It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Space aliens walk among us? Indeed, claims retired Temple prof

page: 6
31
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 24 2014 @ 03:29 PM
link   
Back to the subject of the thread, the possibility of Aliens among Us.

If hybrids are being created, or human looking aliens are visiting, it would make perfect sense for them to attempt to blend in, either during very short term excursions or as part of a long term assignment.

First, how likely is it that a human looking alien could get away with blending in?

A primary consideration is how well can they physically blend in? How human do they have to appear to get away with such an infiltration?

I think that depends a lot on the length of the incursion and it's goals/motivation. Human physical appearance can be applied to a bell curve. There is a point at either end of that curve where ones appearance is no longer considered pleasing or even neutral and it becomes, to most, repulsive. There are some extremes in our population, either through accident of birth, physical accident, disease, injury or self mutilation, that are way outside the norm. We may look on those people with negative emotions or pity and some may even joke or wonder if they might not be something other than human, but in the end, people don't make the leap to conclude they are actually non-human.

For short excursions, I think that a fairly wide range of humanoid Aliens could pass, even if they needed to obscure their looks in some way just to decrease the level of scrutiny.

Taking the descriptions of Alien-Human hybrids from Jacobs and other sources, I think even some of the "early generation" hybrids could pass for short periods. A single encounter with suspicious humans wouldn't be a danger, but repeated exposures might raise some flags. Later generations, even if not looking "perfectly human" could probably pass for extended periods of time, assuming their mission is something akin to an anthropological study of mankind. Features outside the norm can be dismissed as extremes of normal human deviation, birth defects or the result of illness/injury.

If the goal were infiltration in order to influence our society, either to try to nudge us towards higher order thinking and a more evolved, peaceful society, or to actuate an actually take over of the human halls of power, they would probably have to not only blend in pretty well, but have an appearance that is considered attractive or a manner that is considered charismatic.

Of course, the way power tends to congregate around money in human society, if the aliens could produce wealth, for themselves or others, or offer technology in exchange for money/power, they could probably be very inhuman and "work from the shadows", with their money excusing completely their unwillingness to interact with humans face to face.

Could aliens infiltrate and influence human society? I would say the answer is a clear yes, with the chances of getting caught depending on the mode of infiltration, how well they can blend into the fairly broad bell curve of human appearance, the types of interaction and the motives for their infiltration/interaction.

I think we are more willing to accept and dismiss extremes in appearance and behaviour as "human oddities" than many realize and even if someone catches our interest, like the potential visitors the OP and others have discussed, few, if any, would allow themselves to actually treat such encounters as if they were dealing with an actual alien infiltrator on our planet.

Fortunately, most current human societies are beyond the "torches and pitchforks" phase of dealing with people on the edges of the bell curve of human appearance. We aren't free of discrimination or revulsion, but our greater tolerance and understanding also makes for an environment more conducive for alien infiltration.




posted on Jul, 24 2014 @ 03:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: olaru12
a reply to: Totemic

THANKS and welcome to ATS. Let me apologize beforehand for the insults and attacks you are bound to encounter
here! It's just the nature of the beast.

Mores the pity that most don't read the thread before posting?


Thanks Olaru.



posted on Jul, 24 2014 @ 03:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Totemic

The wider issues around Jacobs aren't particularly about ad-homs or even a belief, or otherwise, in the veracity of abduction accounts. In recent years, his use of hypnotic regression came under the spotlight and the conclusions he's drawn and perpetuated became clouded with doubt.

Mack and Sprinkle used regression hypnosis with their clients and came to believe that an alien intelligence was interacting with some humans to improve the overall, spiritual aspects of human society at large. Jacobs and Hopkins used hypnotic regression and came to believe that we're being mixed out of the gene pool on our own planet. They saw these 'greys' as clinical doctors on a mission to, essentially, take over.

The narratives they offered differed so much that they can't all be right without invoking special pleading. Consensus doesn't exist without confirmation bias.

Aside from the ideological differences their respective 'aliens' represented, Jacobs also lost his way and fell into procedures that were unethical. His education didn't qualify him to diagnose clients with psychological conditions and yet he felt it was appropriate to do so.

He went from amateur hypnosis to telephone hypnosis and recommending actions for his clients that were more likely to disturb the individuals than ever help them.

There's a significant difference between being a 'Jacobs denier' and a denier of 'abduction phenomena.'



posted on Jul, 24 2014 @ 04:09 PM
link   
a reply to: olaru12
Didn't understand paying...hmmm...

I've been thinking about how money plays a part in so much misery for humans. IMO, a truly advanced society wouldn't have much use for the concept. They would have developed a means for all to have exactly what they need or a bit more and there wouldn't be a need for class division. Division is what causes greed and envy, war and strife. A peaceful, technologically advanced and well managed society wouldn't need a lower class for labor or to make themselves feel better. They would be more enlightened than to to think all those human base desires of lust for power, greed, envy were anything more than crude animal instincts. The chant "survival of the fittest" that people use to justify their actions just wouldn't apply anymore.

There could be enough to go around so all benefit - even at this crude point - but what has happened is millennia of extremely poor management.



posted on Jul, 24 2014 @ 04:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Kandinsky


Mack and Sprinkle used regression hypnosis with their clients and came to believe that an alien intelligence was interacting with some humans to improve the overall, spiritual aspects of human society at large


They also came to different conclusions regarding the physical nature of abductions. Mack came to believe in a less physical aspect of the phenomenon while Jacobs believes or promotes a purely physical aspect. Jacobs even bashes Macks conclusions. I have to dig that quote up.

Anyway, hypnosis and abductions are probably a bad mix.

Now, do they walk among us? I honestly believe that if they ARE here, we would be better off paying closer attention to the folks on the ground rather than lights in the sky.



posted on Jul, 24 2014 @ 05:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Kandinsky

What I personally know provides my starting point on these subjects. The rest of it I take with a grain or mound of salt. Ad hominem attacks on particular researchers are always a red flag, but they don't inform my judgement. Even if someone feels they have enough going against a researcher to "justify" ad hominem attacks and absolute judgements, the attacks themselves or the absolute judgements behind them are not useful, IMO.

When one get's past the question of "are they here", the next step is "who is here", "why are they here", "what actions do they take when they are here", "what are their motives". These are all questions worth asking, even if the questions can only produce theories or incomplete answers due to the mixed bag of credibility applied to the data we have to work with.

Jacobs' data may never pass scientific scrutiny, but to call B.S. on all his data because someone decides he's a loon or what ever label of dismissal people want to attach to him is to discount the experiences of every abductee he ever worked with. Unless someone wants to make an accusation that his entire body of work is made up and provide proof to that effect, his data, even if flawed, is worth some consideration.

I think on all these subjects, honest thought experiments are more useful than knee-jerk rejections coupled with a "scorched earth" approach of attacks on people someone doesn't agree with.

Once when one concludes they are here, or just becomes open to the possibility they are here, absolutist arguments ring completely hollow. That doesn't mean we don't need a high degree of discernment from that point on. Knowing or believing something is true that debunkers, deniers and skeptics insist can't be true doesn't make everything of controversy true. However, it does make clear that the point of view of the absolutists has little value for those studying the field with an open mind. They have as little ability for discernment as the person who believes every conspiracy theory under the sun and every thing they read on the internet that fits their belief system and world view.

I think too many people think that finding any flaw in someone's science or methodology 100% invalidates everything they say, every thought they express, every word they utter and every bit of data they have collected. It may limit the usefulness of the science, or require an analysis of the data to see what scientific use may be salvaged from it, but it doesn't mean that the events the data was meant to record or measure never occured.



edit on 24-7-2014 by Totemic because: Spelling/grammar



posted on Jul, 24 2014 @ 05:26 PM
link   
They were old, that kind of people is stupid, nothing strange. I believe on Aliens/UFO but this one doenst sound as a third encounter



posted on Jul, 24 2014 @ 05:35 PM
link   
a reply to: MysterX

Oldest trick on earth



posted on Jul, 24 2014 @ 08:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Totemic

As far as I know, we do not have access to Jacobs' research. What we have is his word of what he did. We cannot scrutinize his methodologies for any of his research subjects except for one. If we take what this one person exposed in the form of audio recordings, beyond the obvious blatant abuse of this individual, his methodologies were extremely poor. If you listen to the audio recordings, he blatantly leads his subject into his own "view". In the end, there is no doubt that what we have comes entirely from Jacobs.

If this was a case involving a licensed therapist, psychologist or other professional, I guarantee that they would lose their license to practice, their jobs and their professional credibility. Jacobs, however, did this under his own direction and answered to no formal committee. He even went as far as representing himself as doing his research under Temples name. Temple has no association with his research whatsoever.

Before I was a Jacobs hater, I was truly interested in this phenomenon and really wanted to learn more about his research. That led me down this road of being highly critical of using such techniques on people. There is nothing preventing anyone from doing this type of research. Anyone can pose themselves as a "researcher" and use the methods that Jacobs used without any training whatsoever.
edit on 24-7-2014 by ZetaRediculian because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 24 2014 @ 10:14 PM
link   
i think we should abduct one of them and probe them. see how they like it. they don't like it up 'em!



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 10:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: Specimen
Did they touch you in anyway, like the Holy spirit touched Mary?


Actually I think it was a reptile who "touched" Eve alone in the garden.
These two mated, hence the heavy condemnation and curse on Eve. Her firstborn, Cain was the son of "the evil one", or an off planet reptile, probably a Dracon or Drago, in any event Cain proved to be a murderer who built a city.

This would explain why so many humans are of the kind, compassionate, animal loving variety. They are seemingly from here. Social creatures with an interest in others and preserving the home planet. And others are anti-social and psychotic, and at best callous and unfeeling, at worst, bloodthirsty and murderous. These types care nothing if they destroy the wildlife, the planet and whole swaths of populations on it. The war mongers. I've always wondered where in heck these people were from. I know they are not from here or they would LOVE IT more. Didn't feel like they were the same as me, not even the same species. At the time you say to yourself, "don't be silly, of course they are human" but maybe not. I am going to start paying closer attention. Like Ann Coulter and John Sutter, that CNN reporter who suggests we eat dog, alien for sure.

CNN ran an opinion article by John Sutter this morning with the provocative title "The argument for eating dog." (link)







edit on 25-7-2014 by Loveaduck because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 10:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: taoistguy
i think we should abduct one of them and probe them. see how they like it. they don't like it up 'em!



School starts soon right?



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 01:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: taoistguy
i think we should abduct one of them and probe them. see how they like it. they don't like it up 'em!



School starts soon right?


what school?



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 02:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Totemic

I suspect there isn't enough information relating to abduction phenomena (AP) for anyone to form sturdy conclusions - that applies to all sides of the discussion, in my opinion.

It's a very grey topic with clamouring sides and interests claiming to have answers. Within the field of committed believers in an ET explanation, there's a disparity of belief. Are they evil doctors, MKULTRA actors, MILAB instigators, spiritual leaders or custodians? Are their interests our interests? There's little consensus.

Jacobs' research has been found wanting on enough levels that reserving judgement is possibly the kindest option. Likewise Hopkins has strayed from the path of reasonable practice. I mention the pair as they represent the high-water mark of abduction research for those who believe the 'visitors' are essentially hostile. Their conclusions have arisen from study that was gamed and prejudiced. For example, when faced with an abductee who had a positive experience, they'd disregard the accounts as 'screen memories.' The level of confirmation bias actually demanded that the only 'true' accounts were those that conformed to their own beliefs.

Essentially, they acted like a market research company standing outside a pet store and surveying how many people owned pets. The results would show a lot more pet owners than the state/town/country average.

I don't mean this next comment as a criticism or an ad-hom on you - it's an observation. Your support of Jacobs implies that you subscribe to his conclusions or choose to validate his work as it validates your experience of what is known as AP. Is that about right? If so, the validation you have found may well benefit from reappraisal. It's possible you have become entwined in confirmation bias and that your support of Jacobs is, psychologically, an argument to authority.

Why did Sprinkle and Mack attract spiritual abductees and Hopkins and Jacobs get the negative abductees? There's a strong human nature factor in there.

All that aside, I have my own beliefs and fall victim to my own confirmation biases. The AP hasn't been satisfactorily explained and there are more questions than answers. Mack, Velez, Bueche and Appelle have informed some of my thoughts as well as experience. The best I can say is that I've suspended judgement until something changes.



posted on Jul, 26 2014 @ 03:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kandinsky
a reply to: Totemic


I don't mean this next comment as a criticism or an ad-hom on you - it's an observation. Your support of Jacobs implies that you subscribe to his conclusions or choose to validate his work as it validates your experience of what is known as AP. Is that about right? If so, the validation you have found may well benefit from reappraisal. It's possible you have become entwined in confirmation bias and that your support of Jacobs is, psychologically, an argument to authority.

Why did Sprinkle and Mack attract spiritual abductees and Hopkins and Jacobs get the negative abductees? There's a strong human nature factor in there.

All that aside, I have my own beliefs and fall victim to my own confirmation biases. The AP hasn't been satisfactorily explained and there are more questions than answers. Mack, Velez, Bueche and Appelle have informed some of my thoughts as well as experience. The best I can say is that I've suspended judgement until something changes.


Actually, no, I don't share Jacobs' conclusions. I don't have any firm conclusions about friendly/hostile/detached. I suspect it varies by species. I think I have to admit to a modest bias away from hostile. It sounds like we are actually coming from fairly common ground, though my thoughts are also informed by some limited but compelling personal experiences.

I think we can learn a lot more via mature discussion, absent of personal attacks and derogatorily dismissive absolutist judgements. I know it's cliche, but too many do throw the baby out with the bathwater and too often, with out realizing it, it's a bit of their own credibility that goes out with the baby. Someone might have valid reasons for feeling very negatively towards a particular person, but if those reasons can't just be discussed with as much objectivity as possible, sans vitriol and absolutism, it's hard for those approaching a subject with an open mind to see them as having anything useful to add to the subject.

Ad hominem attacks may play to the "home team" and make the attacker feel good, but they do nothing for open minded discussion and actually offer little or nothing as far as gaining supporting the person's point of view. In fact, it usually just shuts non-partisans completely off to what ever that person might have to say, even if they might have something valid to offer.

I think "fringe" subjects really need polite, open discussion to go anywhere. Debate might be of academic interest to those who enjoy hammering their point of view against those who are equally as committed to the opposite. When the sides are able to completely avoid ad hominem attacks and speaking in absolutes, debate can even sometimes be useful for those some where in the middle. However, how often do we manage debates like that anywhere when it comes to subjects like UFOs and the paranormal?

I personally think that if people are willing to at least occasionally step back from their beliefs and as objectively as possible approach some questions or subjects as a thought experiment, where, for the sake of the experiment certain assumptions are allowed, we can have much more positive interactions. Often, what comes out of it can be useful to many of the participants, no matter their personal bias, and may even allow them to approach the subject with a little more open mindedness, or at least more tolerance for the views of others.



posted on Jul, 26 2014 @ 03:22 AM
link   
a reply to: Totemic

I'm unable to disagree with anything you've said apart from 'species'. My thoughts haven't got that far.




However, how often do we manage debates like that anywhere when it comes to subjects like UFOs and the paranormal?


Rarely.
edit on 26-7-2014 by Kandinsky because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 26 2014 @ 08:39 AM
link   
a reply to: Totemic

Ad hominem attacks may play to the "home team" and make the attacker feel good, but they do nothing for open minded discussion and actually offer little or nothing as far as gaining supporting the person's point of view. In fact, it usually just shuts non-partisans completely off to what ever that person might have to say, even if they might have something valid to offer.

I think you are mistaking comments made about Jacobs as "attacks by team debunker". In fact, it is quite the opposite. The issues I have concerning Jacobs really have nothing to do with my personal views on the abduction phenomenon or related topics. Believe it or not, I am actually defending someone, not unlike yourself, who has had their own personal experiences and believes those experiences to be something "alien". We all have personal experiences and I am a strong advocate for people being able to explore their own experiences as they wish. There is quite a bit of evidence that exposes Jacobs as the very opposite of an "astute researcher". I can only surmise that the people that defend his work are completely unaware of this.



posted on Jul, 26 2014 @ 10:46 AM
link   
Here is a you tube video by Emma Woods.



Here is her You Tube channel
www.youtube.com...

Here is her website
ufoalienabductee.com...

Go Team Emma!



posted on Jul, 28 2014 @ 06:59 PM
link   
a reply to: ZetaRediculian

After reading up on Jacobs vs. Emma and listening to some of the tapes, my impression is they both have serious issues and it's a conflict I would never want to step in the middle of.

Stepping back a bit, I will say that the situation does raise concerns about how research centered around abductees should occur, but I do not buy into most of the conclusions on that subject adopted by the anti-Jacaobs people.

Unless a researcher is a therapist and the primary goal of their interactions with abductees is to help them deal psychologically with their experiences, then abductee research and mental health services should be completely separated from each other.

A researcher should not become involved in the personal lives of their subjects. They shouldn't be talking to their subjects about their own lives, their personal beliefs on the subject, or providing detailed accounts of their interactions with other subjects, beyond a rare and occasional anecdote that may help the subject find comfort in the knowledge that they are not the only ones with these experiences.

A researcher needs to maintain as much objectivity as possible in their approach to the subject, but even if they have made some conclusions that bias their take on the phenomena, they must at all times represent to their subjects a stance of objectivity.

I do have questions about the validity of certain forms of hypnosis. I don't see simple, light forms of hypnosis meant to relax the subject and allow them to more easily relate things that are difficult or embarrassing experiences to be particularly concerning. I think it would always be a requirement that the researcher receive formal training from reputable hypnotists, unrelated to UFO/abduction research, in what ever techniques they wish to use. However, I don't think that one needs to be a licensed therapist or professional hypnotist to work with abductees using techniques they are properly trained in.

Since these events can be traumatic and it's logical to believe that reviving memories of such things might be disturbing, I think that that possibility needs to be clearly detailed to the subject and they should be encouraged, if not absolutely required, to see a therapist who is not a researcher to deal with the psychological aspects of discovery. I think there also needs to be a clear understanding that if the researcher has real concerns about the metal health of the subject, as a result of memories recovered, or experiences discussed, that they should do no further research with that subject.

The subject should always be provided with an audio/video recording of every session, with the understanding that while the researcher can use it in their research and reference it with out revealing the identity of the subject, sans out permission, that the video/audio are the property of the subject and they may disseminate it as they see fit.

Some may think that last bit would be overly burdensome to the researcher and open them up to hoaxers looking for material with which to discredit them. However, as long as the relationship between the researcher and the subject remains entirely professional; the researcher maintains at least the air of objectivity, showing care not to taint or lead the subject by injecting their beliefs or expectations; and, at all times, sticks to hypnotic or interview protocols that are above reproach; shifting control over the recordings of each session to the subject would greatly help to alleviate the risk of "abuse" of a subject by a researcher.

Back to Jacobs, he clearly crossed a number of lines in the way he conducted himself with at least two subjects, Emma and Elizabeth. His techniques were sloppy, he abandoned any sense of professionalism and interacted with them as compatriots, confidants, commiserators and, dare I say, friends.

This doesn't invalidate the experiences of his subjects or even invalidate the entire body of his research. He definitely lost his objectivity at some point along the way and hopped right on down the rabbit hole, at which point his research from that point on is likely useless. I don't think things started out that way, but rather when he tossed away his objectivity for the belief that not only are abduction experiences real, but malevolent, he himself was not equipped emotionally for dealing with his new-found and very disturbing sense of reality.



posted on Jul, 29 2014 @ 12:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: Totemic
a reply to: ZetaRediculian

After reading up on Jacobs vs. Emma and listening to some of the tapes, my impression is they both have serious issues and it's a conflict I would never want to step in the middle of.
Maybe.




Stepping back a bit, I will say that the situation does raise concerns about how research centered around abductees should occur, but I do not buy into most of the conclusions on that subject adopted by the anti-Jacaobs people.


I think the conclusion is that there should be concerns about this type of research. Namely unqualified people doing research like this with no checks and balances.


Unless a researcher is a therapist and the primary goal of their interactions with abductees is to help them deal psychologically with their experiences, then abductee research and mental health services should be completely separated from each other.
True but I think the part you are missing is that there is still a Doctor patient relationship. Participants in actual studies should not expect behavior like this from the person conducting the study. If there were a breach of conduct, there would be someone to report it to.




I do have questions about the validity of certain forms of hypnosis. I don't see simple, light forms of hypnosis meant to relax the subject and allow them to more easily relate things that are difficult or embarrassing experiences to be particularly concerning. I think it would always be a requirement that the researcher receive formal training from reputable hypnotists, unrelated to UFO/abduction research, in what ever techniques they wish to use. However, I don't think that one needs to be a licensed therapist or professional hypnotist to work with abductees using techniques they are properly trained in.

What has come to light in recent years is that hypnosis is not really good at helping people remember things. Its good for other things like helping people stop smoking. I believe what you end up with in these cases is a false memory.


Since these events can be traumatic and it's logical to believe that reviving memories of such things might be disturbing, I think that that possibility needs to be clearly detailed to the subject and they should be encouraged, if not absolutely required, to see a therapist who is not a researcher to deal with the psychological aspects of discovery. I think there also needs to be a clear understanding that if the researcher has real concerns about the metal health of the subject, as a result of memories recovered, or experiences discussed, that they should do no further research with that subject.


I don't think memories can be recovered like this. There really is very little difference between a false memory and a real memory. Unless there is some way to verify the "recovered" memory, it could very well be a false memory.


The subject should always be provided with an audio/video recording of every session, with the understanding that while the researcher can use it in their research and reference it with out revealing the identity of the subject, sans out permission, that the video/audio are the property of the subject and they may disseminate it as they see fit.

Some may think that last bit would be overly burdensome to the researcher and open them up to hoaxers looking for material with which to discredit them. However, as long as the relationship between the researcher and the subject remains entirely professional; the researcher maintains at least the air of objectivity, showing care not to taint or lead the subject by injecting their beliefs or expectations; and, at all times, sticks to hypnotic or interview protocols that are above reproach; shifting control over the recordings of each session to the subject would greatly help to alleviate the risk of "abuse" of a subject by a researcher.

agreed.



Back to Jacobs, he clearly crossed a number of lines in the way he conducted himself with at least two subjects, Emma and Elizabeth. His techniques were sloppy, he abandoned any sense of professionalism and interacted with them as compatriots, confidants, commiserators and, dare I say, friends.

I would say more like a cult leader...but that's just me.




This doesn't invalidate the experiences of his subjects or even invalidate the entire body of his research.


The only thing that would invalidate the experiences of the subjects would be to have their real memories and experiences tampered with and manipulated. I really believe that is what has happened here. And there really is no way to validate this type of research.

Again, this is not me trying to invalidate what people experience, but I think the use of hypnosis to recover memories is not a valid research tool. This has nothing to do with believing or not believing, there is just nothing to support that it works in any way, shape or form.
edit on 29-7-2014 by ZetaRediculian because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
31
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join