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

originally posted by: DelMarvel
a reply to: Mehmet666Heineken

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

After 666 Heinekens, he's probably out of control.

Harte

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.

So far I have watched the first one on the symbols. I am not arguing that Hopkins is perfect but as he says himself, this business with the symbols is only a relatively minor thing. Also, Hopkins does not get a chance to defend himself in this video. When did he show the symbols to the other abductees? After he had gathered a collection of them when it would no longer matter? How long did he keep them secret for before showing them? He does not get to put his side of the story across.

originally posted by: EnPassant

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.

In courts of law, witness testimony is never accepted as fact. It is weighed by the jury and they can and often do dismiss it. In virtually every legal case opposing sides testify as witnesses offering contradictory stories. It should be self-evidence that the jury cannot accept both sides as truthful. Sometimes, juries regard both sides as not being truthful. There goes your claim that courts of law use witness testimony with confidence. It popped like a weather balloon.

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: EnPassant

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.

In courts of law, witness testimony is never accepted as fact. It is weighed by the jury and they can and often do dismiss it. In virtually every legal case opposing sides testify as witnesses offering contradictory stories. It should be self-evidence that the jury cannot accept both sides as truthful. Sometimes, juries regard both sides as not being truthful. There goes your claim that courts of law use witness testimony with confidence. It popped like a weather balloon.

Of course. Witness testimony must be balanced with all the surrounding circumstances. But I hardly need to qualify this as people know this already. But surely there must be some confidence in the witness or they would serve no purpose. Confidence in witness testimony can come from MULTIPLE WITNESSES whose testimonies corroborate each other as they do in some ufo cases. There must be some confidence in the witness because if there is not they serve no purpose. That confidence comes from the overall balance of the case and surrounding evidence. It there was no confidence in witnesses the cases would fall apart. I am not suggesting blind belief, without surrounding evidence, when I use the word 'confidence' but I thought this would be obvious.

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.

I watched the second Cortille video. Maybe she lied to Hopkins. So? Hopkin's work does not stand or fall on this case alone. Jacobs was lied to and deceived. So? All that proves is that it is possible to lie to someone. It means nothing.

a reply to: EnPassant

Jacobs was lied to and deceived

please elaborate

originally posted by: EnPassant

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: EnPassant

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.

In courts of law, witness testimony is never accepted as fact. It is weighed by the jury and they can and often do dismiss it. In virtually every legal case opposing sides testify as witnesses offering contradictory stories. It should be self-evidence that the jury cannot accept both sides as truthful. Sometimes, juries regard both sides as not being truthful. There goes your claim that courts of law use witness testimony with confidence. It popped like a weather balloon.

Of course. Witness testimony must be balanced with all the surrounding circumstances. But I hardly need to qualify this as people know this already. But surely there must be some confidence in the witness or they would serve no purpose. Confidence in witness testimony can come from MULTIPLE WITNESSES whose testimonies corroborate each other as they do in some ufo cases. There must be some confidence in the witness because if there is not they serve no purpose. That confidence comes from the overall balance of the case and surrounding evidence. It there was no confidence in witnesses the cases would fall apart. I am not suggesting blind belief, without surrounding evidence, when I use the word 'confidence' but I thought this would be obvious.

Where's your "surrounding evidence" that proves that ETs exist, visit earth, and abduct people? I believe you've already stated that all you've got is witness accounts.

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: EnPassant

Jacobs was lied to and deceived

please elaborate

Someone set him up with a fake abduction scenario and he believed it because it seemed true. But the fact is that such an invented scenario is a kind of collage of real abductions; a bit taken here another bit taken there and so on so I cannot fault him for believing it since it is made up from real abduction accounts. I forget the details of the case - was it Mack or Jacobs? I forget.

Tangerine: Where's your "surrounding evidence" that proves that ETs exist

There you go again using the word 'prove'.
I have given an example earlier; Barney Hill gave an account of the greys. Only months later, in the Valensole case, the greys were described.

Those who cite media contamination must argue that over the space of a few months Hill's description went across the atlantic to a remote village in France and enter the head of a man and made him see greys. I find this disingenuous. Besides, it is not at all clear that the media can have such a powerful effect on the human mind. If it did then why are people not seeing Spock or any of the menagerie of creatures from Star Trek? Why are they not seeing Godzilla, Frankenstein's monster, Mickey Mouse...?

All there characters are in the media and people all over the world don't imagine they see them, let alone get abducted by them. So, I must conclude that the media does not have this much lauded effect on the mind.

a reply to: EnPassant

was it Mack or Jacobs?

Mack and I don't hold that against him.

But, after it was revealed to him that she hoaxed him, his response was something to the effect that he still wasn't sure if she was abducted or not. Which is an awesome response and is to be admired.

Answer:

YES

originally posted by: EnPassant
[quote="Tangerine"]Where's your "surrounding evidence" that proves that ETs exist

There you go again using the word 'prove'.
I have given an example earlier; Barney Hill gave an account of the greys. Only months later, in the Valensole case, the greys were described.

Those who cite media contamination must argue that over the space of a few months Hill's description went across the atlantic to a remote village in France and enter the head of a man and made him see greys. I find this disingenuous. Besides, it is not at all clear that the media can have such a powerful effect on the human mind. If it did then why are people not seeing Spock or any of the menagerie of creatures from Star Trek? Why are they not seeing Godzilla, Frankenstein's monster, Mickey Mouse...?

All there characters are in the media and people all over the world don't imagine they see them, let alone get abducted by them. So, I must conclude that the media does not have this much lauded effect on the mind.

--------------

So we're right back where we started: you have claims and nothing else. Your question about why people don't see Godzilla or Frankenstein's monster or Mickey Mouse is a good one but asking a good question is not testable evidence that ET's exist. Clearly, you believe that they do to the point that it is your religion.

a reply to: Tangerine

I never said it was my religion. I only said that I believe the ETH is the most coherent theory.

As for evidence - must it be argued that every ufo photo is a hoax? All it takes to show flying saucers exist is ONE TRUE PHOTO.
To dismiss photographic evidence is to argue that they are all hoaxes or misidentifications. All of them? Is this argument convincing?

originally posted by: EnPassant
a reply to: Tangerine

I never said it was my religion. I only said that I believe the ETH is the most coherent theory.

As for evidence - must it be argued that every ufo photo is a hoax? All it takes to show flying saucers exist is ONE PHOTO.
To dismiss photographic evidence is to argue that they are all hoaxes or misidentifications. All of them? Is this argument convincing?

I've said before and I'll repeat it now: no one is disputing the existence of UNIDENTIFIED flying objects. You are claiming that ETs exist, have visited earth and have abducted people. You have utterly failed to produce an iota of testable evidence proving your claim. It's Sunday. Doesn't the Church of ET hold its services today or do they meet on Saturday?

Tangerine: asking a good question is not testable evidence that ET's exist.

You seem to want to reduce it to a science. Here is a question; why do abductions always seem to happen on lonely roads? Very rarely do they happen in cities. Why? If abductions are mistaken perceptions or delusions why do people only have delusions on lonely roads? Are cities delusion free areas or areas where misidentification is prohibited?

Why mostly on quiet roads?

It is questions like this that need to be answered.

a reply to: Tangerine

Testable evidence? I am providing you with a coherent, convincing argument. That is enough for me.

a reply to: Tangerine

Here is another question; Why do car engines stall on quiet roads when there is a light in the sky? Do delusions or misperceptions cause cars to stall? And if not why are they stalling prior to the (abduction) event? Why?

You don't need to reduce this to science, you just need to ask incisive questions and answer them yourself. That is all you need. That is why I told you earlier that you have to fully enter into both view points even to the point of virtually believing both at the same time. This is the way - or one way - to think about this. Smart one-liners such as Dracknoir's are not the way to solve this.

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: EnPassant

was it Mack or Jacobs?

Mack and I don't hold that against him.

But, after it was revealed to him that she hoaxed him, his response was something to the effect that he still wasn't sure if she was abducted or not. Which is an awesome response and is to be admired.

Yes, for sure! But Jacobs too had some trouble with a loon he was interviewing over the phone, that's why I confused them.

originally posted by: EnPassant
Why? If abductions are mistaken perceptions or delusions why do people only have delusions on lonely roads? Are cities delusion free areas or areas where misidentification is prohibited?
.

What are you talking about? Didn't Hopkins write an entire book about an abduction that supposedly happened in New York City?

originally posted by: EnPassant

Someone set him up with a fake abduction scenario and he believed it because it seemed true. .

But isn't that exactly what we've been saying? One of the reasons their research isn't reliable is because their personal beliefs are influencing how they vet evidence and what they conclude.

a reply to: EnPassant

And let me add that I think there may be something to the phenomenon of perception of abduction that is more complicated than simply "delusion."

But once again, if we're talking about Jacobs and Hopkins----with the ever increasing DNA testing that is going on now if there were anything to their theories about hybrids living among us there would have to be hard evidence available by now.