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

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: EnPassant

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

a loon? really? I am going to be blunt. David Jacobs is a panty sniffen a$$hole. You do realize that he was recorded, right? You people are really incredible with this. How much of the 180 hours of recorded hypnosis sessions performed over the phone did you listen to? let me guess. ZERO. She's a loon because she recorded her sessions and exposed an a$$hole? And didn't think it was right for him to play out his bizarre sexual alien rape fantasy with her while she was under hypnosis? And she is loon? Seriously, go believe in your stupid aliens.

So women that get sexually harassed are loons. got it.

and I was being sarcastic with my Mack comments. Jeez.

So you didn't look at one link I posted on the other page. So if you want to believe in aliens, ignore any case against them.

By now the pattern of apologism should be more than apparent. He will accept but one conclusion.

Intellectual honesty would dictate that he reevaluate his sources, but instead with every indictment the excuses become more strenuous. Such is the religious nature of apologetics.

a reply to: draknoir2

Are you saying he will keep believing in his stupid aliens no matter how many panties Jacobs adds to his collection?

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: draknoir2

Are you saying he will keep believing in his stupid aliens no matter how many panties Jacobs adds to his collection?

But... but... Jenny Randles!!!

originally posted by: Tangerine

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?

I have provided an argument. Flying saucers exist. They exist because they are not misperceptions. If they were misperceptions or mistakes most of the would happen in cities not on quiet roads. They happen on quiet roads because that is convenient for the abductors.

The very fact that they happen in this way is a strong argument that they are not misperceptions.

This means the witnesses are telling the truth as they understand it. This means the saucers are physical because the witnesses are trustworthy and say they are. Landing traces back this up. 'The saucers' go back as far as the dirigibles and further. This means they are not from earth because we did not have that kind of technology at the time.

The alternative hypothesis cannot explain this; why reliable witnesses report physical craft that interact with them. I repeat; witness reports would not be confined (mainly) to quiet roads if they were misidentifications. Car engines would not stall prior to abduction if the were misperceptions. Car engines stall on quiet roads and then something happens. This is not misperception.

a reply to: DelMarvel

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

That is only one case. The majority happen on quiet roads.

a reply to: ZetaRediculian
She got uptight because Jacobs would not give her the attention she was continually demanding. Read about it on Jacobs page.

a reply to: Tangerine

Claiming that something happened when dozens or hundreds of witnesses are not present and surveillance cameras and cell phone cameras are not present makes it much easier to get away with fabricating. Just a thought.

So the witnesses are liars? That is your argument?

a reply to: DelMarvel

I would answer that by saying that many people in the media and in film and art are dealing with awareness and images can enter consciousness from wherever they reside. This, in fact, is how art works. It is a kind of consciousness of the unseen. So if bug eyed aliens enter art in can be because the artist is unconsciously aware of them.

a reply to: DelMarvel

Ok maybe loon is too strong a term but she became really problematic.because she was demanding attention and could not take it when she did not get it.

originally posted by: draknoir2

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: draknoir2
Are you saying he will keep believing in his stupid aliens no matter how many panties Jacobs adds to his collection?

It's always the same; when you people are given a coherent argument you get angry or sarcastic. I'm outa here.


But... but... Jenny Randles!!!

originally posted by: EnPassant
a reply to: ZetaRediculian
She got uptight because Jacobs would not give her the attention she was continually demanding. Read about it on Jacobs page.

You obviously have no clue about any of this. Jacobs is an a$$hole and so are the people that take his word on anything. You cant even see his complete lack of ethics in any of his statements can you? This was a person in his care. Regardless of anything, you don't say this stuff about the people in your care. He's a moron and the people that believe him are morons.

What you are completely oblivious to is the 180 hours of recorded sessions that show him to be an unethical jackoff. You have not even listened to one second of anything and yet you are going to judge someone as "a loon"? Do you know how incredibly ignorant a statement that is? I mean that is seriously ignorant. You don't get it do you? I think its obvious who the loons are.

Please, give me a break with maddening idiocy and just go away.

Read about it on Jacobs page

I DID! That's how I found out about it in the first place! That's the lunacy right there. Why on Earth would you put that information right on your home page? I was originally interested in his work and then I saw his whole diatribe on Emma Woods and you know what? I could tell right away he was completely wrong. Its the work of a sociopath. You cant hide that from people that have a clue.

originally posted by: EnPassant
a reply to: DelMarvel

Ok maybe loon is too strong a term but she became really problematic.because she was demanding attention and could not take it when she did not get it.

What on earth are you talking about. The entire thing is so well documented that your head would have to be completely up Jacob's butt to not know about it.

a reply to: EnPassant

It's always the same; when you people are given a coherent argument you get angry or sarcastic. I'm outa here.

Coherent argument? Where?

originally posted by: EnPassant
a reply to: DelMarvel

I would answer that by saying that many people in the media and in film and art are dealing with awareness and images can enter consciousness from wherever they reside. This, in fact, is how art works. It is a kind of consciousness of the unseen. So if bug eyed aliens enter art in can be because the artist is unconsciously aware of them.

Actually that line of reasoning can just as easily be used to support the theory that images of aliens are entering collective consciousness from the imagination of artists.

a reply to: EnPassant

That some abductions are reported in isolated places is not necessarily evidence of the physical reality of the phenomenon. It could just as easily be evidence that it has something to do with the psychology of isolation.

After all, these hypothetical aliens supposedly have near supernatural capabilities. If Hopkins was correct they can easily abduct victims out of Manhattan undetected so there is no strategic need to nab victims out in the boondocks.

originally posted by: EnPassant
a reply to: Tangerine

Claiming that something happened when dozens or hundreds of witnesses are not present and surveillance cameras and cell phone cameras are not present makes it much easier to get away with fabricating. Just a thought.

So the witnesses are liars? That is your argument?

They could all be loons or spiteful ex wives.

In response to the OPs question I would say there is an effort to undermint the UFO forum, however I dont know if its very organized.

originally posted by: FormOfTheLord
In response to the OPs question I would say there is an effort to undermint the UFO forum, however I dont know if its very organized.

Considering that we all have assbergers, undermints help tremendously.

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian

originally posted by: EnPassant
a reply to: Tangerine

Claiming that something happened when dozens or hundreds of witnesses are not present and surveillance cameras and cell phone cameras are not present makes it much easier to get away with fabricating. Just a thought.

So the witnesses are liars? That is your argument?

They could all be loons or spiteful ex wives.

Even those of us who don't buy into it often fall into the trap of debating the ETH. For the believers, it's religion. Isn't our time better spent thinking outside the box in different directions?

a reply to: Tangerine

Yes! Absolutely. I am in a bit of a rut right now. Back to back threads on Jacobs has sent me into a tailspin. Need to clear my head. Thanks.