reality.
I agree that there do not seem to be literal, physical aliens involved; at
least, any physical evidence so far is profoundly ambiguous.
> If abductions were a reality, we would be able to point to a hundred
> very strong CE3s, some with videocam validation. We don't have many
> strong CE3s, and none on film. (We do have some UFO "unknowns" on
> film; but nary an abduction.) And when subjects are photographed at
> night in hopes of filming a CE3, Jacobs tells us that the aliens make
> them get up and turn off the camera before they are abducted. And he
> believes that!
>
> There went scientific methodology....
Agreed, sadly enough.
cl...@columbia-center.org
In article <33C4F0...@vnet.ibm.com>,
Duane Laviniere <lav...@vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> That was an interesting post, but in the case of Susan and Jennifer, I
> would have liked to have seen a controlled analysis such as two seperate
> examiners hypnotizing the two girls in seperate areas at the same time.
> Although they claim to aquaintances and live a good ways away from one
> another, it doesn't eliminate that great invention we call a telephone.
> Yes, technology has finally allowed us to communicate with aquaintances
> in far off places. I hate to discredit the girls, but in all
> likelihood, the experienced revealed to Jennifer could easily be relayed
> to Susan in the five days alloted. Until I see some results like this
> here, but under controlled conditions, I will remain a skeptic.
Another possibility, since you are correct that they could have
communicated and that we only have their own word for it that they did
not, would be to do what was done in the Betty and Barney Hill case: give
post-hypnotic suggestions to *not* remember what was revealed during the
sessions. Though I suppose that would still leave the skeptics claiming
that they "weren't really" hypnotized, and hence just hoaxing the
story.... And I doubt it would convince someone like Randi, who denies
that hypnosis even exists....
> Controlled conditions would be:
>
> 1) Immediate consultation of an investigator after noticing
> missing time.
They had both been examined within three weeks of the event. It was done
about as quickly as would be reasonable.
> 2) Neither of the subjects should have any knowledge of what
> happened during that portion of lost time, prior to
their
> examination.
This was the case here.
> 3) The an examination plan should be drawn up ahead of time without
> the two subjects knowing, so questions will be asked about
> specific events or about a specific sequence of events.
I'm not entirely sure what you mean here. The plan was to go throught the
events up to the gap in memory -- and keep going. It's not easy to keep
that much from the subjects.
> 4) The two subjects would be examined seperately (like opposite side
> of the city) and at the same time to as to minimize cross
> pollination of information.
This is a good idea.
> 5) Questions should not be suggestive or leading.
Actually, in this case, the hypnotist followed a different procedure.
Leading questions were indeed used; however, they were leading in the
*opposite* direction of expectation. For example, the two were asked what
color hair the aliens had -- they were, as usual, bald. They were asked
what their teeth and lips looked like -- they had the usual slit mouths
that don't open. This provides stronger evidence than merely not leading
the subjects.
> If you get stories that parallel one another, then I fail to see how
> anyone can argue against that kind of evidence. Until then, I'm a
> skeptic.
It looks like three of your five conditions were met; I'm not sure about
another one, and the last is a good suggestion.
Etherman
cl...@columbia-center.org wrote in article
<8686100...@dejanews.com>...
> I would very much like to see these symbols -- and the different versions
> of them the experiencers have produced.
>
> As for the last sentence, I would expect "someone fantasizing such an
> experience" to create just about anything. I'd need some strong,
> unexpectable feature of the symbols to corroborate this.
There was the Soccorro case (which wasn't an abduction) which has
an odd twist to it. It seems that Zamora saw a symbol on the ship.
The symbol turns out to be an ancient Arabic symbol for the planet
Venus. I have no idea if he knew about the symbol beforehand.
But it does seem a rather bizarre symbol to include.
--
Etherman
Etherman
cl...@columbia-center.org wrote in article
<8686134...@dejanews.com>...
> Actually, in this case, the hypnotist followed a different procedure.
> Leading questions were indeed used; however, they were leading in the
> *opposite* direction of expectation. For example, the two were asked what
> color hair the aliens had -- they were, as usual, bald. They were asked
> what their teeth and lips looked like -- they had the usual slit mouths
> that don't open. This provides stronger evidence than merely not leading
> the subjects.
Another point is that people who recall events under hypnosis tend to
be overconfident about the accuracy of their reports. They'll even
believe the false memories when they are proven to be false. But
abductees don't seem to have this confidence. Instead they seem
willing to want to believe that their memories are not true.
--
Etherman
Alvin Lawson
cl...@columbia-center.org wrote:
>In article <5q45u1$7...@camel3.mindspring.com>,
> al...@pipeline.com wrote:
>I'm glad to see that Dr. Alvin Lawson has joined this debate. His work is
>always highly interesting and provocative.
>> Ge...@CalibanMW.com (Geoff Price) wrote:
><snip>
>> One of them could have been the dominant
>> abductee (a typical pattern) who led the other during their
>> fantasy/hallucination. And what conversation did they have during
>> that time?
>I am not sure what you're suggesting here. Do you intend that one may have
>hallucinated it all, and told the other about it, -- only to have them
>both forget it all and then remember it under hypnosis?
I don't have time to respond fully to the discussion elsewhere re
entity types. In about two months I should have on my Web site an
essay on the six entity types I see in CE3s.
[http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Vault/6521/]
For now, some thoughts on Carpenter's interesting case, and the
dominant-witness pattern you asked about.
This dominant-witness pattern is the rule in multi-abductee cases
(Kentucky women, Judy Kendall, Pascagoula, Sandy Larson, etc.).
Usually, one subject does the observing and experiencing while the
others have lapsed into unconsciousness and remember little -- more or
less as Barney Hill did, or Calvin Parker, or Judy K's two sisters.
So investigators get little validation from the other witnesses, and
most from the primary abductee.
That situation tends to make CE3s into single-witness affairs, with
ambiguous corroboration from others. For instance, it is possible to
make a case that Hickson's terror at what he fantasized in Pascagoula
afflicted Parker, and that Parker (who like Barney had an unstable
mental history) never had any experience beyond a case of hysteria
stimulated by his older and respected companion, Hickson. Note the
parallels with Barney Hill and Parker: both had to undergo post-CE3
psychiatric treatment, though their input was minimal; meantime the
primary witnesses -- Betty Hill and Charlie Hickson -- thrived.
For such reasons, it would be very unusual to have a dual-witness CE3
with a pair of witnesses who reportedly give a more or less full
verification of each other's abduction, blow by blow. Short of a rare
*folie a deux* (shared hallucination), it would be hard to explain.
But of course we don't know enough about their situation -- how much
talking they did together in the car, before, during and afterward; in
talking together before deciding to contact the MUFON investigators;
what they heard each other say to MUFON; whether they made sketches in
each other's presence; what they said to each other (voice, ltr, or
phone) in the five days before and maybe after one of them was
regressed, etc. (Hypnosis might be useful for determining how much
chat they shared and remembered during and after the event.)
We can agree that they might have described the preliminary "UFO" or
nightlights accurately -- that has happened in other cases. Of course
there is also a more or less fixed sequence of events in any full
abductions -- loss of control, entering the alien realm; seeing
entities; the exam; the big room; seeing star-filled vistas; having a
life review, etc. Much of that is inherent in the Shamanic Trance
tradition that I believe is the origin of all abductions and their
analogs in NDEs, OBEs, Marian visions, etc. It explains the framework
of many similarities among multi-witness cases.
But two perfectly alert witnesses reporting events in a CE3 as if they
had been kidnapped by benign humans -- that would be a first. I would
have to know more about the case, I would want to look at the full
unedited regression transcripts and hear an audio tape of their
sessions, including preliminary talk by the hypnotist.
But face it: if Jesus and Mary were abducted together, would their
narrative claims of a CE3 constitute proof? No. Many might have
faith in their story, but it would be less than certain as a physical
event. For proof we need alien ashtrays, or - like, condoms...or
anything with isotopes from Zeta 1 Reticuli or wherever.
Sorry; I didn't make the rules....
[...]
>
>> (They used "Grays" so they have absorbed Strieber, et al.)
>If you mean that they used the term "Grays", they did not. If you merely
>recognize their aliens as standards Greys, then you're on target. In any
>case they seem to deny any knowledge of Strieber; that of course is their
>word.
I didn't mean to say they had read Strieber; just that it is
impossible to escape the "Gray" as a type, since it is now on
lunch-boxes, T-shirts, and TV ads. (And on all of Whitley's books,
fiction and meta-fiction, since.) In the U.S., since about 1981, we
no longer get the full 6 types of "occupants" described in CE3s. But
other countries do. We have been "Grayed."
alaw
Matt Giwer
Back when UFOs were UFOs and Flying Saucers were Flying Saucers,
they were regularly giving us lowly humans free rides to the planets
were they were introduced to advanced races that almost invariably
used telepathy. They lived in great peace, harmony and prosperity.
They were here to raise humans to a higher plane.
The exception to this was when they did not come from space but
from inside the earth and then they were evil.
Strange thing, not a Grey in the crowd.
Then with Betty and Barney Hill the abducting Greys showed up.
Soon everyone was being abducted by the Greys. Everyone being limited
to Americans of course as they have a dislike for unamerican
foreigners.
And then at the same time the three or four other species of
aliens stopped giving the free rides to the other planets. Sounds like
some kind of war or turf battle here.
While it is common for the abductees to report having no
knowledge of UFO abductions they are strangely drawn to people who
specialize in recovering memories of UFO abductions and just happen to
have had experiences similar to all the other customers of these same
specialists.
It is also interesting that there are still people around who are
able to say they have never heard of UFO abductions until the
specialist helps them remember.
Another strange thing is that the symptoms that bring them to the
specialist are the same as those who recover memories of being abused
as children. One has to wonder how they happen to know the correct
specialist to choose.
Add last but not least that damned elusive physical evidence is
as non-existant as ever.
===
Dedicated to the 104 dead victims of the Qana massacre.
http://www.flinet.com/~politics/action/ch-beat.htm
Matt Giwer
On 11 Jul 97 16:26:07 GMT, "Etherman" <ethe...@mdc.net.nospam> wrote:
>
>
>cl...@columbia-center.org wrote in article
><8686100...@dejanews.com>...
>> I would very much like to see these symbols -- and the different versions
>> of them the experiencers have produced.
>>
>> As for the last sentence, I would expect "someone fantasizing such an
>> experience" to create just about anything. I'd need some strong,
>> unexpectable feature of the symbols to corroborate this.
>
>There was the Soccorro case (which wasn't an abduction) which has
>an odd twist to it. It seems that Zamora saw a symbol on the ship.
>The symbol turns out to be an ancient Arabic symbol for the planet
>Venus. I have no idea if he knew about the symbol beforehand.
>But it does seem a rather bizarre symbol to include.
Not nearly as bizarre that the space aliens use ancient Arabic.
cl...@columbia-center.org
In article <33C641...@vnet.ibm.com>,
Duane Laviniere <lav...@vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> cl...@columbia-center.org wrote:
> As for the Villas-Boas story, never heard of it, but I guess
> that's b/c I never bothered to look for it.
Look here for the full report:
http://cron-2.mco.on.ca/web/ufo/aliens/boas.html
There were probably other early cases like this, but they would have been
ignored as nonsense at the time. This case was only published about ten
years after the event, after the Hill case had received wide publicity.
> > Very good questions. And the answer is: they don't. The accounts you
see
> > have usually gone through a selection process; if you examine enough
of
> > the literature you'll find some rather weird ones. (Which does little
to
> > dispel the mystery, since these tend to add another layer of weird
> > correspondences -- outside the consensus images of these things.)
>
> A=Pi*r^2. It's circular. What works for Bigfoot and Nessy will also
> work for aliens. (Duane approaches podium) As you will see from
> detailed research of alien abductions throughout history (and I trust
> you know the history of abductions), aliens have been described as
> "perfect" humans (they were described as looking swedish), green preying
> mantis-like beings (well, more bug-like than anything), big hairy
> sasquatch-like beings (Bigfoot has made first contact it seems), devils
> (complete with horns and such), angels (complete with wings and halo),
> lizardmen (one too many beers on a Saturday night), bearded men (this
> has to be the oddest one next to lizardmen) and a few others not worthy
> of note here. Now isn't that diverse.
Indeed. Others include the infamous Pascagoula mummies, the Dapple Gray
Lane pulsing blue brains, and so on and so forth.
> Boy oh boy, and wouldn't you
> know it, the masses selectively chose grey men with big heads. I
> personally prefer bugmen or lizardmen because they have the potential
> to consume us weak humans *grin* but I guess picking some frail little
> greys is what people wanted.
>
> Tell me again about why those stories are all alike again? I didn't
> hear you correctly. It's all hearsay.
I was saying that while the superficial aspects are widely divergent,
comparison of cases shows strange and unexpected similarities. For
example, all the entities seem to be either naked (uncommon) or to wear
one-piece outfits. Now, surely we would expect at least one or two of the
many different ETs seen to wear a two- or three-piece outfit. Again,
aliens come in groups of identical or nearly identical aliens. There is
usually a "leader" who is the same except and a little taller; this one
communicates with the abductee while the others don't. (Sometimes there's
more than one group; but the same circumstance seems to hold among each.)
Another striking correlation comes in the medical examinations given to
abductees. These always focus on the genital and/or head area, and ignore
the chest. Now, examination of the chest is such a standard part of
people's expectations when they see a doctor that they often listen to
their heartbeat just for the psychological effect. Another is "doorway
amnesia" -- abductees can never seem to remember actually going through
the door into the saucer. There are many others, but this sample shows the
kind of non-obvious correlations that *do* exist. (Note: does anyone know
of any skeptical treatments of these issues?)
None of this argues for the ETH, of course; but it does make a strong case
that *something* weird is going on.
cl...@columbia-center.org
In article <5q8nhs$m...@camel4.mindspring.com>,
al...@pipeline.com wrote:
> cl...@columbia-center.org wrote:
> >In article <5q45u1$7...@camel3.mindspring.com>,
> > al...@pipeline.com wrote:
<on a double-abduction case in which independent hypnotic regressions seem
to verify each other>
> >> One of them could have been the dominant
> >> abductee (a typical pattern) who led the other during their
> >> fantasy/hallucination. And what conversation did they have during
> >> that time?
>
> >I am not sure what you're suggesting here. Do you intend that one may
have
> >hallucinated it all, and told the other about it, -- only to have them
> >both forget it all and then remember it under hypnosis?
>
> I don't have time to respond fully to the discussion elsewhere re
> entity types. In about two months I should have on my Web site an
> essay on the six entity types I see in CE3s.
> [http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Vault/6521/]
I look forward to the essay. Why don't you add your Website's URL to your
sig file? It's a good resource and deserves a little advertising.
> For now, some thoughts on Carpenter's interesting case, and the
> dominant-witness pattern you asked about.
> This dominant-witness pattern is the rule in multi-abductee cases
> (Kentucky women, Judy Kendall, Pascagoula, Sandy Larson, etc.).
> Usually, one subject does the observing and experiencing while the
> others have lapsed into unconsciousness and remember little -- more or
> less as Barney Hill did, or Calvin Parker, or Judy K's two sisters.
> So investigators get little validation from the other witnesses, and
> most from the primary abductee.
Agreed. I've personally noticed this, as well. Many times in these
multiple-abductee cases one or more of the abductees is a "bad" subject
for hypnosis, and/or freaks out too much when the regression is done.
Hence they don't add the corroboration we might expect.
On the other hand, it suggests that the cases were not hoaxes. If Hickson
and Parker, e.g., were hoaxing as Klass (ick) alleges, then we'd expect
them both to tell the same story. Instead, one of them says he passed out
and can't remember.
> That situation tends to make CE3s into single-witness affairs, with
> ambiguous corroboration from others. For instance, it is possible to
> make a case that Hickson's terror at what he fantasized in Pascagoula
> afflicted Parker, and that Parker (who like Barney had an unstable
> mental history) never had any experience beyond a case of hysteria
> stimulated by his older and respected companion, Hickson. Note the
> parallels with Barney Hill and Parker: both had to undergo post-CE3
> psychiatric treatment, though their input was minimal; meantime the
> primary witnesses -- Betty Hill and Charlie Hickson -- thrived.
Agreed.
> For such reasons, it would be very unusual to have a dual-witness CE3
> with a pair of witnesses who reportedly give a more or less full
> verification of each other's abduction, blow by blow. Short of a rare
> *folie a deux* (shared hallucination), it would be hard to explain.
> But of course we don't know enough about their situation -- how much
> talking they did together in the car, before, during and afterward; in
> talking together before deciding to contact the MUFON investigators;
> what they heard each other say to MUFON; whether they made sketches in
> each other's presence; what they said to each other (voice, ltr, or
> phone) in the five days before and maybe after one of them was
> regressed, etc. (Hypnosis might be useful for determining how much
> chat they shared and remembered during and after the event.)
Agreed. We only have their word on these things.
> We can agree that they might have described the preliminary "UFO" or
> nightlights accurately -- that has happened in other cases. Of course
> there is also a more or less fixed sequence of events in any full
> abductions -- loss of control, entering the alien realm; seeing
> entities; the exam; the big room; seeing star-filled vistas; having a
> life review, etc.
Yes. Bullard's work has shown truly striking correspondences between
abduction accounts on the structural level.
> Much of that is inherent in the Shamanic Trance
> tradition that I believe is the origin of all abductions and their
> analogs in NDEs, OBEs, Marian visions, etc.
There definitely seems to be a family resemblance amongst all of these
phenomena. Trying to go much further than describing that resemblence
seems to lead to intractable problems, however. I would not say (at this
point) that one of them "is the origin" of another.
> It explains the framework
> of many similarities among multi-witness cases.
Agreed, but: we would still expect the similarities to be no stronger than
those between, say, the Villas-Boas case and the Hill case; or the Hickson
case and the Schirmer case; etc. etc. etc.
But in this case they report the details all very closely. The match
between their accounts is far stronger than simply both matching the
archetypal abduction scenario.
> But two perfectly alert witnesses reporting events in a CE3 as if they
> had been kidnapped by benign humans -- that would be a first. I would
> have to know more about the case, I would want to look at the full
> unedited regression transcripts and hear an audio tape of their
> sessions, including preliminary talk by the hypnotist.
Agreed. It would be very good if, say, someone were to put up full
transcripts of hypnotic regression sessions, case reports, etc. etc. etc.
on the Web.
> But face it: if Jesus and Mary were abducted together, would their
> narrative claims of a CE3 constitute proof? No. Many might have
> faith in their story, but it would be less than certain as a physical
> event. For proof we need alien ashtrays, or - like, condoms...or
> anything with isotopes from Zeta 1 Reticuli or wherever.
I definitely agree that it still would not prove that it was a "physical"
event. Or that it would necessarily support the ETH. But the evidence
certainly shows that *something* weird is going on. If we stay stuck in
the rut of the ET true believers vs. the "it's not ET, so there's nothing
to it at all" pseudo-skeptics, we'll never find out.
> Sorry; I didn't make the rules....
Me neither. I would have made it more like Scrabble, if I had....
> >> (They used "Grays" so they have absorbed Strieber, et al.)
>
> >If you mean that they used the term "Grays", they did not. If you
merely
> >recognize their aliens as standards Greys, then you're on target. In
any
> >case they seem to deny any knowledge of Strieber; that of course is
their
> >word.
>
> I didn't mean to say they had read Strieber; just that it is
> impossible to escape the "Gray" as a type, since it is now on
> lunch-boxes, T-shirts, and TV ads. (And on all of Whitley's books,
> fiction and meta-fiction, since.) In the U.S., since about 1981, we
> no longer get the full 6 types of "occupants" described in CE3s. But
> other countries do. We have been "Grayed."
Okay. You're definitely right that the Grey image has become the public's
stereotype alien. In Geoffrey Ashe's _Mythology of the British Isles_,
there's a photo of a statue from Roman times, depicting the Celitc god
Maponus. I've shown this to people and asked them what it is, and they all
say "An alien!" -- And it certainly looks like a Gray, with the exception
of the goatee....
As for the Greying of America, it may have more to do with a selection
effect among researchers. I've heard that some UFO groups file-13 any
entity report that doesn't correspond to the Greys. It's a damn shame if
it's true.
Duane Laviniere
cl...@columbia-center.org wrote:
> I was saying that while the superficial aspects are widely divergent,
> comparison of cases shows strange and unexpected similarities. For
> example, all the entities seem to be either naked (uncommon) or to wear
> one-piece outfits. Now, surely we would expect at least one or two of the
> many different ETs seen to wear a two- or three-piece outfit. Again,
> aliens come in groups of identical or nearly identical aliens. There is
> usually a "leader" who is the same except and a little taller; this one
> communicates with the abductee while the others don't. (Sometimes there's
> more than one group; but the same circumstance seems to hold among each.)
> Another striking correlation comes in the medical examinations given to
> abductees. These always focus on the genital and/or head area, and ignore
> the chest. Now, examination of the chest is such a standard part of
> people's expectations when they see a doctor that they often listen to
> their heartbeat just for the psychological effect. Another is "doorway
> amnesia" -- abductees can never seem to remember actually going through
> the door into the saucer. There are many others, but this sample shows the
> kind of non-obvious correlations that *do* exist. (Note: does anyone know
> of any skeptical treatments of these issues?)
>
> None of this argues for the ETH, of course; but it does make a strong case
I hate to tell you, but from the time I was 10, I could have fabricated
my very own abduction tale. I had a tiny little booklet that talked
about UFO sightings and a few alien abductions as well as one page on
the Men in Black. I could have told you a fairly realistic story about
being taken by aliens and then silenced by the MiB, and it would have
sounded about as nutty as any other story you've ever heard. It says
and proves nothing. The very nature of abductions leave them open to
interpretation. The fact that they occur mostly at night (I've heard of
a number of daytime snatchings), in rural areas, to small circles of
people and that the aliens are tidy in their work (few/no physical
trails, vague immediate memory, etc). It's like a shadow I see int he
fog at dusk. I can claim that I saw bigfoot, and the lack of evidence
to the contrary is the only thing holding the story up, because there is
no evidence supporting it. I see a great many things that defy logic in
urban areas, and they all center around mentally unstable people.
Whether it is at the Port Authority or just another bum on the corner.
They gesture wildly, they talke to themselves, they carry on long
conversations with imaginary characters and they often times mistake me
for someone they know. The world IS chock full of nuts, and it is my
belief that mental instability is to blame for the entire UFO craze.
> ----------------------------------------
> Dan Clore
> mailto:cl...@columbia-center.org
--
The opinions expressed belong to the author and
do not represent those of his employer.
o KiiLA
| email: lav...@vnet.ibm.com
| The world is mine.
Jeremy Bee
In article <33c843d7....@news.primenet.com>,
er.mgiwer...@primenet.com (Matt Giwer) wrote:
> Back when UFOs were UFOs and Flying Saucers were Flying Saucers,
>they were regularly giving us lowly humans free rides to the planets
>were they were introduced to advanced races that almost invariably
>used telepathy. They lived in great peace, harmony and prosperity.
>They were here to raise humans to a higher plane.
>
> The exception to this was when they did not come from space but
>from inside the earth and then they were evil.
>
> Strange thing, not a Grey in the crowd.
>
> Then with Betty and Barney Hill the abducting Greys showed up.
Not true, Greys were accidentaly invented by Budd Hopkins. The entities in
the Hill case are similar to many others, but not realy anything like what
later came to be called Greys. (no black eyes, not that skinny, not that big a
head, different clothes, different in a lot of minor ways also)
>Soon everyone was being abducted by the Greys. Everyone being limited
>to Americans of course as they have a dislike for unamerican
>foreigners.
>
> And then at the same time the three or four other species of
>aliens stopped giving the free rides to the other planets. Sounds like
>some kind of war or turf battle here.
There are still some like Billy Meier's aliens that fit completely with the
old Adamski model of blond ride-givers.
>
> While it is common for the abductees to report having no
>knowledge of UFO abductions they are strangely drawn to people who
>specialize in recovering memories of UFO abductions and just happen to
>have had experiences similar to all the other customers of these same
>specialists.
>
> It is also interesting that there are still people around who are
>able to say they have never heard of UFO abductions until the
>specialist helps them remember.
>
> Another strange thing is that the symptoms that bring them to the
>specialist are the same as those who recover memories of being abused
>as children. One has to wonder how they happen to know the correct
>specialist to choose.
>
> Add last but not least that damned elusive physical evidence is
>as non-existant as ever.
>
Duane Laviniere
Jeremy Bee wrote:
> In article <33c843d7....@news.primenet.com>,
> er.mgiwer...@primenet.com (Matt Giwer) wrote:
> >Soon everyone was being abducted by the Greys. Everyone being limited
> >to Americans of course as they have a dislike for unamerican
> >foreigners.
I think it was the French that turned them off. French people can be
obnoxious to our intergallactic brethren ;) (by the way, I'm part
french)
> > And then at the same time the three or four other species of
> >aliens stopped giving the free rides to the other planets. Sounds like
> >some kind of war or turf battle here.
"Aliens in the Hood," or maybe this is their version of "Colors" called
"Greyscale." Gangsters from another world claiming true to their
territory in the US of A.
> > While it is common for the abductees to report having no
> >knowledge of UFO abductions they are strangely drawn to people who
> >specialize in recovering memories of UFO abductions and just happen to
> >have had experiences similar to all the other customers of these same
> >specialists.
Everyone will ignore your last comment because it makes too much sense.
All the "believers" like to ignore the common sense statements and stick
strictly to the vague, nonfactual stuff.
> > Add last but not least that damned elusive physical evidence is
> >as non-existant as ever.
Amen brother. Say it loud, say it proud. There is no damned evidence
proving that aliens exist. If you take screwball "eyewitness" accounts
as word, then Elvis still lives and likes to shop at the Jewish thift
store in Hallandale, FL. I saw him myself. He likes to wear Richard
Simmons-style shorts.
> >===
> >Dedicated to the 104 dead victims of the Qana massacre.
> >http://www.flinet.com/~politics/action/ch-beat.htm
--
Kirk Marshall
Jeremy Bee wrote:
>
> In article <33c843d7....@news.primenet.com>,
> er.mgiwer...@primenet.com (Matt Giwer) wrote:
> >they were regularly giving us lowly humans free rides to the planets
> >were they were introduced to advanced races that almost invariably
> >used telepathy. They lived in great peace, harmony and prosperity.
> >They were here to raise humans to a higher plane.
> >
> > The exception to this was when they did not come from space but
> >from inside the earth and then they were evil.
> >
> > Strange thing, not a Grey in the crowd.
> >
> > Then with Betty and Barney Hill the abducting Greys showed up.
>
> Not true, Greys were accidentaly invented by Budd Hopkins. The entities in
> the Hill case are similar to many others, but not realy anything like what
> later came to be called Greys. (no black eyes, not that skinny, not that big a
> head, different clothes, different in a lot of minor ways also)
>
> >to Americans of course as they have a dislike for unamerican
> >foreigners.
> >
> >aliens stopped giving the free rides to the other planets. Sounds like
> >some kind of war or turf battle here.
>
> old Adamski model of blond ride-givers.
>
> >
> >knowledge of UFO abductions they are strangely drawn to people who
> >specialize in recovering memories of UFO abductions and just happen to
> >have had experiences similar to all the other customers of these same
> >specialists.
> >
> >able to say they have never heard of UFO abductions until the
> >specialist helps them remember.
> >
> > Another strange thing is that the symptoms that bring them to the
> >specialist are the same as those who recover memories of being abused
> >as children. One has to wonder how they happen to know the correct
> >specialist to choose.
> >
> >as non-existant as ever.
> >
> >Dedicated to the 104 dead victims of the Qana massacre.
> >http://www.flinet.com/~politics/action/ch-beat.htm
People continually write that there's no proof, that these people are
nuts, the media is creating the phenomena, the hypnotists brainwashed
them etc., etc.. In the case of abductions I'm afraid that the burden
is on you to proove that the phenomenon is anything but what these
people are saying it is. As of now there is no evidence that supports
any of your theories. Some of them may explain away some cases, but not
even close to all of them. The psychology and scientific fields have
never come across something like this and are at a loss for any
explanation. You investigate things only far enough to fit into your
preconceptions about it. If you truly cared about the truth you
wouldn't formulate your opinions so quickly. I believe questioning
things is a healthy thing. But formulating an opinion about something
before you're aware of the whole picture just isn't a good way to
conduct yourself if your in search for the truth. If this is happening
they would be obviously way more intellegent than us. Therefore, if
they were observing/studying us from afar then it would be a policy not
to leave any "physical" traces behind. So it could continue to be a
secret and a so called a delusion/myth amongst the species. One last
thing. If you look into it you'll see that it is a WORLDWIDE
phenomenon, even occurring in areas of Africa where there are only
radios. I guess that's all I have to say. Thanks for listening.
Kmars
Geoff Price
In article <01bc92d0$73961600$abd6...@etherman.mdc.net>, "Etherman"
<ethe...@mdc.net.nospam> wrote:
> Jeremy Bee <b...@sfu.ca> wrote in article <5qlg0h$rb9$1...@tofu.alt.net>...
> > In article <33c843d7....@news.primenet.com>,
> > er.mgiwer...@primenet.com (Matt Giwer) wrote:
> > > Back when UFOs were UFOs and Flying Saucers were Flying Saucers,
> > >they were regularly giving us lowly humans free rides to the planets
> > >were they were introduced to advanced races that almost invariably
> > >used telepathy. They lived in great peace, harmony and prosperity.
> > >They were here to raise humans to a higher plane.
> > >
> > > The exception to this was when they did not come from space but
> > >from inside the earth and then they were evil.
> > >
> > > Strange thing, not a Grey in the crowd.
> > >
> > > Then with Betty and Barney Hill the abducting Greys showed up.
> >
> > Not true, Greys were accidentaly invented by Budd Hopkins.
>
> I'm afraid not. Descriptions of "aliens" matching the Grey have been
> around for centuries. Possibly even millennia. Celtic fairies, for
> example,
> were described as short (3 to 4 feet tall), long arms, big head, and large
> eyes (see "Dimensions" by Vallee for more information and examples).
I read one account, can't vouch for the veracity, of some purportedly old
statuettes from a primitive culture that were the spitting image of a
Grey. There were some photos on a web site -- anyone remember where? The
story was rather eyebrow-raising: the figure was different from the rest
of the culture's icons, because, according to the legend, some tribesfolks
stumbled on one of the big-eyed critters in the woods, decided it was
angry because the local temple didn't pay homage to it, and promptly
designed a new totem. (Let me know if anyone remembers this site.)
--
Geoff Price
Ge...@CalibanMW.com
Etherman
g&g <gri...@gte.net> wrote in article <5qmbd5$41i$1...@gte1.gte.net>...
> And why is it the burden of proof on anyone other than the abductees?
They
> are the ones coming up with all these fantastic stories without a shred
of
> proof other than that they believe it to have happened. I believe it is
up
> to them to put up or shut up. No evidence = didn't happen.
You seem to agree that *something* did happen, though.
> I think that
> we then investigate what probably really did happen such as
hallucinations
> brought on by exhaustion or boredom or whatever.
I agree that we should investigate. We shouldn't automatically assume
hallucination. Nor should we automatically assume space aliens.
> It just isn't reasonable
> to assume that among the hundreds of accounts that there just isn't any
> evidence.
Depends on what kind of evidence you're looking for. I suppose we
should assume that someone might try to steal something so that they
can have proof. Of course these experiences tend to be highly emotional
so it's not clear that too many people are going to be thinking in terms
of gathering evidence for proof. Couple this with the people being
under close observation and we'd hardly expect that they'd be able to
steal anything.
> All explanations that try to suggest that they really did have
> an encounter of some sort are equally lacking in credibility. All the
> trauma and obvious fear and conviction of the victims is absolutely no
> proof of its veracity. This is not to say absolutely that no contact was
> made with aliens, but it is saying that it is highly unlikely and other
> explanations make much more sense.
Name one explanation that accounts for all of the phenomena and that
makes testable predictions.
> > As of now there is no evidence that supports
> > any of your theories. Some of them may explain away some cases, but
not
> > even close to all of them. The psychology and scientific fields have
> > never come across something like this and are at a loss for any
> > explanation.
>
> Who is at a loss? Only a few psychologists or scientist take any of this
> seriously other than the underlying paranoia or mental distress that may
> have caused the story in the first place.
What evidence do you have of underlying paranoia? Mental Distress?
> > You investigate things only far enough to fit into your
> > preconceptions about it. If you truly cared about the truth you
> > wouldn't formulate your opinions so quickly.
>
> And, I suppose that means that you have not formulated your opinion so
> quickly based on no evidence other than a story? Finger pointing here
> seems to apply to you as well. Plus, until there is something credible
> worth investigating, why not form a quick opinion. No evidence? no
> corroboration? = don't waste my time.
Plenty of corroboration spanning thousands of years. Plenty of evidence
to rule out psychopathology. Zero evidence to support hallucinations.
Without a doubt there is *something* here worth investigating.
> Plus their symptoms are so in-line
> with the symptoms of hallucination, that it should be studied from that
> aspect first and rule out any possibility of delusion before assuming
> anything tangible actually happened.
What evidence is there for hallucination?
> > I believe questioning
> > things is a healthy thing.
>
> You may believe in questioning, but I don't believe you are asking any of
> the right questions When your questions are biased by a belief in what
> you are asking about, they tend to be self-serving in nature.
You mean like your biased beliefs about hallucinations?
> (Some
> scientists have done this, too, and have been embarrassed by the peer
> review process) For example, asking leading questions (like some of the
> hypnotists or psychologists who have talked to the UFO victims) or
similar
> types of questions are not getting at the truth at all. This sort of
> questioning was brought out in court in several cases of alleged child
> abuse at various day-care facilities. There is no doubt that the
children
> expressed extreme emotions and appeared to be suffering from severe
trauma.
> Upon further examination, however, is was clearly shown that the
children
> were led to their convictions by poorly designed and uncontrolled
> questioning. This same thing could be happening to UFO victims.
I tend to agree. Too much credence is given to hypnosis administered
by unqualified people. However, investigators like Mack and Hopkins
try to lead the witnesses away from the ETH (a practice I personally
find questionable).
> Plus, the investigator should not try to help the victim explain away
> serious questions. Like, why don't these people make themselves known to
> large groups, like landing in Times Square, for example.
Obviously since they haven't done that then either they don't exist or
it's not part of their agenda. Why should we assume that they would
want to make their presence known on a large scale?
> Instead, you are
> so eager to find evidence to support your bias that you offer
explanations
> like - - Well, they want to be secret and it is obvious they are much
more
> intelligent than us so they could be very secretive and we would never
have
> any evidence. That doesn't sound like a question to me, it sounds like
an
> opinion, again based on absolutely no evidence, that serves only to
support
> your belief and does nothing to get at the truth.
The debunkers are just as guilty. If something doesn't fit their
explanations
they either invent facts, ignore the contrary evidence, or explain it away
with hallucination/misperception/hoax.
> >If this is happening
> > they would be obviously way more intellegent than us. Therefore, if
> > they were observing/studying us from afar then it would be a policy not
> > to leave any "physical" traces behind.
>
> This argument has no basis. Why would they be far more intelligent than
> us? What is "obvious" about that? Just because they might be able to
> travel really really fast doesn't mean that they would also have the
> ability to communicate via telepathy or that they would be really good at
> hiding themselves. In fact they leave their running lights on so that we
> can see them. That doesn't sound like they are trying to hide all the
> evidence.
It's been pointed out that if the saucer crash stories are true then the
aliens must be stupid because they don't have seatbelts (to their credit
they don't have airbags either). It's very difficult to say if an alien
race
is any more intelligent. They may have a great working theory about
quantum gravity, but haven't quite figured out quantum electrodynamics.
--
Etherman
Duane Laviniere
Kirk Marshall wrote:
> People continually write that there's no proof, that these people are
> nuts, the media is creating the phenomena, the hypnotists brainwashed
> them etc., etc.. In the case of abductions I'm afraid that the burden
> is on you to proove that the phenomenon is anything but what these
> any of your theories. Some of them may explain away some cases, but not
> even close to all of them.
Fine, I take it upon myself to educate the masses. I will PROVE once
and for all, beyond a shadow of a doubt that aliens do not exist. (Get
ready for this) The absolute lack of any physical evidence whatsoever
is evidence enough to prove that aliens are a result of overactive
imaginations. (I can see the "believer" side getting defensive)
For any REAL LIFE mystery, physical evidence is not an option, but a
mandate. How in the hell can you prove that someone was stabbed and
then hacked to pieces if you don't have a dead body, a knife and some
wounds to show evidence of the dirty deed. How can you claim that you
burned down a building if you can't show a smoldering pile of rubble
where it once stood. How can you prove anything without evidence? Mere
hearsay would have Elvis still rocking along in some remote area, Santa
Clause making his rounds on Christmas Eve, tiny fairies stealing
childrens teeth and the Russians would be attacking. You need PROOF,
and not a testimony. I can testify right now that I was abducted by
aliens. I could make up a really credible story (much more credible
than most of those out there) and it would not mean squat because I know
that I haven't been abducted by aliens simply because there is no proof
that I have been? I have no reason to believe that I have been
abducted.
Crop circles. Why do people hoax crop circles, or better yet, why do
people claim to have hoaxed a crop circle when in actuality it was
someone elses doing? Attention, insecurity, maybe even boredom. People
lie and say the strangest things for unexplainable reasons. The
explaination lies with that person, and that person alone. I'm not mind
reader, so I can't claim to know what they are thinking, but I know FOR
A FACT that they have not been abducted by aliens. End of story.
> The psychology and scientific fields have
> never come across something like this and are at a loss for any
> explanation. You investigate things only far enough to fit into your
> preconceptions about it. If you truly cared about the truth you
> wouldn't formulate your opinions so quickly. I believe questioning
> things is a healthy thing. But formulating an opinion about something
> before you're aware of the whole picture just isn't a good way to
> conduct yourself if your in search for the truth.
I formulate an opinion based on reality and facts. Going outside
outside the realm of reality is all good for dreaming, but to have the
audacity to claim something outside of the law of Physics, that govern
not just us on Earth, but an entire universe, is ludicrous. You need
your head examined if you don't take a persons story as a whole and not
just pieces, b/c the if one part of the story leaves room for suspicion,
then the entire story goes sour. This is the case with a great majority
of the abdution stories out there. They are somewhat reality based, but
too much of the tale wanders off into la-la land.
> If this is happening
> they would be obviously way more intellegent than us. Therefore, if
> they were observing/studying us from afar then it would be a policy not
> to leave any "physical" traces behind. So it could continue to be a
> secret and a so called a delusion/myth amongst the species. One last
> thing.
PATTERN DETECTED: Religious people all seem to believe in an omnipotent
god that can do, say, see anything he/she wants. This god was always
said to work in "mysterious" ways, thus making it impossible to argue
against it. I was raised Catholic, but dropped my faith like the bad
habit it was. I just couldn't get my Theology teacher (a priest) to
admit that god could not exist, despite arguing him into a corner.
There was always an escape for him, "He is a mystery, never to be fully
figured out." It seemed that the entire point of religion was to run
around like an ass, trying to get as close to understanding a god that
wasn't fully understandable. Alien abductees like to think of their
abductors as masters of their element. They can make us see, do, know
whatever they wanted. They could slip undetected through any sort of
defense, and they don't ever leave a trace. They are a MYSTERY. Damn
damn damn, god is grey and has big, googly eyes. This pattern just
proves that people are easily delluded. In our constant search for
meaning and acceptance, we create supernatural explanaitions and latch
on to them as it gives us security in our everyday lives. Me, I am
secure and I don't need no steenky god and no steenky aliens. I'm
myself, and I always play with a full deck.
> If you look into it you'll see that it is a WORLDWIDE
> phenomenon, even occurring in areas of Africa where there are only
> radios. I guess that's all I have to say. Thanks for listening.
>
> Kmars
Worldwide? Yes. But is the rest of the world as bombarded by aliens as
the US? No. I don't have numbers (I'm sure someone can find actual
statistics) but I'm pretty sure that a large percentage of sighting,
abduction cases occur in the US. Maybe they ARE after our individually
wrapped cheese slices, or maybe it's our unusually strong, steroid fed
cattle that attracts them. Who knows, just shows that we shallow
Americans are right when we claim to be the center of the universe ;)
Oh yeah, about African sightings and claims, there have been tales
stretching as far back as to the days of the Egyptians and god alone
knows what the Bible (the world's largest fictional piece) said about
ufo sightings (pun intended). Insanity through the ages. Doesn't say
much for where the human race is headed.
kmars
Thanks for defending my post. I started out being a skeptic, but found
it very hard to easily dismiss (as many people on these newsgroups do)
the many accounts by everyday people (doctors, lawyers, law enforcement,
military members, teachers, laborers, all socioeconomic statuses and
races etc.). I have seriously looked into the subject for the past 4
years or so. I had no preconception about it beforehand, didn't know
anything about it. My curiosity was aroused by a TV show and I started
out with John M.'s book and have continued on since that time
investigating the subject. I thought that after I had read the
literature that I would probably find it to be new age b.s.. To my
surprise it made me feel the opposite. In hearing and reading individual
accounts and seeing/reading their reactions to the experiences I had a
very hard time just using the scapegoat of calling them "crazy" or
delusional. They explained and reacted as if it had been something that
physically happened to them. There has never been any type of purely
psychological experience that has made a person react this way. Only
physical things have been shown to produce the post-traumatic stress
syndrome which most of these people suffer from. Also the VERY detailed
descriptions of things that occurred corraborate with the other
experiencers down to eerie details. Yet they all explain it in a very
individual manner. Also, these peoples lives are in turmoil, they're
not doing it for money or attention. Most don't even want any publicity
or attention at all. They just want to know what the hell is happening
to them and want to have ordinary lives. The subject goes much deeper
than this though. There has been physical corraborations to the
experiences also (e.g. people missing (including children) while it
alledgedly took place, ufo sighting in area where it alledgedly took
place, marks on the ground, cuts etc. on the experiencers (can't be
proven that it happened while being abducted but that is what the people
say it's from) It is a genuine mystery that does deserve to be
investigated further at the very least. Anyone who doesn't even
acknowledge this is just kidding themselves. I understand many peoples
need for hard evidence. I believe evidence does exist, just not your
kind of evidence. The scientifc method has served us well up until now.
But it will come to a point where everything can't be explained by those
methods and we'll have to balance that out with reading between the
lines somewhat. I think this is how this subject should be looked at.
All that we need to "prove" is that something IS happening. We can
listen to the thousands of people saying these things all around the
world(some who really are "nuts", many who are NOT),or continue to
ignore and explain it away with unfounded explanations(attention, $,
child abuse, temporal lobe epilepsy etc.). If that makes some people
comfortable, then by all means keep doing it. That way your worldview
isn't challenged, which is something that many people would rather die
for than change. I don't even believe that it is neccesarily "alien"
abduction, but I believe that some type of intelligence other than us is
doing something physical with these people. What they are we can't
deduct from what is known so far. I don't know what it is that is
happening, nobody does for sure. The debate will go back and forth
until we do know. Nobody can prove anything one way or the other, not
to satisfy everyone. But we should give it the attention it is due.
Anyone who says it doesn't deserve attention is not well researched on
the subject. Think of the big picture here. We're on a tiny blue speck
in a hugely vast universe and we're only conscious of a very small part
of the reality in that universe. 500 years ago people thought it was
heresy to believe the world was round. 100 years ago people thought the
concepts of germs, flying machines etc. were crazy. Look at things from
that perspective when looking at our existence. We've only been around
a very short time (on a universal time scale, not a human one) and
aren't as great and all knowing as we make ourselves out to be. We
suffer from mass anthropocentrism when it comes to the way we view
everything. I think that the future human race will look back at 20th
century humans in this manner. All I'm saying is it's okay to be
skeptical, just not okay to close your mind to the things that are out
there that we have no clue about. We've always built upon what we've
already known and looked back at what we believed to be almost humorous.
I don't think today is any exception to the rest of history. I'm not
saying any of these things are facts, just my opinion. Thanks for
listening.
Kmars
Etherman
kmars <km...@vbimail.champlain.edu> wrote in article
<33D120...@vbimail.champlain.edu>...
> Thanks for defending my post. I started out being a skeptic, but found
> it very hard to easily dismiss (as many people on these newsgroups do)
> the many accounts by everyday people (doctors, lawyers, law enforcement,
> military members, teachers, laborers, all socioeconomic statuses and
> races etc.). I have seriously looked into the subject for the past 4
> years or so. I had no preconception about it beforehand, didn't know
> anything about it.
I started out with the preconception that abductees were crazy or lying
to make a buck. About a year ago I became interested in the UFO
phenomena. Even with a little bit of investigation I was able to find
that there was no reason to think abductees are crazy or fantasy prone.
I'm also unable to find any evidence for hallucinations. This doesn't
mean that space aliens are visiting us (in fact I like the ETH less and
less with each passing day). I don't have an answer for the phenomena
though. I also don't think it's going to come any time soon. I don't
think we're going to find out anything new with more pictures and
hypnotically recalled memories.
> My curiosity was aroused by a TV show and I started
> out with John M.'s book and have continued on since that time
> investigating the subject. I thought that after I had read the
> literature that I would probably find it to be new age b.s.. To my
> surprise it made me feel the opposite.
I've found that the abductees in Mack's book have a strong New Age
belief system. Unfortunately I don't know if these people had New
Age beliefs before the abductions (some of them certainly did, but
I don't know if the majority did). BTW, I don't think all New Age beliefs
are necessarily bad.
> In hearing and reading individual
> accounts and seeing/reading their reactions to the experiences I had a
> very hard time just using the scapegoat of calling them "crazy" or
> delusional. They explained and reacted as if it had been something that
> physically happened to them.
Even stronger is the fact that abductees have undergone psychological
evaluations and there isn't any evidence to support the insanity
hypothesis.
--
Etherman
Etherman
Duane Laviniere <lav...@vnet.ibm.com> wrote in article
<33CF75...@vnet.ibm.com>...
> Kirk Marshall wrote:
> > People continually write that there's no proof, that these people are
> > nuts, the media is creating the phenomena, the hypnotists brainwashed
> > them etc., etc.. In the case of abductions I'm afraid that the burden
> > is on you to proove that the phenomenon is anything but what these
> > people are saying it is. As of now there is no evidence that supports
> > any of your theories. Some of them may explain away some cases, but
not
> > even close to all of them.
>
> Fine, I take it upon myself to educate the masses. I will PROVE once
> and for all, beyond a shadow of a doubt that aliens do not exist. (Get
> ready for this) The absolute lack of any physical evidence whatsoever
> is evidence enough to prove that aliens are a result of overactive
> imaginations. (I can see the "believer" side getting defensive)
That's one huge leap of logic. 200 years ago there wasn't one shred
of physical evidence that neutrinos exist, yet we now know that they
do. See any similarities here? Lack of evidence is not proof of lack of
existence. However, even if we accept that aliens don't exist you still
haven't come close to proving that abductions are the result of overactive
imaginations.
> For any REAL LIFE mystery, physical evidence is not an option, but a
> mandate. How in the hell can you prove that someone was stabbed and
> then hacked to pieces if you don't have a dead body, a knife and some
> wounds to show evidence of the dirty deed.
If the act was caught on a security camera would you believe it? Or would
you immediately cry hoax?
> How can you claim that you
> burned down a building if you can't show a smoldering pile of rubble
> where it once stood. How can you prove anything without evidence? Mere
> hearsay would have Elvis still rocking along in some remote area, Santa
> Clause making his rounds on Christmas Eve, tiny fairies stealing
> childrens teeth and the Russians would be attacking. You need PROOF,
> and not a testimony. I can testify right now that I was abducted by
> aliens. I could make up a really credible story (much more credible
> than most of those out there) and it would not mean squat because I know
> that I haven't been abducted by aliens simply because there is no proof
> that I have been? I have no reason to believe that I have been
> abducted.
Actually if you came up with a really credible story I would tend not to
believe you. One thing about abductions is that the abductors/contactors
behave in absurd ways. This is pretty much constant. If people are
making this stuff up, or just have overactive imaginations, then why are
the stories so ludicrous?
> I formulate an opinion based on reality and facts.
On what facts have you based your opinion of abductees on?
> Going outside
> outside the realm of reality is all good for dreaming, but to have the
> audacity to claim something outside of the law of Physics, that govern
> not just us on Earth, but an entire universe, is ludicrous. You need
> your head examined if you don't take a persons story as a whole and not
> just pieces, b/c the if one part of the story leaves room for suspicion,
> then the entire story goes sour.
Not really. Most of the time people observe a real phenomena but
just misinterpret it. Just because some parts of the story aren't
believable doesn't mean that it's a total fiction.
> This is the case with a great majority
> of the abdution stories out there. They are somewhat reality based, but
> too much of the tale wanders off into la-la land.
Why would that happen if they were just making it up?
> PATTERN DETECTED: Religious people all seem to believe in an omnipotent
> god that can do, say, see anything he/she wants. This god was always
> said to work in "mysterious" ways, thus making it impossible to argue
> against it.
There are mysterious things all around us. Can you explain
sonoluminesence?
To the best of my knowledge it's cause is a mystery, but no one seriously
doubts that it exists.
> I was raised Catholic, but dropped my faith like the bad
> habit it was.
Me too. Maybe you hated the religion so much that you went to the
opposite, and equally bad, extreme?
> I just couldn't get my Theology teacher (a priest) to
> admit that god could not exist, despite arguing him into a corner.
> There was always an escape for him, "He is a mystery, never to be fully
> figured out." It seemed that the entire point of religion was to run
> around like an ass, trying to get as close to understanding a god that
> wasn't fully understandable.
I'm reading "The Golden Bough" by Sir James Frazier. He discusses
how rainmakers became tribal leaders. You could become very powerful
if people thought that you could control the rain. It had it's down side,
though. If the rain didn't come the people would think that your causing
it not to rain. So they would kill you. So what do you do? Instead of
being a rainmaker you become a priest. When people want rain you
pray for rain. If it works you get the same power as you did when you
were a rainmaker. If it doesn't rain, then it's because God doesn't want
it to rain.
> Alien abductees like to think of their
> abductors as masters of their element. They can make us see, do, know
> whatever they wanted. They could slip undetected through any sort of
> defense, and they don't ever leave a trace. They are a MYSTERY. Damn
> damn damn, god is grey and has big, googly eyes. This pattern just
> proves that people are easily delluded. In our constant search for
> meaning and acceptance, we create supernatural explanaitions and latch
> on to them as it gives us security in our everyday lives. Me, I am
> secure and I don't need no steenky god and no steenky aliens. I'm
> myself, and I always play with a full deck.
You get security by denying mystery. If there were mysteries there
would be something you can't control.
> Oh yeah, about African sightings and claims, there have been tales
> stretching as far back as to the days of the Egyptians and god alone
> knows what the Bible (the world's largest fictional piece) said about
> ufo sightings (pun intended). Insanity through the ages. Doesn't say
> much for where the human race is headed.
There does seem to be some UFO encounters in the Bible (eg. Ezekial).
There are also abductions (eg. Enoch) and "alien" impregnations (eg.
Mary). There's scientific evidence that the abduction phenomena is
not caused by insanity. If we accept (as you seem to) that the incidents
in the Bible and other ancient sources have the same origin as modern
UFO sightings/abductions then we are left with evidence that they are
not False Memories induced by hypnotists.
--
Etherman
Marc Michalik
>Fine, I take it upon myself to educate the masses. I will PROVE once
>and for all, beyond a shadow of a doubt that aliens do not exist. (Get
>ready for this) The absolute lack of any physical evidence whatsoever
>is evidence enough to prove that aliens are a result of overactive
>imaginations. (I can see the "believer" side getting defensive)
Bzzzt! Wrong! Dr VernonClark is currently testing phyisical
evidence, but you might not have heard about it since the Press
Release Distrubutors haven't been handed a press release about it yet
(so it isn't in the news). It is not yet proof, but it is (so far),
evidence.
>Crop circles. Why do people hoax crop circles, or better yet, why do
>people claim to have hoaxed a crop circle when in actuality it was
>someone elses doing? Attention, insecurity, maybe even boredom. People
>lie and say the strangest things for unexplainable reasons. The
>explaination lies with that person, and that person alone. I'm not mind
>reader, so I can't claim to know what they are thinking, but I know FOR
>A FACT that they have not been abducted by aliens. End of story.
Where are all the Leprecauns??? Where are the Unicorns? Where
are all the simple and blantantly obvious "hoaxes" that would be
popular if the world was filled with "Hoaxers" as the sceptical side
of the debate has always claimed? "Hoaxers" are not common. They are
not everywhere. If "hoaxers" are responsible for the majority of UFO
strories, then where are all the non-UFO hoaxes? Why do hoaxers
concentrate almost exclusively on UFOs? Why? They don't! For the
most part, "hoaxers' do not exist.
Where is YOUR evidence that "hoaxers" are so common? And, since
you "know for a fact" no abduction has ever occured, where is your
evidence? Where is your physical evidence? I am not askig you to
prove a negative, you claim to know for a fact. From your statements
in this very post, I must assume you have physical evidence to support
that.
>I formulate an opinion based on reality and facts.
How can you, you apparently have no idea of what "reality" is. And
"Facts" are very often proven wrong.
>Going outside the realm of reality is all good for dreaming, but to have the
>audacity to claim something outside of the law of Physics
Nobody has claimed anything is outside the laws of physics, except
you.
>Worldwide? Yes. But is the rest of the world as bombarded by aliens as
>the US? No. I don't have numbers (I'm sure someone can find actual
>statistics) but I'm pretty sure that a large percentage of sighting,
>abduction cases occur in the US. Maybe they ARE after our individually
>wrapped cheese slices, or maybe it's our unusually strong, steroid fed
>cattle that attracts them. Who knows, just shows that we shallow
>Americans are right when we claim to be the center of the universe ;)
Earth finds yet another inhabited world. It's 2457 on Earth, and this
new world we found isn't far behind where we were in 1960. On this
world, there are many nation-states, but two of them lead vast
alliances which oppose each other in something similar to our "Cold
War". One of these "superpowers" is much more technologically
advanced than the other, has the capability to project its power
anywhere on the planet, and tends to dominate plantary politics. Now,
of all the nation-states on this planet we just found, which is the
most interesting too us???
>Oh yeah, about African sightings and claims, there have been tales
>stretching as far back as to the days of the Egyptians and god alone
>knows what the Bible (the world's largest fictional piece) said about
>ufo sightings (pun intended). Insanity through the ages. Doesn't say
>much for where the human race is headed.
Umm....Mr Evidence? Where is it?
Sherilyn
In article <33d27768...@news.dimensional.com>, Marc Michalik
<ka...@dimensional.com> writes[Duane:]
>>Fine, I take it upon myself to educate the masses. I will PROVE once
>>and for all, beyond a shadow of a doubt that aliens do not exist. (Get
>>ready for this)
I can't believe this crap. I'm a skeptic but I don't know how Duane can
be so confident that no extraterrestrial life exists (FWIW, I think most
skeptics think it likely that extraterrestrial life of some kind does
exist, and may be quite common).
[Duane:]
>The absolute lack of any physical evidence whatsoever
>>is evidence enough to prove that aliens are a result of overactive
>>imaginations. (I can see the "believer" side getting defensive)
Not so. Lack of physical evidence doesn't mean something isn't
happening. Lack of physical evidence for the existence of bacteria
didn't stop people dying of bacterial diseases. Your position is
unscientific and untenable.
[Marc:]
>
>Bzzzt! Wrong! Dr VernonClark is currently testing phyisical
>evidence, but you might not have heard about it since the Press
>Release Distrubutors haven't been handed a press release about it yet
>(so it isn't in the news). It is not yet proof, but it is (so far),
>evidence.
Actually it has been in the news--the Albuquerque Journal reported on
it. Unfortunately, as recent cross-posts in sci.chem show, the
published data is far from being self-consistent, and unusual isotopic
ratios do not constitute evidence of extraterrestrial origin. The
following URL contains some comments on the affair including a couple of
excellent posts by a Los Alamos chemist, Dr Rebecca M. Chamberlin.
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Corridor/8148/goalposts.html
We also--unusual at this stage of the game--seem to have NO evidence of
the provenance of this item, which is supposed to be from the Roswell
crash.
If html in posts bothers you, I apologise for the following. This can
be pasted into a file with a .html suffix and then loaded into a www
browser to access the sci.chem posts on this subject.
<HTML>
<BODY>
<FORM ACTION="http://search.dejanews.com/dnquery.xp" METHOD=post>
<A HREF="http://www.dejanews.com/">
<IMG SRC="/gifs/dnbanner.gif"
ALT=" [ Deja News ] " ALIGN=left></A>
<STRONG>Search sci.chem for: posts containing the word
extraterrestrial</STRONG><BR>
<INPUT TYPE="hidden" NAME="groups" VALUE="sci.chem">
<!-- To search current database, set svcclass value == dncurrent -->
<!-- To search old databases, use an svcclass value == dnold -->
<!-- To search all databases, use an svcclass value == dnserver -->
<INPUT TYPE="hidden" NAME="svcclass" VALUE="dnserver">
<INPUT TYPE="hidden" NAME="query" VALUE="extraterrestrial">
<INPUT TYPE="hidden" NAME="showsort" VALUE="date">
<INPUT TYPE="submit" VALUE="Find">
</FORM>
</BODY>
</HTML>
--
Sherilyn
PZ Myers
In article <a1bVSoAM...@sidaway.demon.co.uk>, Sherilyn
<Sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <33d27768...@news.dimensional.com>, Marc Michalik
> <ka...@dimensional.com> writes
> >On Fri, 18 Jul 1997 09:55:26 -0400, Duane Laviniere
> ><lav...@vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> >
> [Duane:]
> >>Fine, I take it upon myself to educate the masses. I will PROVE once
> >>and for all, beyond a shadow of a doubt that aliens do not exist. (Get
> >>ready for this)
>
> I can't believe this crap. I'm a skeptic but I don't know how Duane can
> be so confident that no extraterrestrial life exists (FWIW, I think most
> skeptics think it likely that extraterrestrial life of some kind does
> exist, and may be quite common).
>
There is a very nice essay by Ernst Mayr on this topic, called
"The probability of extraterrestrial life". It starts off this
way:
'A number of very different problems are often confused during discussions
of the SETI project: (1) the probability of the existence of "life"
elsewhere in the universe, (2) the probability of intelligent extra-
terrestrial life, and (3) the chances of being able to communicate with
such life, if it should exist.'
His conclusion? That (1) is quite possible, but from the example of
our solar system, ought not to be considered highly probable. I think he
and most biologists would agree that given the right conditions, life
is almost certain to arise; the question is, however, how common those
particular conditions might be, and we don't have enough data to conclude
one way or another.
(2) he considers _extremely_ unlikely. In the 3 billion year history of
life on our planet, high intelligence has arisen in exactly one rather
marginally successful lineage. Other adaptive strategies are continually
reinvented during evolution, but intelligence has been prominent only
once. This suggests that either intelligence is an extraordinarily difficult
thing to generate, or that it is generally not a particularly successful
way to achieve greater fitness. And no, there is no evidence for any
kind of predetermination -- intelligence is NOT an inevitable consequence
of some non-existent ladder of biological progress.
(3) is also extremely unlikely. He points out that there was another
species, Neandertal, of intelligence equal to ours (although probably very
different in character) that lived on Earth for about 100000 years, and never
achieved any significant technological progress...they barely scraped up
anything fit to be called a civilization. Within our species, we have had
a number of successful and stable civilizations, such as the Chinese, the
Maya, or the Greeks, that never showed the peculiar technological bent
that would lead to space travel.
His final point reinforces what Sherilyn is saying here, that there
can be no conclusive disproof.
'Those biologists who doubt the probability of ever establishing contact
with extraterrestrial intelligent life if it should exist do not "deny
categorically the possibility of extraterrestrial intelligence", as they
have been accused. How could they? There are no facts which would permit
such a categorical denial. All they claim is that the probabilities are
close to zero.'
I'm a skeptic, too, and I agree 100% with this. There is a miniscule chance
of intelligent life appearing elsewhere. Of course, given the size of the
universe, that means it *is* very likely to have appeared somewhere other
than the earth -- unfortunately, such an intelligent species is almost
certain to be separated by billions (trillions? more?) of other stars from us.
We would be a single mote in a colossal dustpile, and it is most unlikely
that we would ever be found.
Furthermore, imagine that we someday travel to the stars. We find our
neighborhood empty of intelligence, but perhaps life or habitable worlds
are reasonably common. Our civilization thrives and grows, we search a
billion worlds (and just the capacity to do that would imply some rather
amazing maturity). Finally, we find one world among the billions inhabited
by an alien intelligence with which we could communicate...and what would
we do? According to the UFO believers, such a long-lived culture with
galaxy-spanning technology would respond to such a momentous discovery
by buzzing the planet with brightly-glowing spaceships, by kidnapping the
inhabitants for strange sexual experiments, or by flattening their crops
in odd geometric designs. Yeah, right.
--
Paul Z. Myers
http://fishnet.bio.temple.edu/
Nick Merritt
In article <33CEA1...@vbimail.champlain.edu>,
km...@vbimail.champlain.edu wrote:
[snip]
> People continually write that there's no proof, that these people are
> nuts, the media is creating the phenomena, the hypnotists brainwashed
> them etc., etc.. In the case of abductions I'm afraid that the burden
> is on you to proove that the phenomenon is anything but what these
> people are saying it is.
Wrong. The burden is on the claimants to prove their case, not for the
rest of us to disprove it.
> As of now there is no evidence that supports
> any of your theories. Some of them may explain away some cases, but not
> even close to all of them. The psychology and scientific fields have
> never come across something like this and are at a loss for any
> explanation.
Wrong. Elizabeth Showalter's (sp?) book 'Hystories' argues convincingly
that alien abduction can be classified with a whole range of similar
'phenomena', satanic ritual abuse being one. Her hypothesis is that alien
abduction is a symptom of a kind of mass hysteria, possibly millennial in
origin. Other possible scientific explanations include temporal lobe
epilepsy.
> You investigate things only far enough to fit into your
> preconceptions about it. If you truly cared about the truth you
> wouldn't formulate your opinions so quickly.
Wrong. The only sound basis for determining the truth of a proposition is
to be prepared to ruthlessly cull the untruths. i.e. your standards need
to be high and rigorous. Look, it's all very well to have an open mind,
but not so open anybody or anything can climb in.
> I believe questioning
> things is a healthy thing. But formulating an opinion about something
> before you're aware of the whole picture just isn't a good way to
> conduct yourself if your in search for the truth.
Have you honestly criticised your own beliefs and seriously investigated
the alternative explanations?
> If this is happening
> they would be obviously way more intellegent than us. Therefore, if
> they were observing/studying us from afar then it would be a policy not
> to leave any "physical" traces behind.
Now do you see what you are doing? Actually you have no evidence for their
intelligence or otherwise , nor any ideas what their motives may be. If
you were honest and hard-headed about it, you would stick only to what you
(think) you know.
> So it could continue to be a
> secret and a so called a delusion/myth amongst the species.
Anything is possible. Sceptism is about narrowing down the options.
> One last
> thing. If you look into it you'll see that it is a WORLDWIDE
> phenomenon, even occurring in areas of Africa where there are only
> radios. I guess that's all I have to say. Thanks for listening.
Indeed, it is a worldwide phenomenon, although only strongly in those
countries with a developed mass media (funny you mention radios). The type
of 'alien' reported in other countries is also rather diferent to those
reported in the United States. This alone should make you consider the
phenemonon to be cultural and/or psychological as opposed to anything
else.
Nick
Nick Merritt
In article <33D120...@vbimail.champlain.edu>,
km...@vbimail.champlain.edu wrote:
[snip]
> They explained and reacted as if it had been something that
> physically happened to them. There has never been any type of purely
> psychological experience that has made a person react this way.
I am afraid this is not strictly true. There are a variety of documented
conditions which exist yet have no physical cause (i.e. it's likely they
are psychological in origin). Oliver Sacks made a career out of describing
them, Freud built many of his theories on them. Then there are other
phenomena which could broadly be classified as psychological in origin -
mass hysteria, of which satanic ritual abuse is one example, witch hunts
another.
> Only
> physical things have been shown to produce the post-traumatic stress
> syndrome which most of these people suffer from.
Prove it.
> Also the VERY detailed
> descriptions of things that occurred corraborate with the other
> experiencers down to eerie details. Yet they all explain it in a very
> individual manner.
Hardly a surprise when we have a media which spreads the basic skeleton of
a typical abduction story, to which others can adapt their own individual
stories. Note that before the typical standard abduction scenario became
well-known in the 1980s, there was no end of differing accounts of aliens,
spaceships, motives, visitations and so on.
> Also, these peoples lives are in turmoil, they're
> not doing it for money or attention. Most don't even want any publicity
> or attention at all. They just want to know what the hell is happening
> to them and want to have ordinary lives. The subject goes much deeper
> than this though.
Indeed it does.
> There has been physical corraborations to the
> experiences also (e.g. people missing (including children) while it
> alledgedly took place, ufo sighting in area where it alledgedly took
> place, marks on the ground, cuts etc. on the experiencers (can't be
> proven that it happened while being abducted but that is what the people
> say it's from)
Yet still no real 'sit up and take notice' physical evidence despite all
the abductions.
> It is a genuine mystery that does deserve to be
> investigated further at the very least. Anyone who doesn't even
> acknowledge this is just kidding themselves. I understand many peoples
> need for hard evidence. I believe evidence does exist, just not your
> kind of evidence. The scientifc method has served us well up until now.
> But it will come to a point where everything can't be explained by those
> methods and we'll have to balance that out with reading between the
> lines somewhat.
Back to the Middle Ages! I see, so for science to progress, we need to
throw out the scientific method and rely instead on opinion again? i.e.
the approach which served us so well for the thousands of years of misery,
disease and slavery during which it existed?
[snip]
>That way your worldview
> isn't challenged, which is something that many people would rather die
> for than change.
It's not a matter about worldviews or anything else, it's a matter of evidence.
> I don't even believe that it is neccesarily "alien"
> abduction, but I believe that some type of intelligence other than us is
> doing something physical with these people.
Do you? Just so we can judge the rigour with which you choose one belief
over another, what else you do also believe in?
> What they are we can't
> deduct from what is known so far. I don't know what it is that is
> happening, nobody does for sure.
So you choose to believe that 'some type of intelligence other than us is
doing something physical with these people'. Why not just admit you don't
know and keep an open mind instead?
{snip]
> We
> suffer from mass anthropocentrism when it comes to the way we view
> everything.
An what is alien abuction if nothing but 'anthropocentrism' on a colossal
ego-building scale?
[snip]
Nick
Etherman
Nick Merritt <nme...@futurenet.co.uk> wrote in article
<nmerrit-2107...@172.18.72.175>...
>
> An what is alien abuction if nothing but 'anthropocentrism' on a colossal
> ego-building scale?
>
> [snip]
> Nick
This is a theory that I've never heard before. Any evidence for it?
--
Etherman
Duane Laviniere
Etherman wrote:
> That's one huge leap of logic. 200 years ago there wasn't one shred
> of physical evidence that neutrinos exist, yet we now know that they
> do. See any similarities here? Lack of evidence is not proof of lack of
> existence. However, even if we accept that aliens don't exist you still
> haven't come close to proving that abductions are the result of overactive
> imaginations.
And we now have *proof* as to their existence. Before, anyone
blabbering on about neutrinos without any sort of scientific theory that
was provable through mathematical computation was a nutcase, plain and
simple. It would be pure speculation. I can ramble on about how there
is an infinite regression to matter, but without any proof of smaller
and smaller particles than the ones we've already found, then I'm just
blowing hot air. No one will take me seriously, and that is b/c I have
*no evidence* to support my conclusions. It's just that simple. Alien
abductees make claims with no evidence to prove it. Hence, they are
just blowing hot air.
I claim that abductions are fake. Maybe not overactive imaginations,
but a phenomenon of the human mind. It takes some serious instabilities
to make people go around claiming to have been kidnapped by aliens.
Aliens may exist. The chances of them finding us are about as small as
the chances of us finding them. I'd say, one in a million gazillion.
It's a big univers out there. Seems like a waste to come to Earth just
to go sneaking around stealing the dillusional members of our highly
populated planet.
> If the act was caught on a security camera would you believe it? Or would
> you immediately cry hoax?
Sorry for not being in depth. I could have listed many articles of
evidence such as: bloody towel, bloody napkin, bloody hanky, bloody
carpet, big knife, little knife, chainsaw, etc... Details are
insignificant. The point is that security camera footage is evidence if
it can be proven that there was no tempering. Give me good, clean,
airtight alien footage, then we'll talk. TANGENT ->
Why can't people learn to use their cameras and camcorders before
filming ufo's or aliens? Classic ufo footage is spotty from poor
quality tape, blurry (way out of focus), poor tracking (*zing* the dang
ufo is off the screen, or jumping wildly). I can make a street lamp
look like a high speed far off object if I just stood way back and shook
the camera around a bit. Get good quality film, try to find some sort
of object in the foreground so that distance can be guaged, use a steady
hand to keep the object centered in the screen, get a good angle and
just make a good attempt at it. Most footage really blows. It's like
some little kid took it with his cracker jack camera. OFF TANGENT.
> Actually if you came up with a really credible story I would tend not to
> believe you. One thing about abductions is that the abductors/contactors
> behave in absurd ways. This is pretty much constant. If people are
> making this stuff up, or just have overactive imaginations, then why are
> the stories so ludicrous?
Because, it takes a really off balance person to actually believe that
such a wild story will bring them fame and/or fortune in the first
place. Most of them I feel are attention seekers, when in all
actuality, they will only get ridicule. It takes one lonely, depressed
soul to believe that making a fool of themselves is in their better
interest. Besides, hoaxers like these abductees don't seem to do their
homework before they make up their stories.
> On what facts have you based your opinion of abductees on?
On the "facts" that are given in a cast majority of abduction cases.
Just pool most of the ideas together, throw in a little shock value and
you've got a true "classic" abduction. I'd then write a book and make
money off the movie rights.
> Not really. Most of the time people observe a real phenomena but
> just misinterpret it. Just because some parts of the story aren't
> believable doesn't mean that it's a total fiction.
It leaves the *entire* story open for question. OJ Simpson's story made
sense in some places, but he loused up a few times, and thus the
*entire* story went sour.
> Why would that happen if they were just making it up?
Becasue they are making it up. If I didn't have intense knowledge of
what people reported seeing/experiencing on board the ufo's, then I'd
probably make up something that seemed fanciful and intriguing. It
would seem outrageous to real abduction researchers b/c it's so far out
of the realm of what they expect from an abductee. It's all based on
that person's knowledge of what an abduction is like. I might have
trouble identifying what the examination instruments all looked like.
My anal probe--those damned pervert aliens--would probably be different
from another person's.
> There are mysterious things all around us. Can you explain
> sonoluminesence?
No, why? Because I am not familiar with the term. Define it for me,
and I'll explain it.
> To the best of my knowledge it's cause is a mystery, but no one seriously
> doubts that it exists.
I know the cause. I just need to know what the heck it is ;)
> Me too. Maybe you hated the religion so much that you went to the
> opposite, and equally bad, extreme?
Extreme? No. Religion was one extreme, but I drifted to the middle.
I'm really willing to go either way, as long as there is *evidence* to
support it. I used to be a believer, but I'm now edging a lot more
towards the skeptic side. My new found skepticism has helped me provide
enough evidence contradicting the abductees that I have all but lost
hope in the existence of visitors. If they land at the White House in
front of millions of viewers, I'm back to a believer, but you gotta show
me some evidence.
> You get security by denying mystery. If there were mysteries there
> would be something you can't control.
I am secure in the mystery of black holes, of light speed of the human
mind and emotions. I can't control a great many things in my life, but
I just accept them for what they are. Some things *are* meant to be
mysteries until science progresses to the proper level. However, it
seems that certain things can already be explained through the use of
simple logic, and the more I apply it, the more I realize that my
solution makes the most sense to me. I fail to see why I must always
follow a way that makes no sense to me when there is always a logical,
sensible option. I like to consider myself a sensible person.
> There does seem to be some UFO encounters in the Bible (eg. Ezekial).
> There are also abductions (eg. Enoch) and "alien" impregnations (eg.
> Mary). There's scientific evidence that the abduction phenomena is
> not caused by insanity. If we accept (as you seem to) that the incidents
> in the Bible and other ancient sources have the same origin as modern
> UFO sightings/abductions then we are left with evidence that they are
> not False Memories induced by hypnotists.
Well, people always claimed to be able to communicate with the dead. It
has yet to be proven. People have always claimed that there is a life
after death, yet it has never been proven. People have always claimed
to be able to attain immortality, but this again has never been proven.
If there is anything that history has shown us, it is that people are
very, very easily delluded. It also proves that far too many people are
ignorant to history itself and thus we never learn. History repeats
itself far too often for comfort, and I have a number of current issues
which display this fact to the fullest. This is not the forum to
discuss them, but trust me, it is definitely a pattern. We've got to
lose our obsession with the supernatural and accept our human frailties
and move on. Maybe we can better ourselves them. PEACE.
> --
> Etherman
Duane Laviniere
Marc Michalik wrote:
> Bzzzt! Wrong! Dr VernonClark is currently testing phyisical
> evidence, but you might not have heard about it since the Press
> Release Distrubutors haven't been handed a press release about it yet
> (so it isn't in the news). It is not yet proof, but it is (so far),
> evidence.
Phew, you sure showed me *evil grin*. Just like that crop circle
evidence, proving ufo influence, which was never brought to light. Man,
I'm looking forward to this laugher.
> Where are all the Leprecauns??? Where are the Unicorns? Where
> are all the simple and blantantly obvious "hoaxes" that would be
> popular if the world was filled with "Hoaxers" as the sceptical side
> of the debate has always claimed? "Hoaxers" are not common. They are
> not everywhere. If "hoaxers" are responsible for the majority of UFO
> strories, then where are all the non-UFO hoaxes? Why do hoaxers
> concentrate almost exclusively on UFOs? Why? They don't! For the
> most part, "hoaxers' do not exist.
Uh huh. Crop circle hoaxers, bigfoot hoaxers, loch ness hoaxers, alien
autopsy hoaxers. Are these figments of my overactive imagination? Or
is this actual *evidence* that hoaxers exist.
> Where is YOUR evidence that "hoaxers" are so common? And, since
> you "know for a fact" no abduction has ever occured, where is your
> evidence? Where is your physical evidence? I am not askig you to
> prove a negative, you claim to know for a fact. From your statements
> in this very post, I must assume you have physical evidence to support
> that.
(Duane approaches podium with one 3"x5" card, taps the microphone and
then speaks) "The sheer lack of ANY evidence supporting the existence of
alien abductions is evidence enough to conclude that they do not exist."
(Applause from his supporters, boo's from the peanut gallery. Duane
steps away from the podium, not knowing if his message has been heard)
Prove me wrong. That's all I ask. If I were to make unfounded claims
about the existence of a paranormal entity, it is *my responsiblity* to
provide evidence supporting it. It is *your responsiblity* to provide
me with evidence supporting your claim that aliens are abducting human
beings. I'm waiting.
> How can you, you apparently have no idea of what "reality" is. And
> "Facts" are very often proven wrong.
I know, but if you want to take common claims from abductees as "fact,"
then those are the same "facts" that I shall provide in my story.
> Nobody has claimed anything is outside the laws of physics, except
> you.
([music]Twilight Zone theme) So I'm just imagining the claims of people
being sucked through walls, windows, etc... or the story I read where a
woman claimed that aliens passed right through her door. Hmm, must be
my overactive imagination.
> Earth finds yet another inhabited world. It's 2457 on Earth, and this
> new world we found isn't far behind where we were in 1960. On this
> world, there are many nation-states, but two of them lead vast
> alliances which oppose each other in something similar to our "Cold
> War". One of these "superpowers" is much more technologically
> advanced than the other, has the capability to project its power
> anywhere on the planet, and tends to dominate plantary politics. Now,
> of all the nation-states on this planet we just found, which is the
> most interesting too us???
The one that probably doesn't have the incredible social decay that ours
does. Alien abductions are similiar to tag and release practiced by
fishermen and wildlife guys on safari. I don't think they go after
lions that do not support their cubs or hun alone. Instead, they like
to follow and examine prides that hunt together, nurture their young
together and protect one another. Seems like what a classic lion pride
should be like. If I was interested in a society, I'd probably go to
Japan. A society that build itself up from absolute ruins to become a
dominant force in the marketplace. Also making great strides in
technology especially in packaging. Maybe I'm not shallow enough, or
maybe I'm just looking at the big picture.
> Umm....Mr Evidence? Where is it?
The Bible has is written in there somewhere, not sure what the exact
book is. Egyptians told tales of objects flying from the sky and taking
people, also of strange looking people. Some African tales referring to
gods can be related to alien abduction stories. Here, I admit that I am
lacking actual quotes and any sort of real evidence. My argument is not
very supported past about 50 years ago. But I don't care to go looking
it all up so take it or leave it. PEACE.
Duane Laviniere
Sherilyn wrote:
> I can't believe this crap. I'm a skeptic but I don't know how Duane can
> be so confident that no extraterrestrial life exists (FWIW, I think most
> skeptics think it likely that extraterrestrial life of some kind does
> exist, and may be quite common).
Ay chihuaha. How the hell can you infer from my statements that I do
not believe in the existence of ET's? I don't buy that they are
abducting us, but I can't doubt that in the bazillions of stars of our
vast universe that at least one other planet contains intelligent life.
Please don't claim I said stuff that I did not.
> Not so. Lack of physical evidence doesn't mean something isn't
> happening. Lack of physical evidence for the existence of bacteria
> didn't stop people dying of bacterial diseases. Your position is
> unscientific and untenable.
But there is theory. And theory is usually looked on as sufficient
evidence to follow at least until it can be proven otherwise. Besides,
theory is almost always supported by scientific study well beyond a
simple interview of some paranoid psychopath. Theory and fairy tales
are two different things. One is quite believable and supported by a
scientific work, and the other is based on hearsay or disputable
eyewitness accounts. I am an engineer. I need *facts*.
> --
> Sherilyn
I really hate it when people take my claim that abductions are a hoax
and then try to discredit me by claiming that I am close-minded and
don't believe that ET's can exist. I hope that wasn't your intention,
but please do not make that mistake. Probability says that ET's have to
exist somewhere, and I buy that. PEACE.
Etherman
Sherilyn <Sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
<a1bVSoAM...@sidaway.demon.co.uk>...
> Actually it has been in the news--the Albuquerque Journal reported on
> it. Unfortunately, as recent cross-posts in sci.chem show, the
> published data is far from being self-consistent, and unusual isotopic
> ratios do not constitute evidence of extraterrestrial origin. The
> following URL contains some comments on the affair including a couple of
> excellent posts by a Los Alamos chemist, Dr Rebecca M. Chamberlin.
>
> http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Corridor/8148/goalposts.html
>
> We also--unusual at this stage of the game--seem to have NO evidence of
> the provenance of this item, which is supposed to be from the Roswell
> crash.
I'm a bit confused. Skeptics have been telling us over and over that
unusual isotope ratios would prove ET origin, or at least be very strong
evidence for it. Why the apparent sudden change in position?
--
Etherman
Etherman
Nick Merritt <nme...@futurenet.co.uk> wrote in article
<nmerrit-2107...@172.18.72.175>...
> Wrong. Elizabeth Showalter's (sp?) book 'Hystories' argues convincingly
> that alien abduction can be classified with a whole range of similar
> 'phenomena', satanic ritual abuse being one.
I guess by this you mean hypnotically induced false memories? This
has a major problem. "Alien abductions" have been occurring for
thousands of years. In earlier times the aliens were called demons,
angels, fairies, etc., but the patterns in the accounts have changed
very little.
> Her hypothesis is that alien
> abduction is a symptom of a kind of mass hysteria, possibly millennial in
> origin.
I doubt this highly. For the same reason as above. This stuff has been
going on for thousands of years across all cultures.
> Other possible scientific explanations include temporal lobe
> epilepsy.
Okay, so what's the evidence for this explanation?
> Have you honestly criticised your own beliefs and seriously investigated
> the alternative explanations?
I know the question wasn't aimed at me, but I'll answer it anyway. I've
not only criticized my beliefs but I've changed them when I felt the
weight of the evidence was a against them. For instance I used to be
a Creationist. Once I left that I also left Christianity. These aren't
exactly small changes in one's world view! I also changed my position
from being a complete disbeliever of UFO to a believer. At first I
was pretty sympathetic to the ETH, but now I'm not so sure. I think
the ETH only superficially explains UFOs (much like many attempts
at debunking them).
> Indeed, it is a worldwide phenomenon, although only strongly in those
> countries with a developed mass media (funny you mention radios). The
type
> of 'alien' reported in other countries is also rather diferent to those
> reported in the United States. This alone should make you consider the
> phenemonon to be cultural and/or psychological as opposed to anything
> else.
>
> Nick
There are definitely cultural and psychological considerations. This
does not mean there is nothing physical to them.
--
Etherman
Michael Edelman
Etherman wrote:
>
>
> I'm a bit confused. Skeptics have been telling us over and over that
> unusual isotope ratios would prove ET origin, or at least be very strong
> evidence for it.
Indeed, you are. Unusual ratios *might* indicate extra-terrestrial
origin, but that would also include a few billion years of bombardment
by meteors, a very common form of extraterrestrial visitor. I don't
recall anyone other than the ET fans claiming that it would be evidence
of alien visitation.
Of coulrse, almost every single bit of matter on earth is of
extraterrestrial origin! ;-)
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Edelman m...@pass.wayne.edu
Wayne State University voice: (313) 577-0742
Computing & Information Technology fax: (313) 577-8787
Academic Computing & Support Services
Detroit MI 48070 http://www.pass.wayne.edu/~mje/home.html
Sherilyn
In article <myers-ya02408000...@netnews.netaxs.com>, PZ
Myers <my...@netaxs.com.NOSPAM> writes
>In article <a1bVSoAM...@sidaway.demon.co.uk>, Sherilyn
><Sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> In article <33d27768...@news.dimensional.com>, Marc Michalik
>> <ka...@dimensional.com> writes
>> >On Fri, 18 Jul 1997 09:55:26 -0400, Duane Laviniere
>> ><lav...@vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>> >
>> [Duane:]
>> >>and for all, beyond a shadow of a doubt that aliens do not exist. (Get
>> >>ready for this)
>>
>> be so confident that no extraterrestrial life exists (FWIW, I think most
>> skeptics think it likely that extraterrestrial life of some kind does
>> exist, and may be quite common).
>>
>
>"The probability of extraterrestrial life". It starts off this
>way:
>
>His final point reinforces what Sherilyn is saying here, that there
>can be no conclusive disproof.
>'Those biologists who doubt the probability of ever establishing contact
>with extraterrestrial intelligent life if it should exist do not "deny
>categorically the possibility of extraterrestrial intelligence", as they
>have been accused. How could they? There are no facts which would permit
>such a categorical denial. All they claim is that the probabilities are
>close to zero.'
>
There's a discussion of Mayr's conclusions in the context of the SETI
project, between Mayr and Carl Sagan, at:
http://www.transatlantech.com/TPS/gsp-pr-050696-04.html
--
Sherilyn
Sherilyn
In article <33D36F...@vnet.ibm.com>, Duane Laviniere
<lav...@vnet.ibm.com> writes
>Sherilyn wrote:
>> I can't believe this crap. I'm a skeptic but I don't know how Duane can
>> be so confident that no extraterrestrial life exists (FWIW, I think most
>> skeptics think it likely that extraterrestrial life of some kind does
>> exist, and may be quite common).
>
>not believe in the existence of ET's? I don't buy that they are
>abducting us, but I can't doubt that in the bazillions of stars of our
>vast universe that at least one other planet contains intelligent life.
>Please don't claim I said stuff that I did not.
I obviously 'misread' your statement (which I quoted) "I will PROVE
once and for all, beyond a shadow of a doubt that aliens do not exist"
as implying that you purported to be able to prove, once and for all,
beyond a shadow of a doubt, that aliens do not exist.
In common with most other USENET users, I am not a mind-reader and have
only the words you choose and their common meanings to guide me as to
your meaning.
...
>
>I really hate it when people take my claim that abductions are a hoax
>and then try to discredit me by claiming that I am close-minded and
>don't believe that ET's can exist. I hope that wasn't your intention,
>but please do not make that mistake. Probability says that ET's have to
>exist somewhere, and I buy that. PEACE.
>
Your problem is self-manufactured--if you continue to be imprecise in
the expression of your reasoning, and to blame others for their
reasonable interpretations of those imprecisely expressed thoughts--you
will fail to convince.
--
Sherilyn
PZ Myers
In article <l9kagDAx...@sidaway.demon.co.uk>, Sherilyn
<Sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <myers-ya02408000...@netnews.netaxs.com>, PZ
> Myers <my...@netaxs.com.NOSPAM> writes
> >In article <a1bVSoAM...@sidaway.demon.co.uk>, Sherilyn
> ><Sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> In article <33d27768...@news.dimensional.com>, Marc Michalik
> >> <ka...@dimensional.com> writes
> >> >On Fri, 18 Jul 1997 09:55:26 -0400, Duane Laviniere
> >> ><lav...@vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> [Duane:]
> >> >>Fine, I take it upon myself to educate the masses. I will PROVE once
> >> >>and for all, beyond a shadow of a doubt that aliens do not exist. (Get
> >> >>ready for this)
> >>
> >> I can't believe this crap. I'm a skeptic but I don't know how Duane can
> >> be so confident that no extraterrestrial life exists (FWIW, I think most
> >> skeptics think it likely that extraterrestrial life of some kind does
> >> exist, and may be quite common).
> >>
> >
> >There is a very nice essay by Ernst Mayr on this topic, called
> >"The probability of extraterrestrial life". It starts off this
> >way:
> ...
> >
> >His final point reinforces what Sherilyn is saying here, that there
> >can be no conclusive disproof.
> >'Those biologists who doubt the probability of ever establishing contact
> >with extraterrestrial intelligent life if it should exist do not "deny
> >categorically the possibility of extraterrestrial intelligence", as they
> >have been accused. How could they? There are no facts which would permit
> >such a categorical denial. All they claim is that the probabilities are
> >close to zero.'
> >
> ...
>
> There's a discussion of Mayr's conclusions in the context of the SETI
> project, between Mayr and Carl Sagan, at:
>
> http://www.transatlantech.com/TPS/gsp-pr-050696-04.html
I left out Mayr's concluding sentence, which some might find controversial:
'In my view, SETI is a deplorable waste of taxpayers' money, money that could
be spent more usefully for other purposes.' A debate between Mayr and Sagan
ought to be good!
I took a look at the web site. Mayr basically rehashes the essay I mention
above, and I think he whupped Sagan's tail but good, although from the
text it is also clear that Sagan was totally oblivious to the key point.
As seems to be the usual case with physicists and astronomers, Sagan is
essentially presenting a determinist point of view -- add water, the right
temperature, etc., and life will arise, and eventually intelligence will
emerge. He _thinks_ that the core of Mayr's argument is the low probability
of intelligence, and all you need to do is multiply a low probability by
sufficient time to eventually get a 100% certainty of generating intelligence.
Sagan says, "...the probable timescale to the evolution of technical
intelligence. It starts out very low; by a few billion years it may
have a noticeable value; by 5 billion years, it's something like 50
percent; by 10 billion years, maybe it's approaching 100 percent."
Woooosh, Mayr's point clearly went way over Sagan's head.
Mayr's point is that there is no "eventually" to the evolution of intelligence.
It is not the end point of any direction to evolution, and the available
evidence (Earth's biological history) suggests that intelligence is usually
selected *against*, as a metabolically expensive and reproductively counter-
productive strategy. Humans are a bizarre and unique counterexample. Not only
is intelligence far less probable than Sagan seems to think, but there is
no "force" that will necessarily lead to even the accidental generation of
intelligence on any planet, no matter how conducive to diverse forms of life.
Even once a planet does have intelligent life, there is again no "force" that
will direct it down a technological path -- our own technological society is
a brief flash-in-the-pan compared to the long-lived, stable, and relatively
non-technological Chinese culture, for example, and the instruments of
high technology may eventually prove destabilizing and destructive.
Eagle
>Duane wrote;
>...but I can't doubt that in the bazillions of stars of our
>vast universe that at least one other planet contains intelligent life.
I love it when people spin this line.
Think about it - in a universe with "bazillions" of stars it is no more
intelligent to say one or two must have life nearby than it is to say none
have. In such a vast universe you either have to believe that life is in
abundance or no where else at all.
fart ass
In article <33D36F...@vnet.ibm.com>, lav...@vnet.ibm.com says...
>
>Sherilyn wrote:
>> I can't believe this crap. I'm a skeptic but I don't know how Duane can
>> be so confident that no extraterrestrial life exists (FWIW, I think most
>> skeptics think it likely that extraterrestrial life of some kind does
>> exist, and may be quite common).
>
>not believe in the existence of ET's? I don't buy that they are
>vast universe that at least one other planet contains intelligent life.
>
>> happening. Lack of physical evidence for the existence of bacteria
>> didn't stop people dying of bacterial diseases. Your position is
>> unscientific and untenable.
>
>But there is theory. And theory is usually looked on as sufficient
>evidence to follow at least until it can be proven otherwise. Besides,
>theory is almost always supported by scientific study well beyond a
>simple interview of some paranoid psychopath. Theory and fairy tales
>are two different things. One is quite believable and supported by a
>scientific work, and the other is based on hearsay or disputable
>eyewitness accounts. I am an engineer. I need *facts*.
>
>> --
>> Sherilyn
>
>and then try to discredit me by claiming that I am close-minded and
>don't believe that ET's can exist. I hope that wasn't your intention,
>but please do not make that mistake. Probability says that ET's have to
>exist somewhere, and I buy that. PEACE.
>
Nick Merritt
Correction - Hystories was by Elaine Showalter, not Elizabeth.
Nick
Nick Merritt
In article <01bc95f4$f4dfd580$06d6...@etherman.mdc.net>, "Etherman"
<ethe...@mdc.net.nospam> wrote:
[snip]
> I guess by this you mean hypnotically induced false memories? This
> has a major problem. "Alien abductions" have been occurring for
> thousands of years. In earlier times the aliens were called demons,
> angels, fairies, etc., but the patterns in the accounts have changed
> very little.
What evidence do you have for this? Even the cases cited by Mack and
others, only take into consideration, in total, a few hundred American
abductees. From this the authors have *inferred* that others may have been
abducted but it's no more than that. Plus the reports of abduction from
non-Anglo cultures are rare to the point of invisibility, comparitively
speaking.
Plus where is your evidence that alien abductions have been occurring for
thousands of years? How do you know they were by aliens and that you just
aren't putting your own spin on stories from times when people believed in
all kinds of mythical creatures? What kind of large-scale studies have
been done which unambiguously places such phenomena from pre-scientific
times into the class of alien abductions?
Besides I was under the impression the first abduction anybody took
seriously was that of Betty and Barney Hill in 1966. (Even though their
first therapist thought it was more psychological than actual.)
> > Her hypothesis is that alien
> > abduction is a symptom of a kind of mass hysteria, possibly millennial in
> > origin.
>
> I doubt this highly. For the same reason as above. This stuff has been
> going on for thousands of years across all cultures.
Actually, I misquoted. Carl Jung thought they were millennial in origin.
Showalter believes they are mass hysteria. Do you not think you should
read her book before you start to doubt her research? She describes a
whole range of events - from witch hunts, satantic ritual abuse, recovered
memory child abuse cases and more, which share the characteristics of
alien abduction, modern and historical.
> > Other possible scientific explanations include temporal lobe
> > epilepsy.
>
> Okay, so what's the evidence for this explanation?
That when TLE is induced in lab-based subjects, they report similar
responses to those described by many abductees - paralysis, seeing small
alien-looking creatures, sexual feelings. There's tons of evidence, some
of it on-line.
> > Have you honestly criticised your own beliefs and seriously investigated
> > the alternative explanations?
>
> I know the question wasn't aimed at me, but I'll answer it anyway. I've
> not only criticized my beliefs but I've changed them when I felt the
> weight of the evidence was a against them. For instance I used to be
> a Creationist. Once I left that I also left Christianity. These aren't
> exactly small changes in one's world view! I also changed my position
> from being a complete disbeliever of UFO to a believer. At first I
> was pretty sympathetic to the ETH, but now I'm not so sure. I think
> the ETH only superficially explains UFOs (much like many attempts
> at debunking them).
It's not hard for an explanation to seem superficial when the range of
phenomena tagged 'alien' is so vast and sprawling. You should consider
possibility that the range of possible explanations needs to be similarly
large.
[snip]
> There are definitely cultural and psychological considerations. This
> does not mean there is nothing physical to them.
And if cultural and psychological explanations explain the data, then why
go any further? Perhaps it's because the vision of aliens and flying
saucers is too romantic for some people to let go of.
Nick
Duane Laviniere
Eagle wrote:
> >Duane wrote;
> >...but I can't doubt that in the bazillions of stars of our
> >vast universe that at least one other planet contains intelligent life.
>
> Think about it - in a universe with "bazillions" of stars it is no more
> intelligent to say one or two must have life nearby than it is to say none
> have. In such a vast universe you either have to believe that life is in
> abundance or no where else at all.
I said "one" to show that I'm not a big ET pooper like people think I
am. I could just have easily said 3, 4 or 1 million. I just used one
to put extra emphasis on my belief that the universe is *vast* and that
there *has* to be life elsewhere. Numbers are irrelevant. PEACE.
Duane Laviniere
Sherilyn wrote:
> I obviously 'misread' your statement (which I quoted) "I will PROVE
> once and for all, beyond a shadow of a doubt that aliens do not exist"
> as implying that you purported to be able to prove, once and for all,
> beyond a shadow of a doubt, that aliens do not exist.
>
> In common with most other USENET users, I am not a mind-reader and have
> only the words you choose and their common meanings to guide me as to
> your meaning.
Sorry about that, I thought the entire post made my message clear, but I
was mistaken.
> Your problem is self-manufactured--if you continue to be imprecise in
> the expression of your reasoning, and to blame others for their
> reasonable interpretations of those imprecisely expressed thoughts--you
> will fail to convince.
> --
> Sherilyn
I type fast b/c I'm at work. I only devote a little time to responding,
so I like to make my posts short and to the point. The subject of this
thread is "Abductions (A Genuine Puzzle?)." I thought that it was
reasonable to shorten "alien abductions" to just "aliens" in that
instant b/c I figured the rest of my post and the subject was enough to
make my point clear. I was wrong. I will now write everything out in
long, boring style so that no more mistakes like this are made.
Besides, it seems that the rest of the message just got ignored, but
everyone got their undies in a bunch over that one statement. Oh well,
it's only to be expected. PEACE.
Geoff Price
In article <nmerrit-2207...@172.18.72.175>,
nme...@futurenet.co.uk (Nick Merritt) wrote:
> Perhaps it's because the vision of aliens and flying
> saucers is too romantic for some people to let go of.
That, or too persistent.
--
Geoff Price
Ge...@CalibanMW.com
Etherman
Duane Laviniere <lav...@vnet.ibm.com> wrote in article
> Etherman wrote:
> > That's one huge leap of logic. 200 years ago there wasn't one shred
> > of physical evidence that neutrinos exist, yet we now know that they
> > do. See any similarities here? Lack of evidence is not proof of lack
of
> > existence. However, even if we accept that aliens don't exist you still
> > haven't come close to proving that abductions are the result of
overactive
> > imaginations.
>
> And we now have *proof* as to their existence. Before, anyone
> blabbering on about neutrinos without any sort of scientific theory that
> was provable through mathematical computation was a nutcase, plain and
> simple. It would be pure speculation. I can ramble on about how there
> is an infinite regression to matter, but without any proof of smaller
> and smaller particles than the ones we've already found, then I'm just
> blowing hot air. No one will take me seriously, and that is b/c I have
> *no evidence* to support my conclusions. It's just that simple. Alien
> abductees make claims with no evidence to prove it. Hence, they are
> just blowing hot air.
But your argument was that aliens don't exist because we have no evidence.
Don't start switching your arguments around.
> I claim that abductions are fake. Maybe not overactive imaginations,
> but a phenomenon of the human mind. It takes some serious instabilities
> to make people go around claiming to have been kidnapped by aliens.
Fortunately abductees have been administered psychological tests and
there's no evidence of psychopathology. Abductees are just as well
adjusted (maybe even more so) than the rest of us.
> Aliens may exist. The chances of them finding us are about as small as
> the chances of us finding them. I'd say, one in a million gazillion.
> It's a big univers out there. Seems like a waste to come to Earth just
> to go sneaking around stealing the dillusional members of our highly
> populated planet.
There's no evidence that abductees are delusional.
> Why can't people learn to use their cameras and camcorders before
> filming ufo's or aliens? Classic ufo footage is spotty from poor
> quality tape, blurry (way out of focus), poor tracking (*zing* the dang
> ufo is off the screen, or jumping wildly). I can make a street lamp
> look like a high speed far off object if I just stood way back and shook
> the camera around a bit. Get good quality film, try to find some sort
> of object in the foreground so that distance can be guaged, use a steady
> hand to keep the object centered in the screen, get a good angle and
> just make a good attempt at it. Most footage really blows. It's like
> some little kid took it with his cracker jack camera. OFF TANGENT.
I think you're attacking an exaggeration here. There's plenty of footage
that doesn't jump around wildly and has objects in the foreground.
> > Actually if you came up with a really credible story I would tend not
to
> > believe you. One thing about abductions is that the
abductors/contactors
> > behave in absurd ways. This is pretty much constant. If people are
> > making this stuff up, or just have overactive imaginations, then why
are
> > the stories so ludicrous?
>
> Because, it takes a really off balance person to actually believe that
> such a wild story will bring them fame and/or fortune in the first
> place. Most of them I feel are attention seekers, when in all
> actuality, they will only get ridicule.
Actually most people who see UFOs or are abducted simply shun
publicity.
> It takes one lonely, depressed
> soul to believe that making a fool of themselves is in their better
> interest. Besides, hoaxers like these abductees don't seem to do their
> homework before they make up their stories.
And unfortunately for you there's no evidence that abductees are
especially depressed.
> > On what facts have you based your opinion of abductees on?
>
> On the "facts" that are given in a cast majority of abduction cases.
> Just pool most of the ideas together, throw in a little shock value and
> you've got a true "classic" abduction. I'd then write a book and make
> money off the movie rights.
Go for it.
> > Not really. Most of the time people observe a real phenomena but
> > just misinterpret it. Just because some parts of the story aren't
> > believable doesn't mean that it's a total fiction.
>
> It leaves the *entire* story open for question. OJ Simpson's story made
> sense in some places, but he loused up a few times, and thus the
> *entire* story went sour.
The police story goes sour in a few places too! Do you reject it in its
entirety?
> > Why would that happen if they were just making it up?
>
> Becasue they are making it up. If I didn't have intense knowledge of
> what people reported seeing/experiencing on board the ufo's, then I'd
> probably make up something that seemed fanciful and intriguing. It
> would seem outrageous to real abduction researchers b/c it's so far out
> of the realm of what they expect from an abductee. It's all based on
> that person's knowledge of what an abduction is like. I might have
> trouble identifying what the examination instruments all looked like.
> My anal probe--those damned pervert aliens--would probably be different
> from another person's.
Yet we see a certain consistency. For example the anal probes.
> > There are mysterious things all around us. Can you explain
> > sonoluminesence?
>
> No, why? Because I am not familiar with the term. Define it for me,
> and I'll explain it.
Water can emit light when high frequency sound is passed through it.
Why should water do such a thing?
> > Me too. Maybe you hated the religion so much that you went to the
> > opposite, and equally bad, extreme?
>
> Extreme? No. Religion was one extreme, but I drifted to the middle.
> I'm really willing to go either way, as long as there is *evidence* to
> support it. I used to be a believer, but I'm now edging a lot more
> towards the skeptic side. My new found skepticism has helped me provide
> enough evidence contradicting the abductees that I have all but lost
> hope in the existence of visitors. If they land at the White House in
> front of millions of viewers, I'm back to a believer, but you gotta show
> me some evidence.
I agree that the space aliens hypothesis is too simplistic. Yeah, it
explains it on a superficial level. But it has real problems. This does
not make the phenomena less real!
--
Etherman
Tom Schuler
On 20 Jul 97 17:34:44 GMT, "Etherman" <ethe...@mdc.net.nospam> wrote:
>I started out with the preconception that abductees were crazy or lying
>to make a buck. About a year ago I became interested in the UFO
>phenomena. Even with a little bit of investigation I was able to find
>that there was no reason to think abductees are crazy or fantasy prone.
>I'm also unable to find any evidence for hallucinations.
This is a surprising statement. Do you think that everyone reporting
an abduction is experiencing the same thing? That *no one* ever
hallucinates? That *no one* ever lies? You are making some very
broad generalizations here.
Apparently, your investrigation never really got beyond the "little
bit" stage, if you found no evidence supporting an explanation of
hypnagogic experiences or fantasizing among alien abduction claims.
>Even stronger is the fact that abductees have undergone psychological
>evaluations and there isn't any evidence to support the insanity
>hypothesis.
The only people espousing the idea that all self-proclaimed abductees
are insane are people who know nothing whatever about psychology.
Hallucinations can and do happen fairly regularly among people who
could never be diagnosed as mentally ill. Most people undergo some
sort of anomalous experience at one time or another and suggestion can
induce such an experience quite easily.
Describing this particular sort of experience as an extra-terrestrial
alien abduction is merely one of our culture's ways of explaining the
experience without discounting it. There are probably several causes
for what is generally seen to be the same phenomenon.
While I consider the possibility that these are actually alien
abductions to be extremely remote, I do think that research into these
reports and making some attempt to find out what has caused them could
prove fruitful.
Etherman
Michael Edelman <m...@pass.wayne.edu> wrote in article
<33D3AA...@pass.wayne.edu>...
I'm glad we agree that meteors are extraterrestrial origin :)
Etherman
Nick Merritt <nme...@futurenet.co.uk> wrote in article
<nmerrit-2207...@172.18.72.175>...
> In article <01bc95f4$f4dfd580$06d6...@etherman.mdc.net>, "Etherman"
> <ethe...@mdc.net.nospam> wrote:
>
> [snip]
> > I guess by this you mean hypnotically induced false memories? This
> > has a major problem. "Alien abductions" have been occurring for
> > thousands of years. In earlier times the aliens were called demons,
> > angels, fairies, etc., but the patterns in the accounts have changed
> > very little.
>
> What evidence do you have for this? Even the cases cited by Mack and
> others, only take into consideration, in total, a few hundred American
> abductees. From this the authors have *inferred* that others may have
been
> abducted but it's no more than that. Plus the reports of abduction from
> non-Anglo cultures are rare to the point of invisibility, comparitively
> speaking.
This isn't too surprising. American are concerned primarily with America
and what happens within it's borders. You don't hear much about
foreign UFO encounters even though they occur often enough. Back in,
oh about the 50's, Vallee came to America and was talking to Hyneck.
There was a UFO wave going on in France at that time but Hyneck
hadn't heard about it. It wasn't in the American press. Americans,
by and large, weren't interested.
> Plus where is your evidence that alien abductions have been occurring for
> thousands of years?
Let me put it this way. I'll list several phenomena and you tell me if you
associate them (collectively, not individually) with UFOs or Celtic
fairies.
1) Entities with long arms, big heads, large eyes, whitish skin.
2) Crop/grass circles.
3) Crossbreeding between humans and the entities.
4) Animal mutilations.
5) Missing time.
6) Abductions by the entities.
> How do you know they were by aliens and that you just
> aren't putting your own spin on stories from times when people believed
in
> all kinds of mythical creatures? What kind of large-scale studies have
> been done which unambiguously places such phenomena from pre-scientific
> times into the class of alien abductions?
Believe it or not I agree with you! I think calling them aliens is just our
modern take on a phenomena that has been going on for a very long
time. I suggest you read just about anything by Jacques Vallee.
> Besides I was under the impression the first abduction anybody took
> seriously was that of Betty and Barney Hill in 1966. (Even though their
> first therapist thought it was more psychological than actual.)
That was the big one. Another famous one was the Boas abduction
(which occurred before the Hill abduction). Abduction stories have
been around for centuries if not millennia.
> > > Her hypothesis is that alien
> > > abduction is a symptom of a kind of mass hysteria, possibly
millennial in
> > > origin.
> >
> > I doubt this highly. For the same reason as above. This stuff has
been
> > going on for thousands of years across all cultures.
>
> Actually, I misquoted. Carl Jung thought they were millennial in origin.
> Showalter believes they are mass hysteria. Do you not think you should
> read her book before you start to doubt her research? She describes a
> whole range of events - from witch hunts, satantic ritual abuse,
recovered
> memory child abuse cases and more, which share the characteristics of
> alien abduction, modern and historical.
Jung was obviously wrong then. These things keep on happening, whether
it's near the end of the millennia or not. Mass hysteria probably plays
some part in UFO sightings. When there's a wave people tend to misperceive
more often. It might be worth reading however.
> > > Other possible scientific explanations include temporal lobe
> > > epilepsy.
> >
> > Okay, so what's the evidence for this explanation?
>
> That when TLE is induced in lab-based subjects, they report similar
> responses to those described by many abductees - paralysis, seeing small
> alien-looking creatures, sexual feelings. There's tons of evidence, some
> of it on-line.
That might be worth checking out too. Keep in mind, however, that Lawson
was able to get hypnotized people to tell abduction stories which matched
abduction accounts.
> It's not hard for an explanation to seem superficial when the range of
> phenomena tagged 'alien' is so vast and sprawling. You should consider
> possibility that the range of possible explanations needs to be similarly
> large.
>
> [snip]
> > There are definitely cultural and psychological considerations. This
> > does not mean there is nothing physical to them.
>
> And if cultural and psychological explanations explain the data, then why
> go any further? Perhaps it's because the vision of aliens and flying
> saucers is too romantic for some people to let go of.
>
> Nick
Here's one problem. Often abductions are associated with UFO
sightings. The two most famous cases, Hill and Boas, were both
preceded by seeing a UFO, for example. I suppose one could
always just come up with some kind of psychological explanation
for this. They saw a UFO and their imaginations ran wild, for
instance. But this fails to take into account the abduction cases
where the abductees weren't aware of the UFO activity that was
present. Furthermore there are often physical traces left behind,
for instance, landing gear traces and damaged vegetation. Other
times the abductees have unexplained physical problems or unexplained
healing of physical ailments (or a combination of the two).
--
Etherman
Sherilyn
In article <01bc96b0$bb1bc0e0$24d6...@etherman.mdc.net>, Etherman
<ethe...@mdc.net.nospam> writes
...
>
>There's no evidence that abductees are delusional.
>
such evidence that many self-identified abductees are delusional,
assuming that by "delusional" you simply mean they believe they
experienced something they did not in fact do.
--
Sherilyn
'Droid
> > Aliens may exist. The chances of them finding us are about as small as
> > the chances of us finding them. I'd say, one in a million gazillion.
> > It's a big univers out there. Seems like a waste to come to Earth just
> > to go sneaking around stealing the dillusional members of our highly
> > populated planet.
I think your odds are a bit long, especially if they come from a planet
like ours. Galileo proved that our planet was distinctive with definite
evidence of life (eg: oxygen atmosphere). With arrays of better
reolution, as planned by NASA, amoungst others, it would be possible to
get similar information from other star systems. As a result it should
be relatively easy to pick out the planets which will hold life like
ours. The difficulty, at the present time, is actually getting there.
The other question is how common life is, and hence how common
Earth-like planets are. Recent evidence would seem to indicate that life
could be more common than previously believed.
Incidentally, if the aliens were abducting the people, they wouldn't be
dillusional and therefore they wouldn't be abducting dillusional members
of the population.
At present, I'm sitting on the fence as far as abductions go. The rest
of the post represents fairly well the good points from both sides.
'Droid
Duane Laviniere
Etherman wrote:
> But your argument was that aliens don't exist because we have no evidence.
> Don't start switching your arguments around.
My argument has always been about abductions. I apologize to everyone
for saying "aliens" but the fact of the matter is that the subject of
this thread is abductions, and the subject of my posts has been
abductions and the fanciful tales told by abductees. Besides, my
analogy to the neutrino thing was to show that any claim made without
supporting evidence is suspect.
> Fortunately abductees have been administered psychological tests and
> there's no evidence of psychopathology. Abductees are just as well
> adjusted (maybe even more so) than the rest of us.
Hahaha, buahaha. You were going good until you added that last part
about being more adjusted than us *sane* people. Psychological tests
are all suspect due to the very mystery that is the human mind. We
can't figure ourselves out yet, so tests are mostly inconclusive.
That's why people can pass psych tests despite being complete
screwballs. Hell, I carry myself around my place of work in a normal,
low-key fashion revealing nothing of my somewhat zaney nature. I'm a
bit screwy at times, but I doubt it would show up on a psychological
test. It didn't turn up on the one I took some years ago, doubt it
would now.
> There's no evidence that abductees are delusional.
Not scientifically, but then it's not really a science. You tell me,
who'd you rather want watching your money, baby-sitting your kids or
driving the school bus, a "plain-jane skeptic" or some paranoid,
"abductee" who's gone to the shrink one too many times to be safe? I'd
take the skeptic, or if not a skeptic, a normal person. You can believe
in aliens *abductions* all you want and still be normal, but once you
bring in the tales of being abducted, you are thrown in the bag with the
rest of the nuts.
> I think you're attacking an exaggeration here. There's plenty of footage
> that doesn't jump around wildly and has objects in the foreground.
Uh huh, it all sits in a black, featureless sky with no possible way of
guaging distance. And if it's not a black sky, it's a bluebird day.
That's why you can mistake a speck of shiny dust a few feet away as a
high velocity ufo a few miles away. Play baseball on a bluebird or
overcast day and you'll understand. You can't guage a pop-ups very well
at all. I want to see ET walk up to the tripod-mounted, broadcast
quality camera and carry on a conversation while in a properly lit
area. I'd like that, but it'd expose the zipper on the costume too
well.
> Actually most people who see UFOs or are abducted simply shun
> publicity.
Uh huh, most also somehow get their abduction tales revealed to the
public somehow since that is obviously how we know about their tales.
Spreading farfetched stories is not my idea of shunning publicity.
Maybe it's be for a high-profile person like Dennis Rodman or Michael
Jackson or Tonya Harding, but not for a country bumpkin.
> And unfortunately for you there's no evidence that abductees are
> especially depressed.
Depression comes in many forms. But you are correct about that. Not
like it bothers me, I see why the believer side is happy, the feeling
one gets from making completely baseless remarks is wonderful ;) I was
a believer and I know that most if not all the stuff people say is
hearsay or just plain out bullshit. Most of it is made up from
"knowledge" of the subject. But you ever notice, few believers have
ever actually been abducted by aliens themselves, yet they are so
adamant about it.
> Go for it.
I'm there. My aliens will be curious, yet aggressive. They'll abduct
me several times during my childhood and then come back to get me again
when I'm reaching my midlife crisis and stilling living in Eastbumfuck,
Nebraska. I'll have "unexplained" piece of glass (regular glass, but
I'll describe it as an "unusual compound") under my skin and I'll call
the scar I got, while wrecking my friends bike, a scoop mark. I'll act
a little eccentric and very paranoid as well as fearful and I'll speak
of their plan to help save the human race from the individually wrapped
cheese slices plague that will hit in the year 2020. All of this
through a bunch of vague, misleading stories that will eventually prove
inconclusive.
> The police story goes sour in a few places too! Do you reject it in its
> entirety?
Yup. It seemed odd that someone can be so stupid as to leave
bloodstains all over his own car, but I don't doubt that OJ did it. He
was aided in the deed by ...
> Yet we see a certain consistency. For example the anal probes.
Hey, what can I say? Some people like it like that :)
No really, people also report eye exams and a metal table and a bright
light. Big deal. People report seeing the Loch Ness monster as a
series of humps in the water and as a dinosaur out of the water.
Bigfoot always looks like Chewbaca. Inconclusive. Word travels faster
than the speed of sound.<G>
> Water can emit light when high frequency sound is passed through it.
> Why should water do such a thing?
Maybe resonance creates enough energy to kick electrons from their base
energy levels and so a photon is released. We know that everything has
a natural resonance to it. At a certain frequency, energy is made by
excited atoms. Not scientific or proven, but a nice load of cow poo on
my part ;)
Nick Merritt
In article <Geoff-22079...@max1-097.snlo.dialup.callamer.com>,
Ge...@CalibanMW.com (Geoff Price) wrote:
> In article <nmerrit-2207...@172.18.72.175>,
> nme...@futurenet.co.uk (Nick Merritt) wrote:
>
> > Perhaps it's because the vision of aliens and flying
> > saucers is too romantic for some people to let go of.
>
> That, or too persistent.
Only in the minds of those romantics who want to believe too much. Here's
a prediction: after the turn of the century, the numbers of reported UFOs
and abduction cases will decline steadily throughout the following
decades.
Nick
Nick Merritt
[snip]
> Fortunately abductees have been administered psychological tests and
> there's no evidence of psychopathology. Abductees are just as well
> adjusted (maybe even more so) than the rest of us.
OK, here's a statistic I'd like you to explain. Why are the majority of
abductees women? Why, indeed, are nearly *all* cases of recovered memory
cases - abduction, child abuse, satanic ritual abuse, whatever - have
women, typically, as their victims?
There can only be one conclusion. There's something else going on which
may (whisper it softly) be more psychological/cultural in origin.
> There's no evidence that abductees are delusional.
Delusional may be the wrong word. However, there is also no evidence that
abductees have actually been abducted.
Nick
Nick Merritt
In article <01bc96b6$7328cfc0$24d6...@etherman.mdc.net>, "Etherman"
<ethe...@mdc.net.nospam> wrote:
[snip]
> This isn't too surprising. American are concerned primarily with America
> and what happens within it's borders. You don't hear much about
> foreign UFO encounters even though they occur often enough.
Well, Europeans are concerned primarily with Europe yet you rarely hear
about the abduction of French people or Germans.
> Let me put it this way. I'll list several phenomena and you tell me if you
> associate them (collectively, not individually) with UFOs or Celtic
> fairies.
Why tie my hands? My point is that alien abduction stories are cultural
NARRATIVES, which borrow freely from all over the place. Before the basic
abduction scenario was 'agreed' upon by victims, you used to hear about
all kind of aliens, craft and scenarios. You can't ignore the inconvenient
abduction stories just because they don't fit your criteria! You have to
explain them within the bounds of your theory.
> 1) Entities with long arms, big heads, large eyes, whitish skin.
Trolls? (In the mythical sense.) Very fairy tale by the way.
> 2) Crop/grass circles.
You are hardly enhancing your case by mentioning a subject so wildly
discredited. I live in the area - the West Country - where crop circles
first came to prominence.
> 3) Crossbreeding between humans and the entities.
Mentioned in which myths exactly? Unless you're referring to the various
myths about humans mating with gods (not the same thing by the way).
> 4) Animal mutilations.
Which tend to be associated these days with young likely-to-be serial killers.
> 5) Missing time.
> 6) Abductions by the entities.
Both impossible to prove. Look, after all this time, after the many
thousands of alleged abductees, in an age where people, homes and lives
are photographed and monitored more closely than ever before, you STILL
can't point to one unambigous abductee and PROVE he or she was abducted.
[snip]
> That was the big one. Another famous one was the Boas abduction
> (which occurred before the Hill abduction). Abduction stories have
> been around for centuries if not millennia.
Prove it.
[snip]
> It might be worth reading however.
[snip]
> That might be worth checking out too.
I'm disappointed you only choose to read badly researched and written
'Hey, Wow' UFO literature and nothing which tries to offer a rational
alternative explanation. You really ought to read some of this stuff if
only so you can have a basis from which to criticise and evaluate the UFO
literature.
[snip]
> But this fails to take into account the abduction cases
> where the abductees weren't aware of the UFO activity that was
> present. Furthermore there are often physical traces left behind,
> for instance, landing gear traces and damaged vegetation.
What you assume is a landing gear, that is. Anybody ever photographed a
UFO landing gear so we can identify the traces?
> Other
> times the abductees have unexplained physical problems or unexplained
> healing of physical ailments (or a combination of the two).
Heck, why invoke aliens? How do you think witch doctors make their money?
Nick
Nick Merritt
In article <33DABF...@medit3d.com>, Colin Dooley <co...@medit3d.com> wrote:
> Randi says that more than 50% of the people who apply for the
> challenge genuinely believe they have powers. Some of them even
> go on believing after they fail...
Indeed. Some of them continue to get media attention and money even after
they have been exposed. Yet we in the West continue to look down on
simpler cultures with their equally irrational beliefs in witchdoctors...
Nick
Etherman
Sherilyn <Sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
<hn6XYFAq...@sidaway.demon.co.uk>...
> In article <01bc96b0$bb1bc0e0$24d6...@etherman.mdc.net>, Etherman
> <ethe...@mdc.net.nospam> writes
> ...
> >
> >There's no evidence that abductees are delusional.
> >
> As I have pointed out with numerous citations, there is quite a lot of
> such evidence that many self-identified abductees are delusional,
> assuming that by "delusional" you simply mean they believe they
> experienced something they did not in fact do.
> --
> Sherilyn
Would you mind posting these citations again? I hear people say you've
done it, but I've never seen them myself.
--
Etherman
Marc Michalik
On Mon, 21 Jul 1997 10:08:43 -0400, Duane Laviniere
<lav...@vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>Marc Michalik wrote:
>> Bzzzt! Wrong! Dr VernonClark is currently testing phyisical
>> evidence, but you might not have heard about it since the Press
>> Release Distrubutors haven't been handed a press release about it yet
>> (so it isn't in the news). It is not yet proof, but it is (so far),
>> evidence.
>
>Phew, you sure showed me *evil grin*. Just like that crop circle
>evidence, proving ufo influence, which was never brought to light. Man,
>I'm looking forward to this laugher.
How scientific of you! Dismissing the evidence before it is even
presented. Decades of sceptics *claiming* the subject would be taken
seriously as soon as we had physical evidence...all lies. As we
always knew and were ridiculed for stating. As usual, the debunkers
change the rules as soon as their demands are met. Not a surprise at
all. Hopefully, more and more people are able to see through the
dishonesty and trickery of "debunkery" and it is on its way to
becoming a completely unacceptable method of argument. Thank you for
your contribution toward this cause.
>> Where are all the Leprecauns??? Where are the Unicorns? Where
>> are all the simple and blantantly obvious "hoaxes" that would be
>> popular if the world was filled with "Hoaxers" as the sceptical side
>> of the debate has always claimed? "Hoaxers" are not common. They are
>> not everywhere. If "hoaxers" are responsible for the majority of UFO
>> strories, then where are all the non-UFO hoaxes? Why do hoaxers
>> concentrate almost exclusively on UFOs? Why? They don't! For the
>> most part, "hoaxers' do not exist.
>
>Uh huh. Crop circle hoaxers, bigfoot hoaxers, loch ness hoaxers, alien
>autopsy hoaxers. Are these figments of my overactive imagination? Or
>is this actual *evidence* that hoaxers exist.
Prove it, prove it, prove it, prove it. You sure do take strong
opinions with no evidence what-so-ever for someone who demands such a
high level of evidence of others. And no, your simply stating it is
most certainly NOT evidence.
>> Where is YOUR evidence that "hoaxers" are so common? And, since
>> you "know for a fact" no abduction has ever occured, where is your
>> evidence? Where is your physical evidence? I am not askig you to
>> prove a negative, you claim to know for a fact. From your statements
>> in this very post, I must assume you have physical evidence to support
>> that.
>
>(Duane approaches podium with one 3"x5" card, taps the microphone and
>then speaks) "The sheer lack of ANY evidence supporting the existence of
>alien abductions is evidence enough to conclude that they do not exist."
>(Applause from his supporters, boo's from the peanut gallery. Duane
>steps away from the podium, not knowing if his message has been heard)
Invalid statement. A half-million or so eyewitnesses is not "a lack
of ANY evidence". There is a lot of evidence, absulute proof is an
entirely different thing. So your arrogant, sefl-important, dogmatic
assertion has no merit what-so-ever. However, there is a lack of ANY
evidence for the varios statements you have made.
>Prove me wrong. That's all I ask. If I were to make unfounded claims
>about the existence of a paranormal entity, it is *my responsiblity* to
>provide evidence supporting it. It is *your responsiblity* to provide
>me with evidence supporting your claim that aliens are abducting human
>beings. I'm waiting.
You'll be waiting a long time, since there is a lot of evidence for
both UFOs and abductions out there that you refuse to recognize. I,
peronally, have absolute proof of the ETH. Unfortunately, it is only
absolute proof too me, and annecdotal evidence too everyone else. Too
bad I can't seem to get the Vulcan Mind Meld down:-)
>> How can you, you apparently have no idea of what "reality" is. And
>> "Facts" are very often proven wrong.
>
>I know, but if you want to take common claims from abductees as "fact,"
>then those are the same "facts" that I shall provide in my story.
A truely pathetic dodge, you aren't very good at this.
>> Nobody has claimed anything is outside the laws of physics, except
>> you.
>
>([music]Twilight Zone theme) So I'm just imagining the claims of people
>being sucked through walls, windows, etc... or the story I read where a
>woman claimed that aliens passed right through her door. Hmm, must be
>my overactive imagination.
Find me a scientist who will state categorically that NEVER, not in a
million years, will we have technology that might make such a thing
possible. In fact, haven't some scientists already looked into the
possibility of "Transporter" technology? Now, "I'm waiting"...
>> Earth finds yet another inhabited world. It's 2457 on Earth, and this
>> new world we found isn't far behind where we were in 1960. On this
>> world, there are many nation-states, but two of them lead vast
>> alliances which oppose each other in something similar to our "Cold
>> War". One of these "superpowers" is much more technologically
>> advanced than the other, has the capability to project its power
>> anywhere on the planet, and tends to dominate plantary politics. Now,
>> of all the nation-states on this planet we just found, which is the
>> most interesting too us???
>
>The one that probably doesn't have the incredible social decay that ours
>does. Alien abductions are similiar to tag and release practiced by
>fishermen and wildlife guys on safari. I don't think they go after
>lions that do not support their cubs or hun alone. Instead, they like
>to follow and examine prides that hunt together, nurture their young
>together and protect one another. Seems like what a classic lion pride
>should be like. If I was interested in a society, I'd probably go to
>Japan. A society that build itself up from absolute ruins to become a
>dominant force in the marketplace. Also making great strides in
>technology especially in packaging. Maybe I'm not shallow enough, or
>maybe I'm just looking at the big picture.
Oh, I see. You simply are not intelligent enough to discuss the
subject rationally. The above is one of the dumbest things I've ever
seen written in this newsgroup. You honestly beleive that if an alien
civiliation found us, they would be more interested in a tiny island
nation than the nation that dominates almost every aspect of planetary
affairs? You are either being dishonest to avoid "losing" (a flawed
perception), or you are a complete moron.
>> Umm....Mr Evidence? Where is it?
>
>The Bible has is written in there somewhere, not sure what the exact
>book is. Egyptians told tales of objects flying from the sky and taking
>people, also of strange looking people. Some African tales referring to
>gods can be related to alien abduction stories. Here, I admit that I am
>lacking actual quotes and any sort of real evidence. My argument is not
>very supported past about 50 years ago. But I don't care to go looking
>it all up so take it or leave it. PEACE.
I think just about everybody will leave it. Now, if you were lord and
master of the world, maybe your assertations would be accepted as the
final answer to everything. But over here in reality, you simply
aren't that important. In fact, you look silly demanding evidence
from everyone else and then expecting every word that comes out of
your mouth to be taken as an absolute proven fact (without providing
any evidence yourself).
I suggest you find another game, you aren't very good at this one.
Have your tried "Master of Orion II'? That actually may prove to be
an educational experience for you:-)
bob tarantino
[snip]
> >
> > I'm a bit confused. Skeptics have been telling us over and over that
> > unusual isotope ratios would prove ET origin, or at least be very
strong
> > evidence for it.
Etherman wrote:
>
> Indeed, you are. Unusual ratios *might* indicate extra-terrestrial
> origin, but that would also include a few billion years of bombardment
> by meteors, a very common form of extraterrestrial visitor. I don't
> recall anyone other than the ET fans claiming that it would be evidence
> of alien visitation.
>
> Of coulrse, almost every single bit of matter on earth is of
> extraterrestrial origin! ;-)
>>>>>>>>
I was wondering if there are similar metoric fragments similar to this alleged
Roswell fragment? I understand that the fragment in question is comprised
mostly of silicon. Has this been seen before of meteoric fragments? Has
silicon ever been found in a meteorite?
-bob tarantino
Duane Laviniere
Etherman wrote:
> Okay, but even if there's no evidence that aliens are abducting people
> that doesn't mean that they aren't.
Very true, but following your logic, it can't be said that the lunar
landing was real or that the Mars Pathfinder project is real or that I
don't hear voices in my head ;) The fact that there is no evidence
should be more than enough proof that these "abductions" are fake, but
believe what you will.
> I see. We wouldn't want facts to get in the way of our world views.
Huh?
> So we should believe you because you admit to being insane.
No one has to believe me, but I feel that my assumptions make enough
sense to warrant being taken seriously.
> That's a tough one. A skeptic might steal my money and then demand
> proof that it was mine. He might let my kid drink bleach because he's
> never seen any actual evidence that it's poisonous (that warning label
> on the bottle was probably just put there by someone who hallucinates
> a lot). He may even drive a bus through an intersection even if he
> sees a truck barreling through a red light because he thinks he's
> hallucinating.
Heh, skeptics base assumptions on scientific proof. Apart from the
money which is all mine :) any of the things you list are backed by
scientific facts. Evidence, yes that scary word, is available for
bleach poisonings and horrific traffic accidents.
> That would be wonderful. But if that was their intention they would have
> done it a long time ago.
Not really, the voices in my head still refuse to let themselves be
heard by other people <grin>. Aliens have no reason to be shy. Maybe
if they stopped sneaking around and kidnapping people and acting like
generally shadey characters, then people would not be afraid of them.
But it seems like they can't understand that simple fact. Intelligent?
I think not. They stole their technology from the Egyptians ;)
> I understand that polls have been taken which indicate that only 1 in 10
> people who experience a UFO encounter (which presumably includes
> abductions) report it.
How is this number derived? How do they know of the other 9 people if
their stories weren't revealed? Sounds like someone failed math. Oh,
and if you're gonna say that the other 9 did not report it, but revealed
it to the pollsters, then I find their claims even more suspect than the
others.
> Ever notice that most reports are anonymous? In Mack's book I think one
> person allowed the use of his real name (out of 13).
The other 12 were probably thought up by Mack himself. He probably
couldn't round up enough crazies to fill his book so he made them all
up. For all you know, I could have provided him with one of those
stories.
> And if most believers had been abducted you'd be more likely to believe
> them?
Not really? But I would have more reason to look further into the root
cause of the problem. There would have to be a real serious reason why
a large number of people would lie about such things. As it stands now,
only a few loonies claim to be abducted by aliens.
> The police said OJ did it. The police story contains problems. We
> therefore reject the police story in it's entirety. Thus OJ didn't do it.
> QED.
Not exactly. We reject the police story, but that doesn't make OJ
innocent. In MY version of the story, Juice has an accomplice and that
person is .... He helped OJ do the deed, so the Juice is still guilty.
Geoff Price
[aar snipped]
In article <33D639...@vnet.ibm.com>, Duane Laviniere
<lav...@vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> Etherman wrote:
> > Okay, but even if there's no evidence that aliens are abducting people
> > that doesn't mean that they aren't.
>
> Very true, but following your logic, it can't be said that the lunar
> landing was real or that the Mars Pathfinder project is real or that I
> don't hear voices in my head ;) The fact that there is no evidence
> should be more than enough proof that these "abductions" are fake, but
> believe what you will.
We're deep off into semantic la-la land at this point. For clarity, what
is your definition of evidence?
--
Geoff Price
Ge...@CalibanMW.com
Colin Dooley
Nick Merritt wrote:
>
> > There's no evidence that abductees are delusional.
>
> abductees have actually been abducted.
>
Randi says that more than 50% of the people who apply for the
challenge genuinely believe they have powers. Some of them even
go on believing after they fail...
--
<\___/>
/ O O \
\_____/ FTB.
Geoff Price
In article <hn6XYFAq...@sidaway.demon.co.uk>, Sherilyn
<Sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <01bc96b0$bb1bc0e0$24d6...@etherman.mdc.net>, Etherman
> <ethe...@mdc.net.nospam> writes
> ...
> >
> >There's no evidence that abductees are delusional.
> >
> As I have pointed out with numerous citations, there is quite a lot of
> such evidence that many self-identified abductees are delusional,
> assuming that by "delusional" you simply mean they believe they
> experienced something they did not in fact do.
I, at least, missed this. I do remember you citing two studies, one of
which was the Spanos et. al article from the Journal of Abnormal
Psychology, and neither of which supported the interpretation you make
here.
On the topic, here's a review of the Spanos study by an individual named
Ted Davis, from his web site at:
http://ally.ios.com/~tedd1/index.html
The section most relevant to your post would probably be "What They
Claimed To Have Found (Without Any Evidence Of Such Findings)". :)
[Begin Davis article]
A rare study of UFO experiencers appeared in the Journal of Abnormal
Psychology in November of 1993. First, I must applaud Spanos et. al. for
researching an issue that is laughed off by most everyone in the field.
They took a risk that most others would not. On the other hand, I will
not applaud very loud or very long, due to the fact that their research
interpretations were one sided, and in many cases misleading.
Initially, they site two commonly held beliefs about UFO reports that
are used to explain them away. 1)UFO's are reported by those with
psychological problems. 2)People who report UFO's are fantasy-prone.
Although past research had shown these not to be the case, the myths
persist.
What They Did
They took UFO experiencers and divided them up into two groups, those
who had seen anomalous shapes or lights in the sky (nonintense UFO
group, 18 subjects) and those who claimed alien contact, telepathy with
aliens, abductions,...(intense UFO group, 31 subjects). Both UFO groups
were obtained through the use of an ad placed in the local paper.
These two groups were then compared to two control or normal groups. The
first group was normals from the community (53 subjects) who had
answered an add in the local paper. The second group was normals that
were students (74 subjects) at the university in which the study was
done (Carleton University). They received class credit for their
participation in the study.
At this point, all the subjects were given a variety of psychological
tests that were intended to access IQ, fantasy proneness, schizophrenia,
hypnotizability, UFO beliefs, paranormal experiences, liberal beliefs,
self-esteem, perceptual aberration, magical ideation, unfriendly world,
well-being, stress, social potency, aggression, temporal lobe liability,
mental imagery, and absorption.
What They Actually Found
According to statistical analyses of the data the researchers found that
the two UFO experiencer groups did not score significantly (For those of
you without a psychology or statistics background the term significance
means that the difference between two scores is large enough that it is
very unlikely to be occurring by chance alone. If you still don't get it
take a course in statistics.) higher in psychopathology, fantasy
proneness, and hypnotizability, or lower on intelligence than the two
normal comparison groups. The nonintense UFO group actually had a
significantly higher IQ than all of the other groups. The fact of the
matter is that the two "normal" groups actually scored higher (ie, more
of that factor) on fantasy proneness and psychopathology (specifically
the MMPI schizophrenia scale, self-esteem, perceptual aberration,
aggression, stress, and unfriendly world parts of the test).
Additionally, the "normals" scored lower (ie, less of the factor) on
tests of social potency and well-being. Although the differences
discussed in the last two sentences are not statistically significant
the combination of the fact that the UFO experiencers are not
significantly different from normals (except for the cases where they
are significantly better) and that they also scored better on most of
the scales used speaks volumes about the mental health of the UFO
experiencers used in this study.
What They Claimed To Have Found (Without Any Evidence Of Such Findings)
One of the first, most basic, rules that they teach anyone in an
introductory psychology or statistics course is that you cannot infer
causality from correlation. Just because variables A and B go together
90 or even 100% of the time does not mean that one causes the other
(that is with just correlational data). There are three possible
solutions to a strong correlation between A and B. A could be causing B,
B could be causing A, or a third, unseen variable, C, could be causing
both A and B. It is drummed into your head again and again. If you do
not understand this point then psychology is not the field for you. Yet,
this is exactly the kind of gross error that Spanos et. al. made in
their discussion of the results of the study.
One of their actual findings was that the two UFO groups were
significantly more likely to believe in or have stronger UFO beliefs
than either of the control groups. They then go on to conclude this to
be due to one of two reasons.
On the one hand, it might mean that strong beliefs in alien life primed
subjects to interpret ambiguous external stimuli or to generate
imaginings in terms of these beliefs. Alternatively, these findings
might indicate that experiences such as hallucinating a space alien
while paralyzed in bed are likely to strengthen belief in alien life.
(Spanos et. al., 1993)
Their idea of a third possibility is a combination of the first two. The
actual third possibility in this case is that a third factor, C, is
causing some people to have stronger UFO beliefs and anomalous
experiences. This factor C would be aliens. It is quite logical to
conclude that people who have had experience with aliens would be far
more likely to believe in aliens than people who have not seen them.
This is a possibility that can easily be inferred from the data and
deserves at least a brief mention. Yet this possibility is never
considered. This speaks volumes about the researchers a prior stance on
UFO's. Never, not once, is it considered that these people might in fact
have seen aliens or alien space craft. They go on to say that, "The
findings suggest that many of the UFO subjects may have been drawn to
beliefs about alien life before having UFO experiences. However, the
occurrence of a UFO experience most likely served to strengthen any
preexisting UFO beliefs." The main problem here is that they present no
data in support of this statement. NONE. Instead they rush to a judgment
that people who believe in UFO's tend to see UFO's, despite a lack of
any evidence that the beliefs preceded the experiences. (Especially
since the anecdotal evidence from abductees, thus far, points to the
experiences coming first, at a very early age.) There was no study done
of when experiencers first believed in UFO's and when they had their
first experience. And if there was, their omitting it from their final
write-up is a tremendous error. Either way it should have prevented
publication of the study until some kind of correction was made to these
unproven conclusions.
Normally, in a published psychology paper every statement made is backed
up by supporting evidence and data, otherwise the study is not
published. But when it comes to debunking UFO's I guess anything goes,
even in an American Psychological Association (APA) journal.
Conclusion
Spanos et. al. took tremendous chances in doing research into an area
that is entirely on the fringe of normalcy. For that I give them credit.
Unfortunately their minds were made up long before they ever analyzed
the data. Not once in their paper do they ever consider the possibility
that aliens are actually visiting the Earth. In no way does their study
rule out this possibility, yet they ignore it completely. The fact of
the matter is that their study makes experiencers (CE1-CE4) look far
better than they ever have in the past. In laymanÕs terms they have
proven UFO experiencers (at least these UFO experiencers) not to be
crazy and not to be stupid. They are not fantasy prone dopes or highly
hypnotizable zombies. They are average, everyday people.
As far as UFO beliefs and UFO experiences, it seems to be somewhat of a
chicken and the egg dilemma. The only way to solve this one may be to do
a longitudinal study, starting at an early age, that traces people's UFO
beliefs and experiences as they develop. (Speaking as a study of one, I
have been interested in and been reading about UFO's as long as I can
remember. Nonetheless, I have no UFO experiences to report.)
In the future, I have only one request to make of researchers and
scientists that want to study UFO's, please allow for the possibility,
however remote, that it might all just be true. I will not ask for an
unbiased or open mind, that will not happen. Just to consider that
one-in-a-million chance that it's actually happening. Because if you
can't give that much it is quite clear that your mind was made up before
hand and that your conclusions are worth less than the paper they're
printed on.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
References
Spanos, N. P., Cross, P. A., Dickson, K., DuBreuil, S. C.(1993). Close
Encounter: An Examination of UFO Experiences. The Journal of Abnormal
Psychology, 102, 624-632.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
©1996 Ted Davis-All Rights Reserved
cl...@columbia-center.org
In article <nmerrit-2307...@172.18.72.175>,
nme...@futurenet.co.uk (Nick Merritt) wrote:
> In article <01bc96b0$bb1bc0e0$24d6...@etherman.mdc.net>, "Etherman"
>
> [snip]
> > Fortunately abductees have been administered psychological tests and
> > there's no evidence of psychopathology. Abductees are just as well
> > adjusted (maybe even more so) than the rest of us.
Indeed. I've read two studies that appeared in the Journal of UFO Studies,
a peer-reviewed scientific journal. They did *not* find any evidence of
major psychological disorders that might account for the experience. They
did, however, find that while the experiencers were within the normal
ranges on the tests, they tend to cluster at certain points within the
normal ranges. This suggests that personality-type tests could be
conducted to see if the experiencers are more likely than the norm to
belong to one type or another.
> OK, here's a statistic I'd like you to explain. Why are the majority of
> abductees women?
The figure I've seen for this is that 56% of abductees are women. That's a
majority, but not much of one. Do you have a source for a higher figure?
> Why, indeed, are nearly *all* cases of recovered memory
> cases - abduction, child abuse, satanic ritual abuse, whatever - have
> women, typically, as their victims?
One possible answer is that women are much more likely to seek counseling
and psychological treatment then men in our culture. Another is that they
are probably more likely to submit to the loss of control experienced in
hypnosis. In any case, some such socio-psychological factor *may* account
for any such discrepancy.
> There can only be one conclusion. There's something else going on which
> may (whisper it softly) be more psychological/cultural in origin.
I think you're pretty swift to leap to this conclusion, given the evidence
presented (i.e., not much).
----------------------------------------
Dan Clore
mailto:cl...@columbia-center.org
The Website of Lord We˙rdgliffe
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/index.html
Welcome to the Waughters....
The Dan Clore Necronomicon Page
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/necpage.htm
Because the true mysteries cannot be profaned....
"Hziulquoigmnzhah" (hziulquo...@cykranosh.com) wrote:
> Iqhui dlosh odhqlonqh!
[if you don't send me a cc of your reply to this post, I might not see it]
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Etherman
Tom Schuler <d...@teleport.com> wrote in article
<33d4f2c2...@news.teleport.com>...
> On 20 Jul 97 17:34:44 GMT, "Etherman" <ethe...@mdc.net.nospam> wrote:
>
> >I started out with the preconception that abductees were crazy or lying
> >to make a buck. About a year ago I became interested in the UFO
> >phenomena. Even with a little bit of investigation I was able to find
> >that there was no reason to think abductees are crazy or fantasy prone.
> >I'm also unable to find any evidence for hallucinations.
>
> This is a surprising statement. Do you think that everyone reporting
> an abduction is experiencing the same thing?
No, but I think the majority are. Obviously there are some hoaxers like
Elizabeth Loftus. And there's one instance in Mack's book (that's one
incident in one case, not the whole case) which appears to be night
terrors.
> That *no one* ever
> hallucinates?
Didn't say that no one ever hallucinates. It's a question of whether
hallucination
is a good explanation for a significant number of cases. What evidence
is there for it?
> That *no one* ever lies? You are making some very
> broad generalizations here.
Sure people lie. But I don't think that even the most die hard debunker
thinks that a significant number of cases can be attributed to outright
lying.
> Apparently, your investrigation never really got beyond the "little
> bit" stage, if you found no evidence supporting an explanation of
> hypnagogic experiences
So far the case for this particular explanation has been essentially
"We know some people have hypnogogic hallucinations." It fails
to explain more than it explains, and what it does explain it explains
only weakly.
> or fantasizing among alien abduction claims.
That's not the same thing as fantasy-proneness. There may be a
degree of fantasy involved, but actual research has been conducted
which rules out the fantasy-prone personality hypothesis promulgated
by Joe Nickell and Bob Imrie (among others). There appears to
be a correlation between measures of fantasy-proneness and
intensity of experience, but keep in mind that correlation does not
equal causation.
> >Even stronger is the fact that abductees have undergone psychological
> >evaluations and there isn't any evidence to support the insanity
> >hypothesis.
>
> The only people espousing the idea that all self-proclaimed abductees
> are insane are people who know nothing whatever about psychology.
> Hallucinations can and do happen fairly regularly among people who
> could never be diagnosed as mentally ill. Most people undergo some
> sort of anomalous experience at one time or another and suggestion can
> induce such an experience quite easily.
The problem with the hallucination hypothesis is that it's not clear that
it can be tested. What evidence do you have for it?
> Describing this particular sort of experience as an extra-terrestrial
> alien abduction is merely one of our culture's ways of explaining the
> experience without discounting it. There are probably several causes
> for what is generally seen to be the same phenomenon.
But presumably each cause will have somewhat different effects. If
you're going to come up with explanations surely you will be able to make
some good predictions that we can test against the data.
> While I consider the possibility that these are actually alien
> abductions to be extremely remote, I do think that research into these
> reports and making some attempt to find out what has caused them could
> prove fruitful.
At last we agree.
--
Etherman
Etherman
Duane Laviniere <lav...@vnet.ibm.com> wrote in article
> Etherman wrote:
> > But your argument was that aliens don't exist because we have no
evidence.
> > Don't start switching your arguments around.
>
> My argument has always been about abductions. I apologize to everyone
> for saying "aliens" but the fact of the matter is that the subject of
> this thread is abductions, and the subject of my posts has been
> abductions and the fanciful tales told by abductees. Besides, my
> analogy to the neutrino thing was to show that any claim made without
> supporting evidence is suspect.
Okay, but even if there's no evidence that aliens are abducting people
that doesn't mean that they aren't.
> > Fortunately abductees have been administered psychological tests and
> > there's no evidence of psychopathology. Abductees are just as well
> > adjusted (maybe even more so) than the rest of us.
>
> Hahaha, buahaha. You were going good until you added that last part
> about being more adjusted than us *sane* people. Psychological tests
> are all suspect due to the very mystery that is the human mind. We
> can't figure ourselves out yet, so tests are mostly inconclusive.
I see. We wouldn't want facts to get in the way of our world views.
> That's why people can pass psych tests despite being complete
> screwballs. Hell, I carry myself around my place of work in a normal,
> low-key fashion revealing nothing of my somewhat zaney nature. I'm a
> bit screwy at times, but I doubt it would show up on a psychological
> test. It didn't turn up on the one I took some years ago, doubt it
> would now.
So we should believe you because you admit to being insane.
> > There's no evidence that abductees are delusional.
>
> Not scientifically, but then it's not really a science. You tell me,
> who'd you rather want watching your money, baby-sitting your kids or
> driving the school bus, a "plain-jane skeptic" or some paranoid,
> "abductee" who's gone to the shrink one too many times to be safe?
That's a tough one. A skeptic might steal my money and then demand
proof that it was mine. He might let my kid drink bleach because he's
never seen any actual evidence that it's poisonous (that warning label
on the bottle was probably just put there by someone who hallucinates
a lot). He may even drive a bus through an intersection even if he
sees a truck barreling through a red light because he thinks he's
hallucinating.
> > I think you're attacking an exaggeration here. There's plenty of
footage
> > that doesn't jump around wildly and has objects in the foreground.
>
> Uh huh, it all sits in a black, featureless sky with no possible way of
> guaging distance. And if it's not a black sky, it's a bluebird day.
> That's why you can mistake a speck of shiny dust a few feet away as a
> high velocity ufo a few miles away. Play baseball on a bluebird or
> overcast day and you'll understand. You can't guage a pop-ups very well
> at all. I want to see ET walk up to the tripod-mounted, broadcast
> quality camera and carry on a conversation while in a properly lit
> area. I'd like that, but it'd expose the zipper on the costume too
> well.
That would be wonderful. But if that was their intention they would have
done it a long time ago.
> > Actually most people who see UFOs or are abducted simply shun
> > publicity.
>
> Uh huh, most also somehow get their abduction tales revealed to the
> public somehow since that is obviously how we know about their tales.
I understand that polls have been taken which indicate that only 1 in 10
people who experience a UFO encounter (which presumably includes
abductions) report it.
> Spreading farfetched stories is not my idea of shunning publicity.
> Maybe it's be for a high-profile person like Dennis Rodman or Michael
> Jackson or Tonya Harding, but not for a country bumpkin.
Ever notice that most reports are anonymous? In Mack's book I think one
person allowed the use of his real name (out of 13).
> > And unfortunately for you there's no evidence that abductees are
> > especially depressed.
>
> Depression comes in many forms. But you are correct about that. Not
> like it bothers me, I see why the believer side is happy, the feeling
> one gets from making completely baseless remarks is wonderful ;) I was
> a believer and I know that most if not all the stuff people say is
> hearsay or just plain out bullshit. Most of it is made up from
> "knowledge" of the subject. But you ever notice, few believers have
> ever actually been abducted by aliens themselves, yet they are so
> adamant about it.
And if most believers had been abducted you'd be more likely to believe
them?
> > The police story goes sour in a few places too! Do you reject it in its
> > entirety?
>
> Yup. It seemed odd that someone can be so stupid as to leave
> bloodstains all over his own car, but I don't doubt that OJ did it. He
> was aided in the deed by ...
The police said OJ did it. The police story contains problems. We
therefore reject the police story in it's entirety. Thus OJ didn't do it.
QED.
--
Etherman
Etherman
Nick Merritt <nme...@futurenet.co.uk> wrote in article
<nmerrit-2307...@172.18.72.175>...
> In article <01bc96b0$bb1bc0e0$24d6...@etherman.mdc.net>, "Etherman"
> <ethe...@mdc.net.nospam> wrote:
>
> [snip]
> > Fortunately abductees have been administered psychological tests and
> > there's no evidence of psychopathology. Abductees are just as well
> > adjusted (maybe even more so) than the rest of us.
>
> OK, here's a statistic I'd like you to explain. Why are the majority of
> abductees women? Why, indeed, are nearly *all* cases of recovered memory
> cases - abduction, child abuse, satanic ritual abuse, whatever - have
> women, typically, as their victims?
I didn't know that this was true. Assuming it is, then it may be possible
that women are more likely to seek help. Men are supposed to be stoic
and solve problems themselves. It's a sign of weakness to seek help.
It also explains why most people who ask for directions are women.
> There can only be one conclusion. There's something else going on which
> may (whisper it softly) be more psychological/cultural in origin.
>
> > There's no evidence that abductees are delusional.
>
> Delusional may be the wrong word. However, there is also no evidence that
> abductees have actually been abducted.
>
> Nick
That's not quite true either. There are some cases where the people
are missing during their abduction (OTOH there are cases where the
people aren't missing during the abduction).
--
Etherman
Bryan!
Let's just hope you don't run into Travis Walton some day...he is a big
man and is rather touchy about being called a woman or a liar.
Nick Merritt wrote:
>
> In article <01bc96b0$bb1bc0e0$24d6...@etherman.mdc.net>, "Etherman"
> <ethe...@mdc.net.nospam> wrote:
>
> [snip]
> > Fortunately abductees have been administered psychological tests and
> > there's no evidence of psychopathology. Abductees are just as well
> > adjusted (maybe even more so) than the rest of us.
>
> OK, here's a statistic I'd like you to explain. Why are the majority of
> abductees women? Why, indeed, are nearly *all* cases of recovered memory
> cases - abduction, child abuse, satanic ritual abuse, whatever - have
> women, typically, as their victims?
>
> There can only be one conclusion. There's something else going on which
> may (whisper it softly) be more psychological/cultural in origin.
>
> > There's no evidence that abductees are delusional.
>
Etherman
Nick Merritt <nme...@futurenet.co.uk> wrote in article
<nmerrit-2307...@172.18.72.175>...
Got any other predictions? Ones that we can easily test, that is.
--
Etherman
Duane Laviniere
Marc Michalik wrote:
> >Phew, you sure showed me *evil grin*. Just like that crop circle
> >evidence, proving ufo influence, which was never brought to light. Man,
> >I'm looking forward to this laugher.
>
> How scientific of you! Dismissing the evidence before it is even
> presented. Decades of sceptics *claiming* the subject would be taken
> seriously as soon as we had physical evidence...all lies. As we
> always knew and were ridiculed for stating. As usual, the debunkers
> change the rules as soon as their demands are met. Not a surprise at
> all. Hopefully, more and more people are able to see through the
> dishonesty and trickery of "debunkery" and it is on its way to
> becoming a completely unacceptable method of argument. Thank you for
> your contribution toward this cause.
Bring on the evidence. I'll look at it, and if it is solid, then I'll
go with it. You have to forgive me, I'm so used to all the so called
"evidence" being so very laughable that I almost expect this one to be.
But let's see how good it is. I'm open to anything, contrary to what
you may believe.
> Prove it, prove it, prove it, prove it. You sure do take strong
> opinions with no evidence what-so-ever for someone who demands such a
> high level of evidence of others. And no, your simply stating it is
> most certainly NOT evidence.
OK, watch "Sightings" sometime. Or watch a special on Discovery
Channel. Thos old Irish guys claim to be behind a majority of the
earliest crop cirles. They went so far as to make one under the cover
of night while being videotaped. Crop circle hoaxers do exist. Loch
ness hoaxes have been shown, but I can't give exact instances, but I
know photos have been found to be false. It should be somewhere online,
and I might look for it later on tonight.
To contradict myself, it can be said that the two old men are really
lying about their previous involvement in the crop circle constructions,
but seeing the lack of any other explanation, we must take their word
and their *evidence* at face value. There is currently *no* video
evidence that these circles are made by supernatural (meteorological
event, ufo, gnomes or pixies) so we should probably believe the physical
evidence that we have now. I ask for facts. I sometimes do not provide
enough of them, but I do not feel that my claims are the ones that are
far-fetched and thus lacking support.
> Invalid statement. A half-million or so eyewitnesses is not "a lack
> of ANY evidence". There is a lot of evidence, absulute proof is an
> entirely different thing. So your arrogant, sefl-important, dogmatic
> assertion has no merit what-so-ever. However, there is a lack of ANY
> evidence for the varios statements you have made.
I'm arrogant and dogmatic when it comes to reality. Why? Because I
have no reason not to believe in the things that I know are real. Half
a million people may believe that there is an infinite regression to
matter. It is not evidence, nor does it constitute *fact*. A great
many millions fool themselves into believing that god(s) exists. It is
not evidence, nor does it constitute *fact*. Many thousands of people
report seeing a loch ness monster. It is not evidence, nor does it
constitute *fact*. 1 person formulates a theory of relativity, and
bases his conclusions on careful scientific study and on physical
evidence. This *is* evidence, and it *does* constitute fact. Numbers
are irrelevent. It just shows that half a million people have a problem
with supporting unfounded claims, that's all.
Oh yeah, is that enough EVIDENCE supporting my claim?
> You'll be waiting a long time, since there is a lot of evidence for
> both UFOs and abductions out there that you refuse to recognize. I,
> peronally, have absolute proof of the ETH. Unfortunately, it is only
> absolute proof too me, and annecdotal evidence too everyone else. Too
> bad I can't seem to get the Vulcan Mind Meld down:-)
The evidence out there has been disproven or is simply inconclusive.
Try to disprove the theory of relativity or the fact that mass contains
matter or that the earth rotates about the sun. These are established
facts because the evidence passed the intense scrutiny it was put
under. Billy Joe Bob down the street can't even provide one single
shred of evidence that would last under that sort of scrutiny. It makes
abduction tales seem more like a phenomenon of the mind than anything
else. Are you inferring that *you* have been abducted? Why don't you
share your experience with the rest of the ng. Noone else who I've
emailed has bothered to come forth with a story. Let's see how credible
you story is.
> >> How can you, you apparently have no idea of what "reality" is. And
> >> "Facts" are very often proven wrong.
> >
> >I know, but if you want to take common claims from abductees as "fact,"
> >then those are the same "facts" that I shall provide in my story.
>
> A truely pathetic dodge, you aren't very good at this.
How so? Those are the "facts" I've been referring to all the time. How
else can I make a credible sounding abduction story? It's not like
anyone would buy my little green men story, gotta use the "facts". I
don't dodge. I have no need to do so.
> Find me a scientist who will state categorically that NEVER, not in a
> million years, will we have technology that might make such a thing
> possible. In fact, haven't some scientists already looked into the
> possibility of "Transporter" technology? Now, "I'm waiting"...
Fine, it's called "electron drift" or something. It was in my physics
book, and I might have some notes on it still. The concept is that the
energy barrier is sort of like a hill. You can only get so far up this
hill until you run out of energy. But a theory shows that every once in
a very high number or times, an electron will appear on the other side
of that barrier. I think it's a mathematical phenomenon, but it's also
been proven through experimentation. That being said, it's perfectly
plausible to people to drift as well. I can float through walls, but
the chances are super, extremely small, so I think it's pretty safe to
say that it's impossible.
> Oh, I see. You simply are not intelligent enough to discuss the
> subject rationally. The above is one of the dumbest things I've ever
> seen written in this newsgroup. You honestly beleive that if an alien
> civiliation found us, they would be more interested in a tiny island
> nation than the nation that dominates almost every aspect of planetary
> affairs? You are either being dishonest to avoid "losing" (a flawed
> perception), or you are a complete moron.
Losing? I didn't know I was competing. I'm just discussing. Winning
or losing is irrelevant. My downfall is that I don't bother to go back
and find quotes which I know I've seen before, so if someone chooses to
exploit that fact, so be it. It's no hair off of my brow.
Ad far as my assumption is concerned, YES. I'd much rather check out
Japan than the US, but the US is sort of intriguing in our melting-pot
situation. We've got problems, and I'd find looking into those
interesting. But here's my complaint as far as that is concerned, and
I'd like for you to address this.
Why is it that a majority of the abductees are from rural areas? What
would be so interesting about a farmer? A homeless man talking to
himself? Sure, let's see what makes him tick. Bill Gates? Sure, he's
amassed wealth and power, let's see what makes him tick. Me? Sure, I'm
cool and superbad, let's try to absorb some of his coolness. ;) But
what's a country bumkin gonna reveal about our race? Maybe you know.
> I think just about everybody will leave it. Now, if you were lord and
> master of the world, maybe your assertations would be accepted as the
> final answer to everything. But over here in reality, you simply
> aren't that important. In fact, you look silly demanding evidence
> from everyone else and then expecting every word that comes out of
> your mouth to be taken as an absolute proven fact (without providing
> any evidence yourself).
My word is not law, nor do I expect it to be taken as such, but I am
flattered that you think so. I just speak my mind b/c I have strong
opinions. Call me a hypocrite, call me what you will. I'm not the one
who'd dying to convert the believer side over to skepticism, but
believers would like for us to believe. That is why I don't go trough
the hassle of finding quotes, b/c I couldn't give a rats ass how people
interpret what I say. It's just ANOTHER discussion on yet ANOTHER
newsgroup. I'm not that big and important...yet. I just know that to
me and to many of my friends, the views we share are quite logical and
can be evidenced in everyday life and through casual perusal of
newspapers and television. Even the ocassional ufo book will provide
you with enough knowledge to come to a conclusion. Maybe I'm not
uptight enough, or maybe I'm not paranoid or maybe I'm too reality
based. If I was to be the person in charge of converting all believers,
I would make damned sure to launch a full on attack of fact and quotes,
but I'm not the skeptic leader so I don't need them. I'll keep my posts
fun and entertaining. But if you wish for people to quit being
skeptical, you've gotta provide tangible evidence. Just the cold harsh
world we live in.
> I suggest you find another game, you aren't very good at this one.
> Have your tried "Master of Orion II'? That actually may prove to be
> an educational experience for you:-)
Heh, I guess I should go back to believing in ufo's and spewing all
sorts of unfounded garble and pretty much talking out of my ass and not
from experience. That's what the believer do, right? Let me relay a
story of my own and how I feel about it.
I go to RPI in NY. I always sleep poorly, waking up arond 3-5am every
morning for no particular reason. It's been happening since childhood.
Anyway, this one particular night, I was tossing about restlessly with
the window slightly open. It's about early Spring so a light breeze is
blowing in since I'm on the third floor too. I'm thinking about aliens
at this time (a normal thing for me, I think of many things) and about
how creepy abductions seem. Next thing you know, I feel paralyzed and I
think I see a blue flash. I felt like there was someone near me. This
happens for only what seems like 2 seconds and I had my eyes closed the
whole time. It was just like a quick electric jolt, and then I was fine
again. I didn't open my eyes for about 2 minutes. When I open them,
I'm in my room and nothing seems to have happened. Not sure if there
was missing time or nothing. My first reaction at the time was that I'd
been abducted, but I'm fairly skeptical of those so I just shake it
off. The "electric jolt" was probably the breeze hitting my body, and
the paralysis was just a figment of my imagination. The blue flash was
an optical illusion caused by the curtain blowing up and letting the
light from the cafeteria in temporarily. I had blown up a simple cool
breeze into an abduction. I even tried to convince myself that I had
see two greys leaning over me.
If I were to claim that I was abducted, it would be unfounded b/c upon
closer inspection of the situation, I found that conclusion to be VERY
false. It just shows that we can fool ourselves into believing anything
we want to.
Etherman
Nick Merritt <nme...@futurenet.co.uk> wrote in article
<nmerrit-2307...@172.18.72.175>...
> In article <01bc96b6$7328cfc0$24d6...@etherman.mdc.net>, "Etherman"
> <ethe...@mdc.net.nospam> wrote:
>
> [snip]
> > This isn't too surprising. American are concerned primarily with
America
> > and what happens within it's borders. You don't hear much about
> > foreign UFO encounters even though they occur often enough.
>
> Well, Europeans are concerned primarily with Europe yet you rarely hear
> about the abduction of French people or Germans.
Not living in Europe I cannot say what they hear or don't hear.
> > Let me put it this way. I'll list several phenomena and you tell me if
you
> > associate them (collectively, not individually) with UFOs or Celtic
> > fairies.
>
> Why tie my hands?
I'm trying to make the point that the same patterns appear in different
cultures ate different times. The things I mentioned are both common
to modern alien abductions and Celtic folklore.
> My point is that alien abduction stories are cultural
> NARRATIVES, which borrow freely from all over the place. Before the basic
> abduction scenario was 'agreed' upon by victims, you used to hear about
> all kind of aliens, craft and scenarios. You can't ignore the
inconvenient
> abduction stories just because they don't fit your criteria! You have to
> explain them within the bounds of your theory.
You missed my point. The abduction scenario that was recently "agreed"
on has been around for a long time.
> > 1) Entities with long arms, big heads, large eyes, whitish skin.
>
> Trolls? (In the mythical sense.) Very fairy tale by the way.
What is the origin of troll stories? Myth =! fiction.
> > 2) Crop/grass circles.
>
> You are hardly enhancing your case by mentioning a subject so wildly
> discredited. I live in the area - the West Country - where crop circles
> first came to prominence.
Actually crop circles have been around a long time. Long before those two
old guys ever decided to start hoaxing them (is there any actual evidence
that they actually were responsible for the circles they claimed to make?).
> > 3) Crossbreeding between humans and the entities.
>
> Mentioned in which myths exactly?
I'll go back to the example from Celtic folklore. There are stories of
people being abducted by beautiful fairies and have children together.
I suggest "Confrontations" by Vallee for more examples and references.
Although I haven't read it you might also try "Alien Identities" by
Richard Thompson (his interpretation of the phenomena is not the same
as UFOlogists).
> Unless you're referring to the various
> myths about humans mating with gods (not the same thing by the way).
Why not?
> > 4) Animal mutilations.
>
> Which tend to be associated these days with young likely-to-be serial
killers.
Do likely-to-be serial killers also go around making crop circles?
> > 5) Missing time.
> > 6) Abductions by the entities.
>
> Both impossible to prove.
There are only two explanations for missing time, either the people
are lying about having no conscious memory of the time period
or have no conscious memory of the time period. Are you calling
everybody who has a missing time period liars? Not even Klass
does this (at least I'm not aware of him doing this). Do you also
believe kidnappings don't occur? They're just as impossible to
prove.
> Look, after all this time, after the many
> thousands of alleged abductees, in an age where people, homes and lives
> are photographed and monitored more closely than ever before, you STILL
> can't point to one unambigous abductee and PROVE he or she was abducted.
What would you accept as proof?
> [snip]
> > That was the big one. Another famous one was the Boas abduction
> > (which occurred before the Hill abduction). Abduction stories have
> > been around for centuries if not millennia.
>
> Prove it.
What would you accept as proof? Go read the two books I mention above.
Neither author believes that people are being abducted by space aliens.
> [snip]
> > It might be worth reading however.
> [snip]
> > That might be worth checking out too.
>
> I'm disappointed you only choose to read badly researched and written
> 'Hey, Wow' UFO literature and nothing which tries to offer a rational
> alternative explanation. You really ought to read some of this stuff if
> only so you can have a basis from which to criticise and evaluate the UFO
> literature.
And just how do you know that I haven't read anything skeptical?
I've read "UFOs--Explained" by Klass (it's the only book by him that
I've found). I've read "UFOs: A Scientific Debate" ed. by Sagan
and Page (several different viewpoints on UFOs). I even liked
Sagan's article in the book (despite some weak arguments). I
occasionally read Skeptical Inquirer (some good articles like
the articles on the Alien Autopsy, some bad articles like Nickell
proposing his fantasy-proneness hypothesis). Vallee (in case
you haven't read him) does not accept the ETH. I went to
Lawson's home page and read about his Birth Trauma Hypothesis.
I've read parts of the Condon Report as well. This list isn't exhaustive
but I hope it makes my point.
> [snip]
> > But this fails to take into account the abduction cases
> > where the abductees weren't aware of the UFO activity that was
> > present. Furthermore there are often physical traces left behind,
> > for instance, landing gear traces and damaged vegetation.
>
> What you assume is a landing gear, that is. Anybody ever photographed a
> UFO landing gear so we can identify the traces?
Actually I should have said that people interpret some traces as landing
gear. I agree with Klass that a landing gear should be round.
> > Other
> > times the abductees have unexplained physical problems or unexplained
> > healing of physical ailments (or a combination of the two).
>
> Heck, why invoke aliens? How do you think witch doctors make their money?
>
> Nick
So you believe that witch doctors can produce "miraculous" healings?
--
Etherman
Nick Merritt
> This suggests that personality-type tests could be
> conducted to see if the experiencers are more likely than the norm to
> belong to one type or another.
That's interesting. I'd like to hear of more studies like that.
>
> > OK, here's a statistic I'd like you to explain. Why are the majority of
> > abductees women?
>
> The figure I've seen for this is that 56% of abductees are women. That's a
> majority, but not much of one. Do you have a source for a higher figure?
No, that's the one I have too. However, it's an interesting figure in
light of the following point (you shouldn't see it in isolation)...
>
> > Why, indeed, are nearly *all* cases of recovered memory
> > cases - abduction, child abuse, satanic ritual abuse, whatever - have
> > women, typically, as their victims?
>
> One possible answer is that women are much more likely to seek counseling
> and psychological treatment then men in our culture. Another is that they
> are probably more likely to submit to the loss of control experienced in
> hypnosis. In any case, some such socio-psychological factor *may* account
> for any such discrepancy.
Another is that women are more prone to certain kinds of psychological
trauma, which was and is a view popular amongst Freudian psychotherapists.
>
> > There can only be one conclusion. There's something else going on which
> > may (whisper it softly) be more psychological/cultural in origin.
>
> I think you're pretty swift to leap to this conclusion, given the evidence
> presented (i.e., not much).
Fair enough - but I have recommended the book many of these ideas are
drawn from. I'll post some more details of the overall hypothesis and how
these recovered memory cases seem to confirm it and fit a pattern.
Nick
Sherilyn
In article <01bc9780$61bcc320$25d3...@etherman.mdc.net>, Etherman
<ethe...@mdc.net.nospam> writes
>
>
>Sherilyn <Sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
><hn6XYFAq...@sidaway.demon.co.uk>...>> <ethe...@mdc.net.nospam> writes
>> ...
>> >
>> >There's no evidence that abductees are delusional.
>> >
>> such evidence that many self-identified abductees are delusional,
>> assuming that by "delusional" you simply mean they believe they
>> experienced something they did not in fact do.
>> Sherilyn
>
>Would you mind posting these citations again? I hear people say you've
>done it, but I've never seen them myself.
I'm sure we've been through this before. The rest of this post is taken
from a dejanews search I just ran.
Subject: Hallucinations more common than formerly believed (was
UFOs over Arizona)
From: Sherilyn <Sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk>
Date: 1997/06/07
Message-Id: <yWevKZAQ...@sidaway.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.paranet.ufo
[More Headers]
A number of medline abstracts cited here.
In article <01bc705a$e8879b20$2bd3...@etherman.mdc.net>, Etherman
<ethe...@mdc.net> writes
...
>
>I've also seen the Fantasy-Prone Hypothesis but supporters fall
>silent when I ask for actual evidence. There's any easy and
>well defined way to determine if a person has a fantasy prone
>personality. So the hypothesis is easily testable. So where's
>the beef?
I posted a medline reference on this the other day.
"J Abnorm Psychol 102 (4): 624-632 (Nov 1993)
"Close encounters: an examination of UFO experiences.
"Spanos NP, Cross PA, Dickson K, DuBreuil SC
"Department of Psychology, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario,
Canada."
From the extract:
"Among the combined UFO Ss, intensity of UFO experiences
correlated significantly with inventories that assessed
proneness toward fantasy and unusual sensory experiences."
>
>From what I understand about sleep paralysis there's one
>instance of it appearing in Dr. Mack's book. However,
>for the most part the explanation appears to be extremely
>weak.
>
Some possibly relevant stuff from medline. I enclose the references in
case someone wants to go down and look these papers up. Sleep paralysis
as a cause of hallucination appears to be quite well established. Last
month, you may recall, I pointed to some Fall 1996 on-line class notes
in which a class doing sleep experiments was expected to watchg out for
associated hypnagogic hallucinations. First, here's an abstract showing
that such hallucinations are quite common in the general population of
the UK where the survey was carried out.
+++
"Br J Psychiatry 169 (4): 459-467 (Oct 1996)
"Hypnagogic and hypnopompic hallucinations: pathological phenomena?
"Ohayon MM, Priest RG, Caulet M, Guilleminault C
"Centre de Recherche Philippe Pinel de Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
"BACKGROUND: Hypnagogic and hypnopompic hallucinations are common in
narcolepsy. However, the prevalence of these phenomena in the general
population is uncertain.
"METHOD: A representative community sample of 4972 people in the UK,
aged 15-100, was interviewed by telephone (79.6% of those contacted).
Interviews were performed by lay interviewers using a computerised
system that guided the interviewer through the interview process.
"RESULTS: Thirty-seven per cent of the sample reported experiencing
hypnagogic hallucinations and 12.5% reported hypnopompic hallucinations.
Both types of hallucinations were significantly more common among
subjects with symptoms of insomnia, excessive daytime sleepiness or
mental disorders. According to this study, the prevalence of narcolepsy
in the UK is 0.04%.
"CONCLUSIONS: Hypnagogic and hypnopompic hallucinations were much more
common than expected, with a prevalence that far exceeds that which can
be explained by the association with narcolepsy. Hypnopompic
hallucinations may be a better indicator of narcolepsy than hypnagogic
hallucinations in subjects reporting excessive daytime sleepiness. "
+++
Remember, these guys aren't out to establish that sleep paralysis is the
root cause of "alien abduction" accounts, they're just investigating how
common the symptoms are in the general populatiom. It appears that the
symptoms normally attributed to hypnagogic hallucinations are very
common indeed--far too common to be accounted for by alien abductions
and pathology together.
And now to sleep paralysis:
1) apparent correlation of isolated sleep paralysis with
period of low geomagnetism.
2) Sleep paralysis through sleep interruption.
3) An apparently new hallucinatory phenomenon possibly
related to sleep paralysis.
+++
"Percept Mot Skills 80 (3 Pt 2): 1263-1273 (Jun 1995)
"Relationship between isolated sleep paralysis and geomagnetic
influences: a case study.
"Conesa J
"Everett Community College, Social Sciences Department, WA 98201, USA. "
"A significant correlation was obtained between periods of local
geomagnetic activity and the incidence of isolated sleep paralysis.
Specifically, periods of relatively quiet geomagnetic activity were
significantly associated with an increased incidence of episodes. "
and
"Sleep 15 (3): 217-225 (Jun 1992)
"Isolated sleep paralysis elicited by sleep interruption.
"Takeuchi T, Miyasita A, Sasaki Y, Inugami M, Fukuda K
"Department of Psychology, Waseda University, Tokyo, Japan.
"We elicited isolated sleep paralysis (ISP) from normal subjects by a
nocturnal sleep interruption schedule. ...All of the subjects with ISP
experienced inability to move and were simultaneously aware of lying in
the laboratory. All but one reported auditory/visual hallucinations and
unpleasant emotions."
+++
Finally a lab-documented case of sleep-onset hallucinations _without_
sleep paralysis symptoms. I enclose the full abstract.
+++
"Percept Mot Skills 78 (3 Pt 1): 979-985 (Jun 1994)
"Laboratory-documented hallucination during sleep-onset REM period in
a normal subject.
"Takeuchi T, Miyasita A, Inugami M, Sasaki Y, Fukuda K
"Waseda University, Japan.
"During an experiment on nocturnal sleep interruption, we observed a
unique case of hallucination without sleep paralysis during the sleep-
onset REM period in a normal individual. We documented the polysomnogram
recorded during this hallucination. The polysomnogram showed a mixed
pattern of Stages REM and W, with muscle-tone inhibition, rapid eye
movements (REMs), slow eye movements (SEMs), and abundant alpha EEG
trains. The blocking of alpha EEG trains by REMs appeared to reflect
visual processing similar to that which occurs during waking. This
hallucination was distinct from ordinary sleep-onset mentation in that
it included strong emotional components and in that the subject
simultaneously experienced both hallucinatory mentation and reality
contact. This hallucination may resemble sleep paralysis with regard to
its physiological and psychological background, and the discrimination
of these two phenomena may depend on the subject's own awareness of
muscle-tone inhibition."
--
Sherilyn
Geoff Price
In article <h553vBAk...@sidaway.demon.co.uk>, Sherilyn
<Sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Geoff, I searched really hard for some mention of Ted Davis's
> qualifications. I didn't see any; he isn't telling. In addition, in
> his review, his personal obsessions, and his unfamiliarity with the
> material, leads him astray and cause him jumps overboard:
>
> 'One of their actual findings was that the two UFO groups were
> significantly more likely to believe in or have stronger UFO
> beliefs than either of the control groups. They then go on to
> conclude this to be due to one of two reasons.'
>
> 'On the one hand, it might mean that strong beliefs in
> alien life primed subjects to interpret ambiguous
> external stimuli or to generate imaginings in terms of
> these beliefs. Alternatively, these findings might
> indicate that experiences such as hallucinating a space
> alien while paralyzed in bed are likely to strengthen
> belief in alien life. (Spanos et. al., 1993)'
> ...
> '"The findings suggest that many of the UFO subjects may
> have been drawn to beliefs about alien life before
> having UFO experiences. However, the occurrence of a
> UFO experience most likely served to strengthen any
> preexisting UFO beliefs."'
> [quoting from Spanos further on in the text]
You don't seem to be demonstrating that he "jumped overboard". The
authors indeed offer two reasons why those in the UFO groups were
significantly more likely to believe in or have stronger UFO beliefs, and
neither of those reasons includes the possibility of real objective events
of some kind (which happens to be the case, for UFO sightings at least.)
> He then launches into a quixotic excoriation
It was neither quixotic, nor an excoriation, nor even particularly
strongly worded...
[...]
> In short, he doesn't dent the Spanos findings, which are, by the way,
> neither particularly controversial nor unsupported by the data.
I agree with the not "particularly controversial", and again, clearly it
fails to support your interpretation mentioned earlier.
--
Geoff Price
Ge...@CalibanMW.com
Sherilyn
In article <Geoff-23079...@max1-122.snlo.dialup.callamer.com>,
Geoff Price <Ge...@CalibanMW.com> writes
>In article <hn6XYFAq...@sidaway.demon.co.uk>, Sherilyn
><Sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> In article <01bc96b0$bb1bc0e0$24d6...@etherman.mdc.net>, Etherman
>> <ethe...@mdc.net.nospam> writes
>> ...
>> >
>> >There's no evidence that abductees are delusional.
>> >
>> As I have pointed out with numerous citations, there is quite a lot of
>> such evidence that many self-identified abductees are delusional,
>> assuming that by "delusional" you simply mean they believe they
>> experienced something they did not in fact do.
>
>I, at least, missed this.
For etherman's benefit, I have just reposted one of a number of posts I
have made on this subject, complete with medline citations.
>I do remember you citing two studies, one of
>which was the Spanos et. al article from the Journal of Abnormal
>Psychology, and neither of which supported the interpretation you make
>here.
>
>On the topic, here's a review of the Spanos study by an individual named
>Ted Davis, from his web site at:
>
>http://ally.ios.com/~tedd1/index.html
Geoff, I searched really hard for some mention of Ted Davis's
qualifications. I didn't see any; he isn't telling. In addition, in
his review, his personal obsessions, and his unfamiliarity with the
material, leads him astray and cause him jumps overboard:
'One of their actual findings was that the two UFO groups were
significantly more likely to believe in or have stronger UFO
beliefs than either of the control groups. They then go on to
conclude this to be due to one of two reasons.'
'On the one hand, it might mean that strong beliefs in
alien life primed subjects to interpret ambiguous
external stimuli or to generate imaginings in terms of
these beliefs. Alternatively, these findings might
indicate that experiences such as hallucinating a space
alien while paralyzed in bed are likely to strengthen
belief in alien life. (Spanos et. al., 1993)'
...
'"The findings suggest that many of the UFO subjects may
have been drawn to beliefs about alien life before
having UFO experiences. However, the occurrence of a
UFO experience most likely served to strengthen any
preexisting UFO beliefs."'
[quoting from Spanos further on in the text]
He then launches into a quixotic excoriation of Spanos and colleagues
for leaving out of the conclusion an explicit treatment of the
Extraterrestrial Visitation Hypotheses. He is criticising the authors
of a psychological study, not because they drew a psychological
conclusion not supported by the available data, but _because they failed
to consider a physical conjecture not supported by the available data_.
Of course, as a supporter of the "fairies" hypothesis, I would be
equally within my rights to complain that Spanos et al failed to
consider that the pixies might have wanted the subjects for changelings.
In short, he doesn't dent the Spanos findings, which are, by the way,
neither particularly controversial nor unsupported by the data.
J Abnorm Psychol 1993 Nov;102(4):624-632
Close encounters: an examination of UFO experiences.
Spanos NP, Cross PA, Dickson K, DuBreuil SC
Department of Psychology, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Ss who reported UFO experiences were divided into those whose
experiences were nonintense (e.g., seeing lights and shapes in the
sky) and those whose experiences were intense (e.g., seeing and
communicating with aliens or missing time). On a battery of objective
tests Ss in these 2 groups did not score as more psychopathological,
less intelligent, or more fantasy prone and hypnotizable than a
community comparison group or a student comparison group. However, Ss in
the UFO groups believed more strongly in space alien
visitation than did comparison Ss. The UFO experiences of Ss in the
intense group were more frequently sleep-related than the
experiences of Ss in the nonintense group. Among the combined UFO Ss,
intensity of UFO experiences correlated significantly with
inventories that assessed proneness toward fantasy and unusual sensory
experiences. Implications are discussed.
--
Sherilyn
Jamie Lednik
> > In article <01bc96b0$bb1bc0e0$24d6...@etherman.mdc.net>, "Etherman"
> >
> > [snip]
> > > Fortunately abductees have been administered psychological tests and
> > > there's no evidence of psychopathology. Abductees are just as well
> > > adjusted (maybe even more so) than the rest of us.
>
> a peer-reviewed scientific journal. They did *not* find any evidence of
> major psychological disorders that might account for the experience. They
> did, however, find that while the experiencers were within the normal
> ranges on the tests, they tend to cluster at certain points within the
> conducted to see if the experiencers are more likely than the norm to
> belong to one type or another.
Then there's even less of an excuse for them to come up with the
far-fetched stories they do.
>
[snipped]
> > Why, indeed, are nearly *all* cases of recovered memory
> > cases - abduction, child abuse, satanic ritual abuse, whatever - have
> > women, typically, as their victims?
>
Because females are generally more vulnerable than males. I believe
even sexual abuse among young girls is higher than that for boys. One
third of all women will endure some form of sexual abuse/assault
(molestation, rape, spousal abuse, etc.) during their life.
> One possible answer is that women are much more likely to seek counseling
> and psychological treatment then men in our culture. Another is that they
> are probably more likely to submit to the loss of control experienced in
> hypnosis. In any case, some such socio-psychological factor *may* account
> for any such discrepancy.
>
>
[snipped]
IMO recovered memories (using hypnosis as a tool) is highly unreliable.
The same person who can so easily slip under hypnosis (suggestible) can
be the same one who could be receptive to any thought, even
inadvertently, placed inside their mind. I think a good many therapists
don't intentionally mean to do this, but unfortunately I think this is
offen the case, because the chances are so high without any other
supportive evidence.
What people are experiencing when they claim they are undergoing
abductions, I don't know. They seem very sincere. However, I think
people should remember that an alcoholic who's sees pink elephants
_really does think_ he's seeing a pink elephant. Try telling him it
isn't there and he won't believe you. Yet, you know no elephant is
there. I don't think any person should be faulted for requiring more
evidence than just a personal account of an abduction, or even unusual
marks on the body, etc.
Duane Laviniere
Geoff Price wrote:
> In article <33D639...@vnet.ibm.com>, Duane Laviniere
> <lav...@vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> > Etherman wrote:
> > > that doesn't mean that they aren't.
> >
> > landing was real or that the Mars Pathfinder project is real or that I
> > don't hear voices in my head ;) The fact that there is no evidence
> > should be more than enough proof that these "abductions" are fake, but
> > believe what you will.
>
> We're deep off into semantic la-la land at this point. For clarity, what
> is your definition of evidence?
Semantics? How do you explain his "Okay, but even if there's no
evidence that aliens are abducting people
that doesn't mean that they aren't."?
That seems to be stretching the limits of reality there. It's like
saying that despite the mountains of evidence proving that faster than
light speed is not possible, that that doesn't mean that it is not still
possible. It's blatant ignorance of the reality in my opinion, but then
again, my opinion differs from yours.
> --
> Geoff Price
> Ge...@CalibanMW.com
John Hoagland
BTW, I was "visited" by an alien the other nite, delusional or disillusional
or otherwise.
"It" said, "take me to your leader."
I said, "you mean Sherilyn, the leader of our newsgroup?"
"It" (call "it," IT, InternalTerrestial, if you like), said, "yes."
"I don't think she'll be happy to see you."
"Why not?"
"Well, she has this thing about "you people."
"What you mean, 'thing'? "We have sex in very unusual ways."
"I don't think unusual would bother her." "Well, it's just that she doesn't
believe in you."
"Why not, we're very truthful."
"No, I mean she doesn't believe *in* you." "It would be very awkward
introducing you."
Pause . . .
And then IT just "took off."
John
Parapsychological reporter
In article <hn6XYFAq...@sidaway.demon.co.uk>,
Sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk says...
>
>In article <01bc96b0$bb1bc0e0$24d6...@etherman.mdc.net>, Etherman
><ethe...@mdc.net.nospam> writes
>...
>>
>>There's no evidence that abductees are delusional.
>>
>As I have pointed out with numerous citations, there is quite a lot of
>such evidence that many self-identified abductees are delusional,
>assuming that by "delusional" you simply mean they believe they
>experienced something they did not in fact do.
>--
>Sherilyn
cl...@columbia-center.org
In article <33D7F3...@sprynet.com>,
jle...@sprynet.com wrote:
> cl...@columbia-center.org wrote:
> > In article <nmerrit-2307...@172.18.72.175>,
> > nme...@futurenet.co.uk (Nick Merritt) wrote:
> > Indeed. I've read two studies that appeared in the Journal of UFO
Studies,
> > a peer-reviewed scientific journal. They did *not* find any evidence
of
> > major psychological disorders that might account for the experience.
They
> > did, however, find that while the experiencers were within the normal
> > ranges on the tests, they tend to cluster at certain points within the
> > normal ranges. This suggests that personality-type tests could be
> > conducted to see if the experiencers are more likely than the norm to
> > belong to one type or another.
> Then there's even less of an excuse for them to come up with the
> far-fetched stories they do.
And just why would they need an "excuse" for reporting their own
experiences (whatever the actual reality behind them might be)?
<snip>
> IMO recovered memories (using hypnosis as a tool) is highly unreliable.
> The same person who can so easily slip under hypnosis (suggestible) can
> be the same one who could be receptive to any thought, even
> inadvertently, placed inside their mind. I think a good many therapists
> don't intentionally mean to do this, but unfortunately I think this is
> offen the case, because the chances are so high without any other
> supportive evidence.
Well, lucky for us, there has been a publication on exactly this subject
in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Thomas E. Bullard, "Hypnosis and
UFO Abductions: A Troubled Relationship" in the Journal of UFO Studies for
1989. Bullard compares cases where hypnosis was used and where it was not;
in short, the differences are *not* significant. He also compares them
both with "imaginary" abductions induced under hypnosis; in this case,
significant differences *do* appear.
Incidentally, many abductees are not easily hypnotized; abductees often
resist leading questions (many questioners try to lead them in the "wrong"
direction, e.g. "What color hair do the entities have?" -- and get the
expected "They're bald!"); and some abductees were hypnotized by
questioners who disbelieved in the experience -- these did not show
significant differences either.
The fear of unreliability under hypnosis is probably misplaced.
> What people are experiencing when they claim they are undergoing
> abductions, I don't know. They seem very sincere. However, I think
> people should remember that an alcoholic who's sees pink elephants
> _really does think_ he's seeing a pink elephant. Try telling him it
> isn't there and he won't believe you. Yet, you know no elephant is
> there. I don't think any person should be faulted for requiring more
> evidence than just a personal account of an abduction, or even unusual
> marks on the body, etc.
Certainly, the evidence at hand is not sufficient to warrant support for
the ETH, and there are many reasons to doubt it (see Vallee's work). But
Bullard's studies have shown striking structural similarities between
accounts, that go much further than one would expect from simply
media-influence or hypnotists leading subjects or fantasy-proneness, etc
etc etc. And yet the "skeptics", so far as I know, have done nothing at
all to deal with this strong evidence that something weird is going on.
cl...@columbia-center.org
In article <nmerrit-2407...@172.18.72.175>,
nme...@futurenet.co.uk (Nick Merritt) wrote:
> In article <8696954...@dejanews.com>, cl...@columbia-center.org
wrote:
> > This suggests that personality-type tests could be
> > conducted to see if the experiencers are more likely than the norm to
> > belong to one type or another.
> That's interesting. I'd like to hear of more studies like that.
Well, I suppose I should recommend to the researchers that they conduct
such studies.
> > > OK, here's a statistic I'd like you to explain. Why are the majority
of
> > > abductees women?
> > The figure I've seen for this is that 56% of abductees are women.
That's a
> > majority, but not much of one. Do you have a source for a higher
figure?
> No, that's the one I have too. However, it's an interesting figure in
> light of the following point (you shouldn't see it in isolation)...
Okay, I've checked the Showalter book (the first chapter is on-line) and
it says: "Even among those who claim to have been abducted by aliens, ...
women outnumber men about three to one...." Compare this with Bullard, a
book review in the Journal of UFO Studies for 1994: "In my catalogue of
some 300 abduction cases appearing in the literature to about 1985, men
outnumbered women by 64% to 36%. A new catalogue of cases since 1985
breaks down to almost exactly fifty-fifty. A survey of abduction
investigators growing out of the 1992 MIT conference brought responses
from thirteen investigators. Seven of them found a 60%-40% preponderance
of females, one other an even higher proportion. Three respondants found
half and half, while two found a disproportionate number of males. The
proportions differ from investigator to investigator, and the slight
overall leaning toward the female side amounts to underwhelming evidence
that women are the real subject of abductions." (The book under review had
made the argument that abductions are caused by misogyny.) I have to agree
with Bullard that the slight majority is too slight to read anything into.
> > > Why, indeed, are nearly *all* cases of recovered memory
> > > cases - abduction, child abuse, satanic ritual abuse, whatever -
have
> > > women, typically, as their victims?
I have no figures for the others, and so can't comment, but I hardly
consider 56% for abductions to be "almost all".
> > One possible answer is that women are much more likely to seek
counseling
> > and psychological treatment then men in our culture. Another is that
they
> > are probably more likely to submit to the loss of control experienced
in
> > hypnosis. In any case, some such socio-psychological factor *may*
account
> > for any such discrepancy.
> Another is that women are more prone to certain kinds of psychological
> trauma, which was and is a view popular amongst Freudian
psychotherapists.
Who are notorious for failing to support their statements with empirical
evidence. (Not entirely their fault: they make generalizations from
spending hours and hours talking to people in great emotional depth, not
from sending out questionnaires, etc.)
> > > There can only be one conclusion. There's something else going on
which
> > > may (whisper it softly) be more psychological/cultural in origin.
> > I think you're pretty swift to leap to this conclusion, given the
evidence
> > presented (i.e., not much).
> Fair enough - but I have recommended the book many of these ideas are
> drawn from. I'll post some more details of the overall hypothesis and
how
> these recovered memory cases seem to confirm it and fit a pattern.
Okay. Now I have read the first chapter of the book, Elaine Showalter's
Hystories, which is on-line:
http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/showalter-hystories.html
and also some material on a site that has many pieces critical of the
book:
http://www.cais.net/cfs-news/showalter.htm
To put it bluntly, I'm ready to toss this one in the crapper right now.
Showalter's major thesis is that chronic fatigue syndrome, Gulf War
syndrome, multiple personality disorder, recovered memory of sexual abuse,
satanic ritual abuse, and alien abduction are all caused by "hysteria" and
any physical symptoms are psychosomatic.
I immediately have to take offense at this characterization of chronic
fatigue syndrome, because I happen to suffer from the disease. I'm to
believe that this is an "imaginary illness"? I have many decidedly
physical symptoms, including lesions inside my eyes; these are currently
inactive, but could become active at any time. If that happens, I will
slowly go blind, and I understand that there is very little that can be
done about it. My ophthalmologist mentioned to me that many CFS patients
have such lesions. Incidentally, I have never seen this mentioned in the
mass media, which Showalter claims is my source for the syndrome, from
which I manufactured my symptoms. It also fails to account for the change
in my cholesterol level when I first became ill; it dropped to less than
half normal. This is commonly seen when patients come down with serious
illnesses like cancer. I could go on at length; but you can easily find
many examples of scientific studies that discovered physical problems in
CFS patients at the URL above. Showalter has basically no answer to the
fifty or sixty studies referred to except something on the order of "but
that's not *definitive* yet!" In short, she blew that one about as bad as
she could; I know about it, because I can't help but know about it.
From the brief material on it in the first chapter, it is also evident
that she has no significant knowledge of the abduction experience. Here I
can take her on on her own level: I too am a literary critic. Now, perhaps
the strongest evidence for some novel phenomenon behind the abduction
experience comes from a study by Eddie Bullard. He is a folklorist who
utilized a structural method of study first used by Vladimir Propp in a
study of the Russian fairy tale. Propp found that the stories will contain
very precise elements, say A, B, C, D, etc, and always in the same order.
The genre is very stereotypical. But people can continue to create new
ones because they have internalised this structure by hearing hundreds of
such stories over decades.
Now, the accounts of abductions show exactly such a stereotyped structure.
This is the case regardless of whether the abductee had any prior
knowledge of others' experiences, and includes cases that go too far back
for such knowledge to be possible (e.g., Villas-Boas in 1957, the first
one on record). The striking correlations extend to many tiny details,
such as the entities always wearing one-piece suits. The idea that all of
these are due to media influence is simply untenable.
Well, I hope that's clear. It's a complicated subject and deserves much
more length. Please tell me: does Showalter show any awareness of
Bullard's study, which had appeared ten years before her own book?
----------------------------------------
Dan Clore
mailto:cl...@columbia-center.org
The Website of Lord Weÿrdgliffe
Nick Merritt
> I immediately have to take offense at this characterization of chronic
> fatigue syndrome, because I happen to suffer from the disease. I'm to
> believe that this is an "imaginary illness"?
A not too untypical reaction to Showalter's book from those she
criticises, as I understand.
[snip]
> In short, she blew that one about as bad as
> she could; I know about it, because I can't help but know about it.
Perhaps so - she has a go at the Gulf War syndromers too. However as yet,
as far as I know (please correct me I'm wrong) there are no known physical
causes of chronic fatigue syndrome.
>
> From the brief material on it in the first chapter, it is also evident
> that she has no significant knowledge of the abduction experience.
Why should personal experience of a phenomenon be *at all* necessary for
an analysis of the phenomenon?
> Here I
> can take her on on her own level: I too am a literary critic. Now, perhaps
> the strongest evidence for some novel phenomenon behind the abduction
> experience comes from a study by Eddie Bullard. He is a folklorist who
> utilized a structural method of study first used by Vladimir Propp in a
> study of the Russian fairy tale. Propp found that the stories will contain
> very precise elements, say A, B, C, D, etc, and always in the same order.
Indeed, Showalter makes exactly the same point.
> The genre is very stereotypical. But people can continue to create new
> ones because they have internalised this structure by hearing hundreds of
> such stories over decades.
>
> Now, the accounts of abductions show exactly such a stereotyped structure.
> This is the case regardless of whether the abductee had any prior
> knowledge of others' experiences, and includes cases that go too far
back for > such knowledge to be possible (e.g., Villas-Boas in 1957, the
first
> one on record). The striking correlations extend to many tiny details,
> such as the entities always wearing one-piece suits. The idea that all of
> these are due to media influence is simply untenable.
Perhaps, but I also note that Villas-Boas does not follow the standard
abduction scenario in all details - helmeted aliens, light-coloured eyes,
visible tubing, breastpates - sorry, but it sounds just like the kind of
description I'd expect from someone who'd been exposed to 1950s sci-fi
films. The strong smells, element of immobility and sexual aspects
strongly remind me of descriptions of people who have had a temporal lobe
epilepsy event. It seems likely to me that there *was* media influence -
American cinema.
> Well, I hope that's clear. It's a complicated subject and deserves much
> more length. Please tell me: does Showalter show any awareness of
> Bullard's study, which had appeared ten years before her own book?
She makes many of the same points, so I suspect she has read Bullard (but
why don't you ask her yourself?). However, I am not basing my argument
*purely* on Showalter's work. Certainly, her 'mass hsyteria' approach
could well explain a majority of cases (I think it does), with the usual
recovered memory ineptness a lot of the rest, and temporal lobe epilepsy
sorting out the stragglers. It simply is not necessary to invoke the alien
abduction hypothesis, nor does it seem particularly rational.
Indeed, picking apart this whole alien hairball is getting increasingly
difficult as the enthusiasts keep piling paranoid speculation on top of
half-understood and misreported half-truths, backed by journalism of the
most shoddy kind. And of course anybody who seeks to disagree is merely a
member of the conspiracy.
I have no alternative but to dismiss it all and take it all from the other
angle.
Nick
David Harrell Bond
> ...
> >
> >There's no evidence that abductees are delusional.
> >
> As I have pointed out with numerous citations, there is quite a lot of
> such evidence that many self-identified abductees are delusional,
> assuming that by "delusional" you simply mean they believe they
> experienced something they did not in fact do.
> --
> Sherilyn
--
People WILL talk, but will it make sense??
___________CERN - European Laboratory for Particle Physics__________
Computing and Networks Division
Geoff Price
In article <33D745...@vnet.ibm.com>, Duane Laviniere
<lav...@vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> Geoff Price wrote:
> > In article <33D639...@vnet.ibm.com>, Duane Laviniere
> > <lav...@vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> > > Etherman wrote:
> > > > Okay, but even if there's no evidence that aliens are abducting people
> > > > that doesn't mean that they aren't.
> > >
> > > Very true, but following your logic, it can't be said that the lunar
> > > landing was real or that the Mars Pathfinder project is real or that I
> > > don't hear voices in my head ;) The fact that there is no evidence
> > > should be more than enough proof that these "abductions" are fake, but
> > > believe what you will.
> >
> > We're deep off into semantic la-la land at this point. For clarity, what
> > is your definition of evidence?
>
> Semantics? How do you explain his "Okay, but even if there's no
> evidence that aliens are abducting people
> that doesn't mean that they aren't."?
Okay, we have two subcontexts here. Let's take the context of Etherman's
comment which you are addressing. Ether is simply stating that absence of
evidence is not evidence of absence (much less "proof" of hallucination or
hoax!) This is a plain point of logic, and there is no sense beating your
head against it. By arguing a skeptical position, you lose here
(inability to conveniently prove something doesn't exist, as much as you
might want to) but you win in the fact that burden of proof is on your
opponent.
Secondly, you've made the same comment ("no evidence for abductions") in
other contexts, so you obviously consider this a fair statement. This is
indeed semantically problematic, because you are necessarily using a
definition of evidence that differs from common English usage. "The
evidence is terribly weak" might be a fair statement of opinion.
Alternately, "there is no unambiguous physical evidence that establishes
that people are being physically abducted by unknown beings" or some such.
In other contexts, some arch- ("pseudo-" :) skeptics have made similar
claims about UFOs, i.e. there is "no evidence" of anomalous flying
objects. Obviously, this statement only flies if an idiosyncratic
definition of "evidence" is slipped in via sleight-of-hand (usually, the
critic means there is "no unambiguous physical evidence which, on its own,
establishes the existence of anomalous flying objects" or "there is no
scientific evidence (in the sense of intentionally replicable data) that
establishes the existence of alien spaceships.")
> That seems to be stretching the limits of reality there. It's like
> saying that despite the mountains of evidence proving that faster than
> light speed is not possible
There are no such mountains of evidence. Current, well established theory
holds that faster than light travel of matter or energy is not possible by
any known mechanism. Many (Stephen Hawking, for example) maintain a
certain amount of optimism that various forms of exotic travel (eg
spacetime bending) may still be discovered/made feasible. In any case,
the book has not been closed on physics, not by a long mile. (For a
warmup, why don't you solve the riddle of continually replicating psi
results, and then select the correct theoretical explanation of quantum
mechanical phenomena?) You sound like you've caught Brant Watson's
pessimism. :)
> , that that doesn't mean that it is not still
> possible. It's blatant ignorance of the reality in my opinion, but then
> again, my opinion differs from yours.
In any case, the analogy is flawed in its own right, as your comment about
abductions is talking about absence of evidence, not contradiction of
existing evidence. (A better argument for you would be to emphasize that
the violations of known physical laws reported by many abductees in their
experiences constitutes evidence that the experiences are, as you say,
"fake".)
--
Geoff Price
Ge...@CalibanMW.com
Jean van Gemert
In article, cl...@columbia-center.org wrote:
>Certainly, the evidence at hand is not sufficient to warrant support for
>the ETH,
Whilst certainly agreeing on this I...
>and there are many reasons to doubt it (see Vallee's work).
must strongly disagree here. Vallee's reasons are themselves
the subject of doubt, having been criticized severely by Jerry
Clark, Dr. Michael Swords, and others, many, many times.
____________________________________________________________________________
Science, Logic, and the UFO Debate:
http://www.primenet.com/~bdzeiler/index.html
____________________________________________________________________________
Jean van Gemert
In article, Duane Laviniere <lav...@vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
[You wrote to Geoff Price:]
>That seems to be stretching the limits of reality there. It's like
>saying that despite the mountains of evidence proving that faster than
>light speed is not possible, that that doesn't mean that it is not still
>possible. It's blatant ignorance of the reality in my opinion, but then
>again, my opinion differs from yours.
And likely for good reasons. Arguing that claims of alien abductions
equal claims of a (supposed) theoretical impossibility (the sole basis
for your claim that Geoff's "stretching," and "ignorant" to boot, of the
"limits of reality") is logically fallacious. There is, in fact, nothing we
know in physical nor biological 'laws' that would prevent aliens from
abducting any earthlings, in _principle_.
Now, that doesn't mean it's really happening. Just that assessments
based on ideological worldviews in which the aliens are all nice guys
and would never do these hideous things are bound not to be reliable
measures of reality.
One last point though, regarding your "mountains of evidence" that
faster than light travel is impossible. This, in fact, is yet another ex-
ample of the artificial a priori limitations you have imposed on your
own ideas of what the universe should be like. As the issue on FTL
travel stands now, it appears theoretically allowed. Still a far cry
from a practical application though.
Etherman
cl...@columbia-center.org wrote in article <8698167...@dejanews.com>...
> The fear of unreliability under hypnosis is probably misplaced.
There have been many studies done on the reliability of hypnotically
recalled memories. There is some evidence that the memories are
more error prone and some studies that indicate that the memories
are more reliable. I've seen one study that indicated that the memories
are error prone when it comes to small details, but are very reliable
when it comes to major events. I would consider being abducted by
"aliens" a major event and these memories are probably reliable, whereas
remembering how many fingers the aliens had is a minor detail that
probably would be unreliable.
--
Etherman
Etherman
Duane Laviniere <lav...@vnet.ibm.com> wrote in article
> Geoff Price wrote:
> > In article <33D639...@vnet.ibm.com>, Duane Laviniere
> > <lav...@vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> > > Etherman wrote:
> > > > Okay, but even if there's no evidence that aliens are abducting
people
> > > > that doesn't mean that they aren't.
> > >
> > > Very true, but following your logic, it can't be said that the lunar
> > > landing was real or that the Mars Pathfinder project is real or that
I
> > > don't hear voices in my head ;) The fact that there is no evidence
> > > should be more than enough proof that these "abductions" are fake,
but
> > > believe what you will.
> >
> > We're deep off into semantic la-la land at this point. For clarity,
what
> > is your definition of evidence?
>
> Semantics? How do you explain his "Okay, but even if there's no
> evidence that aliens are abducting people
> that doesn't mean that they aren't."?
> That seems to be stretching the limits of reality there.
As I pointed out earlier, 200 years ago there wasn't a shred of evidence
that
neutrinos existed, but they still existed.
> It's like
> saying that despite the mountains of evidence proving that faster than
> light speed is not possible, that that doesn't mean that it is not still
> possible. It's blatant ignorance of the reality in my opinion, but then
> again, my opinion differs from yours.
Actually this is not true. There is a lot of evidence that particles can't
be accelerated to FTL velocities by use of electromagnetism. I know
of no evidence that indicates that they can't be accelerated to FTL speeds
by the nuclear forces or gravity. Furthermore there is evidence that
particles (including photons) can quantum tunnel at speeds greater than c.
--
Etherman
Jamie Lednik
cl...@columbia-center.org wrote:
>
> In article <33D7F3...@sprynet.com>,
> jle...@sprynet.com wrote:
> > cl...@columbia-center.org wrote:
> > > In article <nmerrit-2307...@172.18.72.175>,
> > > > In article <01bc96b0$bb1bc0e0$24d6...@etherman.mdc.net>, "Etherman"
>
> > > Indeed. I've read two studies that appeared in the Journal of UFO
> Studies,
> > > a peer-reviewed scientific journal. They did *not* find any evidence
> of
> > > major psychological disorders that might account for the experience.
> They
> > > did, however, find that while the experiencers were within the normal
> > > ranges on the tests, they tend to cluster at certain points within the
> > > conducted to see if the experiencers are more likely than the norm to
> > > belong to one type or another.
>
> > far-fetched stories they do.
>
> And just why would they need an "excuse" for reporting their own
> experiences (whatever the actual reality behind them might be)?
>
> <snip>
>
experiencing no psychological dysfunction, they know what's going on
around them and to them (just like the "normal", healthy individual).
Since there is no evidence to support their claims, one cannot help but
to conclude what they are/were experiencing is false. The "excuse"
would be some type of dysfunction. They obviously don't have this,
therefore they don't have an excuse for their claims.
> > IMO recovered memories (using hypnosis as a tool) is highly unreliable.
> > The same person who can so easily slip under hypnosis (suggestible) can
> > be the same one who could be receptive to any thought, even
> > inadvertently, placed inside their mind. I think a good many therapists
> > don't intentionally mean to do this, but unfortunately I think this is
> > offen the case, because the chances are so high without any other
> > supportive evidence.
>
> Well, lucky for us, there has been a publication on exactly this subject
> in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Thomas E. Bullard, "Hypnosis and
> UFO Abductions: A Troubled Relationship" in the Journal of UFO Studies for
> 1989. Bullard compares cases where hypnosis was used and where it was not;
> in short, the differences are *not* significant. He also compares them
> both with "imaginary" abductions induced under hypnosis; in this case,
> significant differences *do* appear.
>
> Incidentally, many abductees are not easily hypnotized; abductees often
> resist leading questions (many questioners try to lead them in the "wrong"
> direction, e.g. "What color hair do the entities have?" -- and get the
> expected "They're bald!"); and some abductees were hypnotized by
> questioners who disbelieved in the experience -- these did not show
> significant differences either.
>
> The fear of unreliability under hypnosis is probably misplaced.
>
Whether it is actual hypnosis or not, people by their very natures are
highly suggestible (that's how advertising and impulse buying works).
Also, through nonverbal clues and cues, people can "read" each other as
well as plant subtle ideas into another's mind. It's hard to understand
or believe this can happen, but it does, as cults and the McMartin day
care mess some years back are proof of this. For any hypnosis session
(if one would allow the validity of hypnosis) a strong effort should be
made _not_ to plant ideas, even unsconciously -- without the
hypnotizer's knowledge. Perhaps these people don't realize they are
doing it. I feel that so easy is this tendency to even unconsciously
plant ideas that hypnosis itself is highly suspect.
> > What people are experiencing when they claim they are undergoing
> > abductions, I don't know. They seem very sincere. However, I think
> > people should remember that an alcoholic who's sees pink elephants
> > _really does think_ he's seeing a pink elephant. Try telling him it
> > isn't there and he won't believe you. Yet, you know no elephant is
> > there. I don't think any person should be faulted for requiring more
> > evidence than just a personal account of an abduction, or even unusual
> > marks on the body, etc.
>
> Certainly, the evidence at hand is not sufficient to warrant support for
> the ETH, and there are many reasons to doubt it (see Vallee's work). But
> Bullard's studies have shown striking structural similarities between
> accounts, that go much further than one would expect from simply
> media-influence or hypnotists leading subjects or fantasy-proneness, etc
> etc etc. And yet the "skeptics", so far as I know, have done nothing at
> all to deal with this strong evidence that something weird is going on.
>
I will admit this: I don't think all abductees are necessarily "lying."
I think even a good number of them are experiencing what to them is a
very real experience. By the same token, I don't agree with skeptics
who say (unfotunately) that all abductees are either lying or imagining
what they are experiencing. The abduction experience deserves more
investigation, and the easy explanations don't exactly solve the
puzzle. If it is psychological (which may be a very real possibility)
it deserves more serious attention rather than ridicule.
Sherilyn
In article <01bc9957$33bd9c00$a5d6...@etherman.mdc.net>, Etherman
<ethe...@mdc.net.nospam> writes
>
>recalled memories. There is some evidence that the memories are
>more error prone and some studies that indicate that the memories
>are more reliable. I've seen one study that indicated that the memories
>are error prone when it comes to small details, but are very reliable
>when it comes to major events. I would consider being abducted by
>"aliens" a major event and these memories are probably reliable, whereas
>remembering how many fingers the aliens had is a minor detail that
>probably would be unreliable.
>
entries, most with abstracts, on memories and hypnosis. I found no
study suggesting that remembrance major events is not subject to the
same pseudomemory problem, and I found one report on three different
studies which appeared to contradict it. [McCann T, 1988 Hypnotically
induced pseudomemories--sampling their conditions among hypnotizable
subjects. J Pers Soc Psychol 54(2), 339-346 (1988) ]
My medline database may not be as up-to-date as your source, though the
latest article in it is 1997 so it seems unlikely.
--
Sherilyn
'Droid
It is this basic problem with hypnosis and related techniques which have
led to the contraversy surrounding Recovered Memories.
'Droid
Ralph Moratz
Duane Laviniere <lav...@vnet.ibm.com> wrote in article
> PATTERN DETECTED: Religious people all seem to believe in an omnipotent
> god that can do, say, see anything he/she wants. This god was always
> said to work in "mysterious" ways, thus making it impossible to argue
> against it. I was raised Catholic, but dropped my faith like the bad
> habit it was. I just couldn't get my Theology teacher (a priest) to
> admit that god could not exist, despite arguing him into a corner.
> There was always an escape for him, "He is a mystery, never to be fully
> figured out." It seemed that the entire point of religion was to run
> around like an ass, trying to get as close to understanding a god that
> wasn't fully understandable. Alien abductees like to think of their
> abductors as masters of their element. They can make us see, do, know
> whatever they wanted. They could slip undetected through any sort of
> defense, and they don't ever leave a trace. They are a MYSTERY. Damn
> damn damn, god is grey and has big, googly eyes. This pattern just
> proves that people are easily delluded. In our constant search for
> meaning and acceptance, we create supernatural explanaitions and latch
> on to them as it gives us security in our everyday lives. Me, I am
> secure and I don't need no steenky god and no steenky aliens. I'm
> myself, and I always play with a full deck.
>
Well expressed...... Now we have a multitude of competing la la lands....
astrology, religion, UFO, big eyed 3 foot high aliens....
No doubt in my mind that there are uncounted living entities in the
uncountable
vastness of the universe. Do these Earth locked thinkers ever consider
the
ridiculessness of a space traveller with the limitations of physics, having
to
travel millions of years to reach this particular ordinary useless planet
and despite
having such marvelous futuristic technology failing a simple landing and
crashing in
one of the most unspectacular meaningless places on this planet? or after
a million
year space oddyssey, finally having reached this promised land, with his
super intelligence seeking to remain hidden, with of course occasional
slips that let a
selected few see them? Gee whiz folks... look in the mirror and watch for
the
ghosts behind you that you can only see in the reflection ... <G>
--
actor/extra and a little about New York and the Holocaust
http://www.geocities.com/hollywood/2282/
Proud member of Debunkers Of America
Charter member Skeptics Unanimous
The suppression of uncomfortable ideas
may be common in religion and politics,
but it is not the path to knowledge;
it has no place in the endeavor of science.
--Carl Sagan
cl...@columbia-center.org
(I replied to this post a couple days ago but DejaNews seems to be
sporadically failing to make newsposts now. Sorry if this is redundant.)
In article <nmerrit-2507...@172.18.72.175>,
nme...@futurenet.co.uk (Nick Merritt) wrote:
> In article <8698196...@dejanews.com>, cl...@columbia-center.org
wrote:
> > I immediately have to take offense at this characterization of chronic
> > fatigue syndrome, because I happen to suffer from the disease. I'm to
> > believe that this is an "imaginary illness"?
> A not too untypical reaction to Showalter's book from those she
> criticises, as I understand.
Indeed. We've been over this issue so goddam many times we're sick of it.
So when we see *yet another* idiot claiming that our medical problems,
which have (in most cases) ruined our lives, don't exist, *yet again*
without any evidence and in spite of many published studies on the
subject, well, it just doesn't make us too happy.
> [snip]
> > In short, she blew that one about as bad as
> > she could; I know about it, because I can't help but know about it.
> Perhaps so - she has a go at the Gulf War syndromers too. However as
yet,
> as far as I know (please correct me I'm wrong) there are no known
physical
> causes of chronic fatigue syndrome.
Exactly. We don't yet know the physical cause(s) of CFS. And we won't get
the work done to find out what the cause is if the people who make funding
decisions think along Showalter's lines. We already spent years with the
Center for Disease Control telling us that it was just the psychosomatic
symptoms of depression (despite the fact that they made "no psychiatric
disorder present" a necessary part of the diagnosis).
> > From the brief material on it in the first chapter, it is also evident
> > that she has no significant knowledge of the abduction experience.
> Why should personal experience of a phenomenon be *at all* necessary for
> an analysis of the phenomenon?
I didn't mean "personal experience"; I assume she'd get her knowledge from
books and journal articles.
This raises one of the more interesting aspects of the phenomenon. The
entity type is one of the *most variable* parts of the experience. (Some
researchers now apparently throw out any account with aliens other than
the standard Greys; this accounts for their predominance as much as
anything else.) It is the complex structure which remains consistent
through accounts, along with a lot of surprising little details that
correspond, that are really telling.
And in this respect, the influence of badfilm (yes, I'm a buff) is
obviously not a factor. The flicks simply do not have the typical
abduction structure. Martin Kottmeyer has easily found many chance
resemblances between some scene and some abduction account or other, but
in the huge mass of both they are not very striking.
> > Well, I hope that's clear. It's a complicated subject and deserves
much
> > more length. Please tell me: does Showalter show any awareness of
> > Bullard's study, which had appeared ten years before her own book?
> She makes many of the same points, so I suspect she has read Bullard
(but
> why don't you ask her yourself?).
She's supposed to give references so we don't need to ask things like
this.
> However, I am not basing my argument
> *purely* on Showalter's work. Certainly, her 'mass hsyteria' approach
> could well explain a majority of cases (I think it does),
If the evidence gets no better than her first chapter, and her treatment
of CFS, then I don't think it explains any of them.
> with the usual recovered memory ineptness a lot of the rest,
Bullard compared accounts retrieved under hypnosis with consciously
remembered accounts. There were no significant differences.
> and temporal lobe epilepsy sorting out the stragglers.
Some abductees (notably Whitley Strieber) have been tested for this. They
don't have it.
> It simply is not necessary to invoke the alien
> abduction hypothesis, nor does it seem particularly rational.
<snip>
> I have no alternative but to dismiss it all and take it all from the
> other angle.
Don't make the "skeptics'" fundamental confusion here. They think that if
it's not ET, then it's nothing at all. As Jacques Vallee said, that's like
saying the moon is either made of green cheese or it doesn't exist.
----------------------------------------
Dan Clore
mailto:cl...@columbia-center.org
The Website of Lord We˙rdgliffe
cl...@columbia-center.org
In article <7TbRFlAi...@sidaway.demon.co.uk>,
Sherilyn <Sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <01bc9957$33bd9c00$a5d6...@etherman.mdc.net>, Etherman
> <ethe...@mdc.net.nospam> writes
> >cl...@columbia-center.org wrote in article
<8698167...@dejanews.com>...
> >> The fear of unreliability under hypnosis is probably misplaced.
> >There have been many studies done on the reliability of hypnotically
> >recalled memories. There is some evidence that the memories are
> >more error prone and some studies that indicate that the memories
> >are more reliable. I've seen one study that indicated that the
memories
> >are error prone when it comes to small details, but are very reliable
> >when it comes to major events. I would consider being abducted by
> >"aliens" a major event and these memories are probably reliable,
whereas
> >remembering how many fingers the aliens had is a minor detail that
> >probably would be unreliable.
> Cites for this please. I just plowed through more than fifty medline
> entries, most with abstracts, on memories and hypnosis. I found no
> study suggesting that remembrance major events is not subject to the
> same pseudomemory problem, and I found one report on three different
> studies which appeared to contradict it. [McCann T, 1988 Hypnotically
> induced pseudomemories--sampling their conditions among hypnotizable
> subjects. J Pers Soc Psychol 54(2), 339-346 (1988) ]
Most of the sources that I have seen indicate that the reliability of
memory under hypnosis depends mostly on how emotionally important the
event is to the individual undergoing hypnosis. A crime victim, for
example, would probably be traumatized and will produce useful
information; a casual bystander with no emotional involvement will produce
useless confabulations. (These studies related to the usefulness of
hypnosis in police investigations and criminal trials.) The many studies
that are usually cited -- viewing paintings, listening to nonsense
syllables, and then trying to recall them under hypnosis -- are clearly
not emotionally significant enough for hypnosis to aid recall.
It's pretty clear which category the abduction experiences would fit into.
cl...@columbia-center.org
In article <33DA99...@sprynet.com>,
jle...@sprynet.com wrote:
> cl...@columbia-center.org wrote:
> > In article <33D7F3...@sprynet.com>,
> > jle...@sprynet.com wrote:
> > > cl...@columbia-center.org wrote:
> > > > nme...@futurenet.co.uk (Nick Merritt) wrote:
> > > > > In article <01bc96b0$bb1bc0e0$24d6...@etherman.mdc.net>,
"Etherman"
> > > > > <ethe...@mdc.net.nospam> wrote:
> > > > Indeed. I've read two studies that appeared in the Journal of UFO
> > Studies,
> > > > a peer-reviewed scientific journal. They did *not* find any
evidence
> > of
> > > > major psychological disorders that might account for the
experience.
> > They
> > > > did, however, find that while the experiencers were within the
normal
> > > > ranges on the tests, they tend to cluster at certain points within
the
> > > > normal ranges. This suggests that personality-type tests could be
> > > > conducted to see if the experiencers are more likely than the norm
to
> > > > belong to one type or another.
> > > Then there's even less of an excuse for them to come up with the
> > > far-fetched stories they do.
> > And just why would they need an "excuse" for reporting their own
> > experiences (whatever the actual reality behind them might be)?
> Because they are oriented to person, place, and time and are
> experiencing no psychological dysfunction, they know what's going on
> around them and to them (just like the "normal", healthy individual).
> Since there is no evidence to support their claims, one cannot help but
> to conclude what they are/were experiencing is false. The "excuse"
> would be some type of dysfunction. They obviously don't have this,
> therefore they don't have an excuse for their claims.
Okay, let me put this another way. Presumably you are oriented to person,
place, and time are experiencing no psychological dysfunction, and know
what's going on around you and to you. And yet you feel the need to have
others deny their own experience when you, for whatever reason (apparently
a lack of corroborative physical evidence) do not approve of it. What's
*your* excuse?
Many of the abductees freely admit that they do not know how "physically
real" the experience is. And yet they had it. But they somehow need an
excuse to report it?
> > The fear of unreliability under hypnosis is probably misplaced.
> Whether it is actual hypnosis or not, people by their very natures are
> highly suggestible (that's how advertising and impulse buying works).
Advertising works by bludgeoning the mind through repetition. There was
recently a news story that said that it's becoming less effective because
people have now learned to tune out such garbage.
> Also, through nonverbal clues and cues, people can "read" each other as
> well as plant subtle ideas into another's mind. It's hard to understand
> or believe this can happen, but it does, as cults and the McMartin day
> care mess some years back are proof of this.
I have a hard time seeing how this is the case where people did not need
hypnosis to remember their experiences; where the hypnotist was a
hard-line disbeliever in the experience; or where the hypnotist followed
the procedure of leading the witness *against* expectation.
> For any hypnosis session
> (if one would allow the validity of hypnosis) a strong effort should be
> made _not_ to plant ideas, even unsconciously -- without the
> hypnotizer's knowledge. Perhaps these people don't realize they are
> doing it.
And do you have any evidence that they are, as your statement presupposes?
> I feel that so easy is this tendency to even unconsciously
> plant ideas that hypnosis itself is highly suspect.
And the evidence just doesn't bear out your suspicions.
<snip>
> > Certainly, the evidence at hand is not sufficient to warrant support
for
> > the ETH, and there are many reasons to doubt it (see Vallee's work).
But
> > Bullard's studies have shown striking structural similarities between
> > accounts, that go much further than one would expect from simply
> > media-influence or hypnotists leading subjects or fantasy-proneness,
etc
> > etc etc. And yet the "skeptics", so far as I know, have done nothing
at
> > all to deal with this strong evidence that something weird is going
on.
> I will admit this: I don't think all abductees are necessarily "lying."
Well, I'm glad for that, given the minuscule evidence produced by
"skeptics" like Klass that *any* of them are lying.
> I think even a good number of them are experiencing what to them is a
> very real experience. By the same token, I don't agree with skeptics
> who say (unfotunately) that all abductees are either lying or imagining
> what they are experiencing. The abduction experience deserves more
> investigation, and the easy explanations don't exactly solve the
> puzzle. If it is psychological (which may be a very real possibility)
> it deserves more serious attention rather than ridicule.
Now I can agree with you. It seems, in all probability, to be some novel
phenomenon that interacts with the mind in some strange way, rather than
being a purely "objective" or "subjective" experience.
Wm James
:Wrong. Elizabeth Showalter's (sp?) book 'Hystories' argues convincingly
:that alien abduction can be classified with a whole range of similar
:'phenomena', satanic ritual abuse being one. Her hypothesis is that alien
:abduction is a symptom of a kind of mass hysteria, possibly millennial in
:origin. Other possible scientific explanations include temporal lobe
:epilepsy.
:
Cheap booze is a more likely explanation.
William R. James
:
Wm James
On 22 Jul 1997 00:46:38 GMT, ma...@ka.fol (Eagle) wrote:
:>Duane wrote;
:>...but I can't doubt that in the bazillions of stars of our
:>vast universe that at least one other planet contains intelligent life.
:
:I love it when people spin this line.
:Think about it - in a universe with "bazillions" of stars it is no more
:intelligent to say one or two must have life nearby than it is to say none
:have. In such a vast universe you either have to believe that life is in
:abundance or no where else at all.
:
Obviously, he meant 'at least one more'. Don't read more into it
than what he said.
Also, life could be rare. In which case intellegent life would
most likely be extremely rare.
Personally, I beleive that life in the universe is fairly common,
but intelligent life, though it exists, would be pretty hard to
find. There are too many freak occurences in the history of this
planey that lead to our evolution.
William R. James
Colin Dooley
Marc Michalik wrote:
>
> On Fri, 18 Jul 1997 09:55:26 -0400, Duane Laviniere
> <lav...@vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> >Fine, I take it upon myself to educate the masses. I will PROVE once
> >and for all, beyond a shadow of a doubt that aliens do not exist. (Get
> >ready for this) The absolute lack of any physical evidence whatsoever
> >is evidence enough to prove that aliens are a result of overactive
> >imaginations. (I can see the "believer" side getting defensive)
>
> Bzzzt! Wrong! Dr VernonClark is currently testing phyisical
> evidence, but you might not have heard about it since the Press
> Release Distrubutors haven't been handed a press release about it yet
> (so it isn't in the news). It is not yet proof, but it is (so far),
> evidence.
>
Evidence which has been proved to be wrong...
> Where are all the Leprecauns??? Where are the Unicorns? Where
> are all the simple and blantantly obvious "hoaxes" that would be
> popular if the world was filled with "Hoaxers" as the sceptical side
> of the debate has always claimed? "Hoaxers" are not common. They are
> not everywhere. If "hoaxers" are responsible for the majority of UFO
> strories, then where are all the non-UFO hoaxes? Why do hoaxers
> concentrate almost exclusively on UFOs? Why? They don't! For the
> most part, "hoaxers' do not exist.
>
Leprechauns and unicorns would not be believed by any sane person.
Crop circles and bigfoot fakes are common because they are believed
by some people and get media attention.
> >Going outside the realm of reality is all good for dreaming, but to have the
> >audacity to claim something outside of the law of Physics
>
> Nobody has claimed anything is outside the laws of physics, except
> you.
>
Claiming that people can fly between galaxies in "metal" (or should that
be silicon?) ships is probably outside the laws of physics.
>
> Earth finds yet another inhabited world. It's 2457 on Earth, and this
> new world we found isn't far behind where we were in 1960. On this
> world, there are many nation-states, but two of them lead vast
> alliances which oppose each other in something similar to our "Cold
> War". One of these "superpowers" is much more technologically
> advanced than the other, has the capability to project its power
> anywhere on the planet, and tends to dominate plantary politics. Now,
> of all the nation-states on this planet we just found, which is the
> most interesting too us???
>
...and the people they "abduct" for examination are always redneck
cattle farmers from Arizona or Texas. These are the same people
who (when surveyed) think that Fred Flintstone invented the
photocopier, that DNA stands for "do not adjust", and are incapable
of naming more than three planets of our solar system.
- maybe they had better do some more homework!
> >Oh yeah, about African sightings and claims, there have been tales
> >stretching as far back as to the days of the Egyptians and god alone
> >knows what the Bible (the world's largest fictional piece) said about
> >ufo sightings (pun intended). Insanity through the ages. Doesn't say
> >much for where the human race is headed.
>
As far as I know, most of these ancient sightings were not attributed
to visitors from other planets. This is a recent phenomenen - almost
exactly as recent as science fiction novels about visitors from
other planets!
--
<\___/>
/ O O \
\_____/ FTB.
Sherilyn
In article <8699987...@dejanews.com>, cl...@columbia-center.org
writes
>In article <7TbRFlAi...@sidaway.demon.co.uk>,
> Sherilyn <Sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> In article <01bc9957$33bd9c00$a5d6...@etherman.mdc.net>, Etherman
>> <ethe...@mdc.net.nospam> writes
>> >cl...@columbia-center.org wrote in article
><8698167...@dejanews.com>...
>
>
>> >recalled memories. There is some evidence that the memories are
>> >more error prone and some studies that indicate that the memories
>> >are more reliable. I've seen one study that indicated that the
>memories
>> >are error prone when it comes to small details, but are very reliable
>> >when it comes to major events.
>> Cites for this please. I just plowed through more than fifty medline
>> entries, most with abstracts, on memories and hypnosis. I found no
>> study suggesting that remembrance major events is not subject to the
>> same pseudomemory problem, and I found one report on three different
>> studies which appeared to contradict it. [McCann T, 1988
>> Hypnotically induced pseudomemories--sampling their conditions among
>> hypnotizable subjects. J Pers Soc Psychol 54(2), 339-346 (1988) ]
>
>Most of the sources that I have seen indicate that the reliability of
>memory under hypnosis depends mostly on how emotionally important the
>event is to the individual undergoing hypnosis.
Could you cite these sources, please? I'm sure you'll appreciate that
it's difficult to hold a discussion based on impressions gained from
unidentified sources. I'd not bring this up if my own extensive search
hadn't drawn a blank on the studies that you and Etherman claim exist.
...
>
>It's pretty clear which category the abduction experiences would fit into.
>
At first sight, I'd say that may depend on whether they are identified
by prior memory or fall into the category of "sudden remembrances".
Persinger MA, 1992
Neuropsychological profiles of adults who report "sudden
remembering" of early childhood memories: implications for
claims of sex abuse and alien visitation/abduction experiences.
Percept Mot Skills 75(1), 259-266 (1992)
By and large, the only positive assessments of hypnosis I could find
were in production of abreaction following trauma, and other therapeutic
contexts. I'd be interested to know what I am missing.
--
Sherilyn
Sherilyn
In article <33E02B...@medit3d.com>, Colin Dooley <co...@medit3d.com>
writes
>Marc Michalik wrote:
>>
...
> Dr VernonClark is currently testing phyisical
>> evidence, but you might not have heard about it since the Press
>> Release Distrubutors haven't been handed a press release about it yet
>> (so it isn't in the news). It is not yet proof, but it is (so far),
>> evidence.
>
>Evidence which has been proved to be wrong...
Evidence could yet materialize from this, but the data presented does
not support the claims made by Doctor VernonClark according to public
posts in sci.chem made by Professor Toreki of the University of Kentucky
and Doctor Rebecca M Chamberlin of Los Alamos National Laboratory.
--
Sherilyn
Lou Minatti
Oh, shit! That stupid discredited "alien autopsy" show hosted by
Jonathan Frakkes is on Fox again tonight. It must be sweeps week. Run!
--
Have you seen this guitar? Reward offered.
http://www.concentric.net/~slaroche/STOLEN.HTM
(By sending me unsolicited commercial email, you agree to the Terms and
Conditions as listed here: http://www.concentric.net/~Slaroche/SPAM.HTM)
Mark Shippey
Lou Minatti (slar...@concentric.net) wrote:
: Oh, shit! That stupid discredited "alien autopsy" show hosted by
: Jonathan Frakkes is on Fox again tonight. It must be sweeps week. Run!
I think the people who faked this film should be given some kind of
award for producing "The Funniest Piece Of UFOlogical Evidence". We
might even have a subcategroy for the piece of "evidence" that made
the biggest number of fools out of the largest number of people.
Obviously we would have some close runnerups for Numero Uno.
: --
Lou Minatti
Mark Shippey wrote:
>
> Lou Minatti (slar...@concentric.net) wrote:
> : Oh, shit! That stupid discredited "alien autopsy" show hosted by
> : Jonathan Frakkes is on Fox again tonight. It must be sweeps week. Run!
>
> I think the people who faked this film should be given some kind of
> award for producing "The Funniest Piece Of UFOlogical Evidence". We
> might even have a subcategroy for the piece of "evidence" that made
> the biggest number of fools out of the largest number of people.
> Obviously we would have some close runnerups for Numero Uno.
I enjoyed the way Frakkes dramatically intoned, "You may be looking at
the best evidence yet of extraterrestrial visitors on planet Earth." Fox
should stick with QUALITY programs like "King Of The Hill." <g>
Lou Minatti
Edward Flaherty wrote:
>
> kpri...@dfw.dfw.net (Mark Shippey) writes:
> > Lou Minatti (slar...@concentric.net) wrote:
> > : Oh, shit! That stupid discredited "alien autopsy" show hosted by
> > : Jonathan Frakkes is on Fox again tonight. It must be sweeps week. Run!
> >
> > I think the people who faked this film should be given some kind of
> > award for producing "The Funniest Piece Of UFOlogical Evidence". We
> > might even have a subcategroy for the piece of "evidence" that made
> > the biggest number of fools out of the largest number of people.
> > Obviously we would have some close runnerups for Numero Uno.
>
> brought to us by the same producers as the alien autopsy
> flick. Given the producers, it's safe to dismiss it without
> even seeing it.
I'm ashamed to admit this, but I plan on watching it. <g>