Is there an organized effort to undermine the Aliens and UFOs forum?

originally posted by: EnPassant

originally posted by: Tangerine
No, we don't need to believe in ETs and disbelieve at the same time.

Yes, in a manner of speaking you do or you will never understand. This advice is quite general; in any sensible discussion it is necessary to enter into the other's frame of mind as completely as possible. If you can't do this you will not be able to hold a proper discussion.

I'm fully capable of discussing just about anything and it does not require a suspension of critical reasoning. You are asking me to take as fact your beliefs. That I will not do.

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: EnPassant

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: EnPassant

Hopkins and Jacobs

[Hopkins and Jacobs] Have absolutely zero credibility.

You seem to think that a discussion is about typing one-liners and hitting the Reply button. Why do they have no credibility? Is it something you read on the internet? Have you researched the opposing view? Have you read their defense? 'Absolutely' is a very big word.

That's where you're mistaken. Zeta does have credibility.

Are you saying that I said Zeta has no credibility? If you are you should read my post carefully.

originally posted by: EnPassant

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
Carol Rainey Videos on Bud Hopkins

Carol Rainey had a bitter split with Hopkins. She was out to get him. Her testimony is merely spiteful vengeance.

jayvay.wordpress.com...

As I write this, two whistle blowers are being stalked and harassed over the internet by zealous fans of David Jacobs and Budd Hopkins. They are both women, so naturally they are called hysterical and crazy by sexist pigs who would rather not see their heroes’ reputations tarnished by some anonymous bitch and a vengeful ex wife.

I guess we just need to forget all of the clear, well-presented and damning evidence that the anonymous woman was ever mentally abused and used for a book project and as a pawn in a delusional fantasy by David Jacobs and the fact that his entire –ENTIRE–defense is that she’s crazy because she used to believe the evil alien-hybrid fiction he was prepping her with under hypnosis and now she doesn’t? Overlook all that, do we? And continue to heap abuse after abuse on this woman who has kept her rational calm for years against the raving lunatics who would sooner see her die than help her?

Because why? Because they read his books and liked them? Saw him speak and thought he was a charming professor? You choose liking books about aliens over helping a fellow human being bring the author to some kind of justice? She can’t afford to seek justice through a court. How about excising Jacobs from the “community”? That would do. Never give him another speaking engagement or media platform to speak. That would do. But no. No, he’s the victim because you like his books.

Meanwhile, the other woman hears this woman’s story and actually does want to do the human thing. She wants to make sure this never happens again. So she speaks her truth–backed up with similarly well-presented facts–that her ex husband, the late Budd Hopkins, willingly allowed himself to be taken for a ride by hoaxers and did some pretty awful research, more-so than he ever admitted. And what does she get for her efforts? What does she get for doing the right thing in ufology and exposing the terrible science that effectively came to define abduction research and changed the lives of the subjects involved in his work? She gets censored and harassed and has sexist insults slung at her. For years. By adults.

Oh, she’s the angry ex. Oh, she’s crazy. Oh, this is a woman scorned getting revenge for… we don’t know because we aren’t in their lives, we just like his books and assume she’s out to get him because that’s what we’re told to think by his friends. So let’s try to get her videos banned from youtube and her web presence shut down. Let’s ignore all of the factual evidence presented and make this about personalities. Let’s erase reality.

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: EnPassant

originally posted by: Tangerine
No, we don't need to believe in ETs and disbelieve at the same time.

Yes, in a manner of speaking you do or you will never understand. This advice is quite general; in any sensible discussion it is necessary to enter into the other's frame of mind as completely as possible. If you can't do this you will not be able to hold a proper discussion.

I'm fully capable of discussing just about anything and it does not require a suspension of critical reasoning. You are asking me to take as fact your beliefs. That I will not do.

No. I am saying that you need to enter into the mind set AS IF you believe the other's point of view. You need to see thro. the other person's eyes to see their point of view.

originally posted by: EnPassant

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: EnPassant

originally posted by: Tangerine
No, we don't need to believe in ETs and disbelieve at the same time.

Yes, in a manner of speaking you do or you will never understand. This advice is quite general; in any sensible discussion it is necessary to enter into the other's frame of mind as completely as possible. If you can't do this you will not be able to hold a proper discussion.

I'm fully capable of discussing just about anything and it does not require a suspension of critical reasoning. You are asking me to take as fact your beliefs. That I will not do.

No. I am saying that you need to enter into the mind set AS IF you believe the other's point of view. You need to see thro. the other person's eyes to see their point of view.

I did that years ago regarding ET. Like religion, no proof was forthcoming.

originally posted by: EnPassant

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: EnPassant

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: EnPassant

Hopkins and Jacobs

[Hopkins and Jacobs] Have absolutely zero credibility.

You seem to think that a discussion is about typing one-liners and hitting the Reply button. Why do they have no credibility? Is it something you read on the internet? Have you researched the opposing view? Have you read their defense? 'Absolutely' is a very big word.

That's where you're mistaken. Zeta does have credibility.

Are you saying that I said Zeta has no credibility? If you are you should read my post carefully.

And you are saying that I have absolutely no credibility whatsoever?

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian

originally posted by: EnPassant

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
Carol Rainey Videos on Bud Hopkins

Carol Rainey had a bitter split with Hopkins. She was out to get him. Her testimony is merely spiteful vengeance.

jayvay.wordpress.com...

As I write this, two whistle blowers are being stalked and harassed over the internet by zealous fans of David Jacobs and Budd Hopkins. They are both women, so naturally they are called hysterical and crazy by sexist pigs who would rather not see their heroes’ reputations tarnished by some anonymous bitch and a vengeful ex wife.

I guess we just need to forget all of the clear, well-presented and damning evidence that the anonymous woman was ever mentally abused and used for a book project and as a pawn in a delusional fantasy by David Jacobs and the fact that his entire –ENTIRE–defense is that she’s crazy because she used to believe the evil alien-hybrid fiction he was prepping her with under hypnosis and now she doesn’t? Overlook all that, do we? And continue to heap abuse after abuse on this woman who has kept her rational calm for years against the raving lunatics who would sooner see her die than help her?

Because why? Because they read his books and liked them? Saw him speak and thought he was a charming professor? You choose liking books about aliens over helping a fellow human being bring the author to some kind of justice? She can’t afford to seek justice through a court. How about excising Jacobs from the “community”? That would do. Never give him another speaking engagement or media platform to speak. That would do. But no. No, he’s the victim because you like his books.

Meanwhile, the other woman hears this woman’s story and actually does want to do the human thing. She wants to make sure this never happens again. So she speaks her truth–backed up with similarly well-presented facts–that her ex husband, the late Budd Hopkins, willingly allowed himself to be taken for a ride by hoaxers and did some pretty awful research, more-so than he ever admitted. And what does she get for her efforts? What does she get for doing the right thing in ufology and exposing the terrible science that effectively came to define abduction research and changed the lives of the subjects involved in his work? She gets censored and harassed and has sexist insults slung at her. For years. By adults.

Oh, she’s the angry ex. Oh, she’s crazy. Oh, this is a woman scorned getting revenge for… we don’t know because we aren’t in their lives, we just like his books and assume she’s out to get him because that’s what we’re told to think by his friends. So let’s try to get her videos banned from youtube and her web presence shut down. Let’s ignore all of the factual evidence presented and make this about personalities. Let’s erase reality.

So JayVay wrote some stuff on his blog. Am I meant to be impressed? Am I to hold up my hands and beg forgiveness? Who is JayVay? He is just another writer. Does he have the final word on ufology? Have I finally reached the end of my search? I don't victimize Carol Rainey but I can see she is bitter.

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian

originally posted by: EnPassant

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: EnPassant

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: EnPassant

Hopkins and Jacobs

[Hopkins and Jacobs] Have absolutely zero credibility.

You seem to think that a discussion is about typing one-liners and hitting the Reply button. Why do they have no credibility? Is it something you read on the internet? Have you researched the opposing view? Have you read their defense? 'Absolutely' is a very big word.

That's where you're mistaken. Zeta does have credibility.

Are you saying that I said Zeta has no credibility? If you are you should read my post carefully.

And you are saying that I have absolutely no credibility whatsoever?

No. I am saying that words seem to be getting put in my mouth.

a reply to: Mehmet666Heineken

I'm going to edit myself on this one. But don't call me any more names.

a reply to: EnPassant

So JayVay wrote some stuff on his blog. Am I meant to be impressed?

got to be honest, you don't seem to as informed as you seem to think.

Am I to hold up my hands and beg forgiveness?

You can start by looking at what is presented objectively.

Who is JayVay?

Who are you?

Have I finally reached the end of my search?

If you haven't seen these names pop up on your googling, you aren't doing much searching.

I don't victimize Carol Rainey but I can see she is bitter.

How? Were you involved with the divorce? Or is this how you rationalize Hopkins "research"? And then, what difference does it make if the evidence is there and can be examined on its own? How many court cases get thrown out because of the bitter ex wife?

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: EnPassant

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: EnPassant

Again, evidence proves nothing. It is neutral. It is the interpretation of the evidence that matters. There is a mountain of evidence pertaining to the ufo phenomenon and it is the interpretation that leads to the ETH. If you find flaws in this interpretation tell us what they are but don't speculate on faeries or what COULD be. Try to focus on what is the most coherent interpretation of the evidence.

What also matters is what you consider evidence. Asserting a mountain of evidence exists that can only be interpreted as ET doesn't mean a whole lot to people. The only evidence for this "mountain" is the repeated assertion that it exists. So First thing is to define what you mean by this "mountain of evidence" and where I can find it to look at it objectively. In other words, it must be quantified. You tube videos, hoaxed photos, random unverified quotations, alien abductions reported while under hypnosis, etc.., will not be accepted.

And you won't accept witness testimony either? I'm afraid there's nothing I can do for you if you don't.

Witness testimony is notoriously unreliable. So I guess you're saying that's all you've got to support your ET hypothesis.

No it is not. It is used in courts of law with confidence.

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: EnPassant

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
Carol Rainey Videos on Bud Hopkins

Carol Rainey had a bitter split with Hopkins. She was out to get him. Her testimony is merely spiteful vengeance.

She was an eyewitness to Hopkins' behavior. I thought you believed eyewitnesses.

In principle, yes but here we are talking about a split between partners.

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
How? Were you involved with the divorce? Or is this how you rationalize Hopkins "research"? And then, what difference does it make if the evidence is there and can be examined on its own? How many court cases get thrown out because of the bitter ex wife?

Were you there when Hopkins did his research? It is her word against his. There is no point in bringing her into the discussion if one has to be there to witness first hand.

originally posted by: EnPassant

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: EnPassant

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
Carol Rainey Videos on Bud Hopkins

Carol Rainey had a bitter split with Hopkins. She was out to get him. Her testimony is merely spiteful vengeance.

She was an eyewitness to Hopkins' behavior. I thought you believed eyewitnesses.

In principle, yes but here we are talking about a split between partners.

Have you read George P. Hansen's evisceration of Hopkins? He certainly wasn't his partner.

originally posted by: EnPassant

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
Carol Rainey Videos on Bud Hopkins

Carol Rainey had a bitter split with Hopkins. She was out to get him. Her testimony is merely spiteful vengeance.

Perhaps he was having an affair with Jenny Randles.

a reply to: EnPassant

Were you there when Hopkins did his research? It is her word against his. There is no point in bringing her into the discussion if one has to be there to witness first hand.

So you didn't watch the videos. The amount of rationalization you have to do to make his work seem legitimate is incredible. The truth is that he was exposed as being, at the very least, a very poor researcher if not plain dishonest. It doesn't matter if the source is his ex wife because she was also his videographer and we can see him being an extremely poor researcher right there on camera. The only defense is that she is the bitter ex wife because people want to believe in aliens. You can object if you want to but it becomes clearer each time that you do that there is no defense and no objectivity, only rationalization.

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: EnPassant

Were you there when Hopkins did his research? It is her word against his. There is no point in bringing her into the discussion if one has to be there to witness first hand.

So you didn't watch the videos. The amount of rationalization you have to do to make his work seem legitimate is incredible. The truth is that he was exposed as being, at the very least, a very poor researcher if not plain dishonest. It doesn't matter if the source is his ex wife because she was also his videographer and we can see him being an extremely poor researcher right there on camera. The only defense is that she is the bitter ex wife because people want to believe in aliens. You can object if you want to but it becomes clearer each time that you do that there is no defense and no objectivity, only rationalization.

More evidence that it's a religion: the Church of ET

a reply to: EnPassant

I don't need Carol Rainey's testimony to know Hopkins and Jacobs' research is highly suspect. It was glaringly obvious to me when I read their books twenty years ago and I was a hardcore UFO believer.

It's actually surprising to me anyone even defends them any more. If there were really all these hybrids running around they would have produced genetic evidence

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: Paperjacket

You simply missed my point. I used the flight route map to interpret why there are so many straight lines among the Nazca lines. Can't you see the similarity of the flight route map with the Nazca lines?

well, the animal glyphs could be an ancient sky mall catalogue I suppose. But no, not really.

Well I suppose you would understand the animal shapes if you read my thread about the Nazca lines.

A recent thread from a moderator could be taken as an organized effort to undermine the Aliens and UFOs forum, perhaps the phenomenon...

Take everything with a pinch of salt