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.

 

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

page: 44
94
<< 41  42  43    45  46  47 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 27 2015 @ 03:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Tangerine



I think it's probably a combination of things including interdimensional entities of some sort that have probably always been "here", temporal lobe epilepsy, mental illness, government psy ops projects, natural phenomena and who knows what else. In some cases, it's possible that the mind has simply filled-in gaps, as it does, to make up for missing data and provide an acceptable (to some people) answer to something we experience that we can't explain.


I can agree with you here. A huge percentage of unusual or 'unexplainable' experiences are not that unusual and can be explained by others with more expertise in respective areas.

Folk from Elsewhereis a placeholder I use that can encompass anything from hearing imagined voices, black-ops and on towards anything else. 'Gaps' are where we run out of language to communicate experiences and the means of describing them in ways that we intend. The 'gaps' are where all the confusion and discord are created imo.

It's one of those things that people cannot seem to discuss gaps in knowledge without one side or another imposing beliefs. I guess we shouldn't be averse to conclusions and explanations for gaps, but neither should we impose certainty where ambiguity is the more sceptical position.

Interdimensional/ultraterrestrial/metaterrestrial are ideas that are worth considering. Are they defensible assertions? Probably not. Isn't it more the case that we're arguing about angels dancing on pins or like blind folk trying to emphatically describe elephants? Turtles all the way down.




Food for thought, anyway.


Definitely!




posted on Jan, 27 2015 @ 03:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: EnPassant
a reply to: Tangerine

I accept what you say about perception but the descriptions of the greys and many other things originated with abductees. But there is a feedback loop here; People describe aliens; aliens enter cultural imagery; the imagery opens consciousness to the aliens themselves; opened consciousness brings more aliens into the media; the media opens consciousness even more...

This is how consciousness works; images can be catalysts for sensitive minds. For some people merely reading a ufo book can open awareness to these beings. This is one of the central components in religion; religious imagery and ritual can direct consciousness to spiritual reality. Ufo imagery can direct it to the aliens. THIS IS WHY UFOS APPEAR; THEY ARE CREATING IMAGERY, MYTH, TO ATTRACT AWARENESS.


But you are still stuck on the notion that they are extra-terrestrials when there is no evidence that this is the case. You are now going so far as to assign motive to extra-terrestrials whose existence has not been proven. Perhaps you should back up at least to the point where you state that you think or believe or speculate rather than making claims of fact.



posted on Jan, 27 2015 @ 03:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kandinsky
a reply to: Tangerine



I think it's probably a combination of things including interdimensional entities of some sort that have probably always been "here", temporal lobe epilepsy, mental illness, government psy ops projects, natural phenomena and who knows what else. In some cases, it's possible that the mind has simply filled-in gaps, as it does, to make up for missing data and provide an acceptable (to some people) answer to something we experience that we can't explain.


I can agree with you here. A huge percentage of unusual or 'unexplainable' experiences are not that unusual and can be explained by others with more expertise in respective areas.

Folk from Elsewhereis a placeholder I use that can encompass anything from hearing imagined voices, black-ops and on towards anything else. 'Gaps' are where we run out of language to communicate experiences and the means of describing them in ways that we intend. The 'gaps' are where all the confusion and discord are created imo.

It's one of those things that people cannot seem to discuss gaps in knowledge without one side or another imposing beliefs. I guess we shouldn't be averse to conclusions and explanations for gaps, but neither should we impose certainty where ambiguity is the more sceptical position.

Interdimensional/ultraterrestrial/metaterrestrial are ideas that are worth considering. Are they defensible assertions? Probably not. Isn't it more the case that we're arguing about angels dancing on pins or like blind folk trying to emphatically describe elephants? Turtles all the way down.




Food for thought, anyway.


Definitely!


We're definitely arguing about angels dancing on pins. Interdimensionals are probably not defensible simply because we have, as yet, no way to prove their existence but at least it's a way of putting these experiences in the realm of the unknown rather than the known (ie. ETs) which, in my opinion, is a huge step forward that gets us out of literalism. The interdimensional hypothesis, which is and should remain vague until we have evidence, also validates the experiences and gives us somewhere to go.



posted on Jan, 27 2015 @ 04:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Tangerine

It is not a case of proving what will not lend itself to proof. It is really about trying to see what the most coherent hypothesis is. It is ok to say that we don't know for sure, but some people like to go further than that and see what hypothesis works best; which hypothesis is the best fit for the evidence. I am not a zealot, although I have a habit of speaking very directly. All I am try to do is to show that the ETH is the best fit for the evidence. Other theories fall short of the facts. Forget about proof. We are a long way from it.



posted on Jan, 27 2015 @ 04:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: EnPassant
a reply to: Tangerine

It is not a case of proving what will not lend itself to proof. It is really about trying to see what the most coherent hypothesis is. It is ok to say that we don't know for sure, but some people like to go further than that and see what hypothesis works best; which hypothesis is the best fit for the evidence. I am not a zealot, although I have a habit of speaking very directly. All I am try to do is to show that the ETH is the best fit for the evidence. Other theories fall short of the facts. Forget about proof. We are a long way from it.


Your ET hypothesis (not theory) falls entirely short of facts. There is no testable evidence.



posted on Jan, 27 2015 @ 04:35 PM
link   
a reply to: EnPassant

Mack was talking about positive consciousness, as if these beings (I call them aliens but read that as a placeholder of you like) were angels. This is what Mack is being criticized for by some people. They are not angels but consciousness, in general, is a component of this.

As far as I know, Jacobs has no notion of Interdimensional beings or outside consciousnesses interacting with ours. Which is my point. He just doesn't entertain such ideas. To him these are physical encounters by ET only, except for the telepathy.


Dr. David Jacobs: In other words, I didn’t stake out a position beforehand whereas John had studied with Stanislav Grof and was very much influenced by Grofian techniques and consciousness-raising and consciousness existing outside of the mind and all that. I hadn’t. I was perfectly happy to believe that if that was the evidence I found. It doesn’t matter to me; that’s fine.


www.skeptiko.com...

He has it all figured out the same as you. Somebody has to be wrong.



posted on Jan, 27 2015 @ 10:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: EnPassant
a reply to: Tangerine

It is not a case of proving what will not lend itself to proof. It is really about trying to see what the most coherent hypothesis is. It is ok to say that we don't know for sure, but some people like to go further than that and see what hypothesis works best; which hypothesis is the best fit for the evidence. I am not a zealot, although I have a habit of speaking very directly. All I am try to do is to show that the ETH is the best fit for the evidence. Other theories fall short of the facts. Forget about proof. We are a long way from it.


Even assuming these are actual entities they would have to be something beyond our understanding. So the ETH is no more logical than any other explanation one could dream up. If by facts you are talking about witness reports that means nothing. "Alien" beings that can control the perception of reality could be presenting an illusion for any number of reasons.



posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 12:31 AM
link   
a reply to: duaneology

Well, it's not a forum I read in often, but I'd believe it. I saw another site, on a particular sort of "odd" topic, that went from decent to almost 100% skeptics, within a year or two, so no one who was actually interested could post anything without being lammed and belittled. Why some behave that way, who knows, but it happens a lot. I have been known to ask from time to time, of such folks, why they visit a forum or site regularly if they don't believe it the topics at all but they never answer.



posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 03:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
a reply to: duaneology

Well, it's not a forum I read in often, but I'd believe it. I saw another site, on a particular sort of "odd" topic, that went from decent to almost 100% skeptics, within a year or two, so no one who was actually interested could post anything without being lammed and belittled. Why some behave that way, who knows, but it happens a lot. I have been known to ask from time to time, of such folks, why they visit a forum or site regularly if they don't believe it the topics at all but they never answer.


Skeptics are people who question and require testable evidence before accepting claims as fact. Is there something wrong with that? Are you confusing skeptics with debunkers who, like true believers, require no evidence and simply take a position?



posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 06:06 AM
link   
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Why do skeptics visit ATS?

For me it is the thought that there might be some interesting genuine cases within all that noise.

And I certainly can understand why believers would be annoyed by skeptics and prefer to stick with one's kind. People in general don't like their beliefs or let's say convictions being questioned.

Is there a way for skeptics and believers to accept each other or even cooperate? I don't know.

Maybe there should be a noskeptics tag, telling skeptics to stay away from a thread.

edit on 28-1-2015 by moebius because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 06:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: EnPassant
a reply to: Tangerine

It is not a case of proving what will not lend itself to proof. It is really about trying to see what the most coherent hypothesis is. It is ok to say that we don't know for sure, but some people like to go further than that and see what hypothesis works best; which hypothesis is the best fit for the evidence. I am not a zealot, although I have a habit of speaking very directly. All I am try to do is to show that the ETH is the best fit for the evidence. Other theories fall short of the facts. Forget about proof. We are a long way from it.


Let me help you out by the following demonstration.




The reason why the right logic in alien study is through process of elimilation (exclusion) is that extraterrestrials or other conjectures belong to the unknown world which can not be proved. (Once proved they then belong to the known world.) If something has been claimed extraterrestrials, it means no proof found it is related to natural phenomenen as well as to human. Of course you can make other conjectures if you have any.

Debunkers, on the other hand, need to list proofs to prove it is however a natrual phenomenen or a human thing or even a hoax if they have any doubt.
edit on 28-1-2015 by Paperjacket because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 06:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: Paperjacket

originally posted by: EnPassant
a reply to: Tangerine

It is not a case of proving what will not lend itself to proof. It is really about trying to see what the most coherent hypothesis is. It is ok to say that we don't know for sure, but some people like to go further than that and see what hypothesis works best; which hypothesis is the best fit for the evidence. I am not a zealot, although I have a habit of speaking very directly. All I am try to do is to show that the ETH is the best fit for the evidence. Other theories fall short of the facts. Forget about proof. We are a long way from it.


Let me help you out by the following demonstration.




The reason why the right logic in alien study is through process of elimilation (exclusion) is that extraterrestrials or other conjectures belong to the unknown world which can not be proved. (Once proved they then belong to the known world.) If something has been claimed extraterrestrials, it means no proof found it is related to natural phenomenen as well as to human. Of course you can make other conjectures if you have any.

Debunkers, on the other hand, need to list proofs to prove it is however a natrual phenomenen or a human thing or even a hoax if they have any doubt.


Funny how according to your flow chart "natural" requires proof, while "not natural" does not, and "terrestrial" requires proof while "extraterrestrial" does not.


Just out of curiosity, did you or EP design this chart?



posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 07:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: draknoir2

originally posted by: Paperjacket

originally posted by: EnPassant
a reply to: Tangerine

It is not a case of proving what will not lend itself to proof. It is really about trying to see what the most coherent hypothesis is. It is ok to say that we don't know for sure, but some people like to go further than that and see what hypothesis works best; which hypothesis is the best fit for the evidence. I am not a zealot, although I have a habit of speaking very directly. All I am try to do is to show that the ETH is the best fit for the evidence. Other theories fall short of the facts. Forget about proof. We are a long way from it.


Let me help you out by the following demonstration.




The reason why the right logic in alien study is through process of elimilation (exclusion) is that extraterrestrials or other conjectures belong to the unknown world which can not be proved. (Once proved they then belong to the known world.) If something has been claimed extraterrestrials, it means no proof found it is related to natural phenomenen as well as to human. Of course you can make other conjectures if you have any.

Debunkers, on the other hand, need to list proofs to prove it is however a natrual phenomenen or a human thing or even a hoax if they have any doubt.


Funny how according to your flow chart "natural" requires proof, while "not natural" does not, and "terrestrial" requires proof while "extraterrestrial" does not.


Just out of curiosity, did you or EP design this chart?


Not funny though. The reason no "proof needed" is attached to "REAL" and "Not Natural" is because there exist sub-sets in each category and you have to consider separately.

This is a rather simple logic chart and one can finish it within 10min. BTW, I just don't get the meaning of EP.
edit on 28-1-2015 by Paperjacket because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 07:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: Paperjacket

originally posted by: draknoir2

originally posted by: Paperjacket

originally posted by: EnPassant
a reply to: Tangerine

It is not a case of proving what will not lend itself to proof. It is really about trying to see what the most coherent hypothesis is. It is ok to say that we don't know for sure, but some people like to go further than that and see what hypothesis works best; which hypothesis is the best fit for the evidence. I am not a zealot, although I have a habit of speaking very directly. All I am try to do is to show that the ETH is the best fit for the evidence. Other theories fall short of the facts. Forget about proof. We are a long way from it.


Let me help you out by the following demonstration.




The reason why the right logic in alien study is through process of elimilation (exclusion) is that extraterrestrials or other conjectures belong to the unknown world which can not be proved. (Once proved they then belong to the known world.) If something has been claimed extraterrestrials, it means no proof found it is related to natural phenomenen as well as to human. Of course you can make other conjectures if you have any.

Debunkers, on the other hand, need to list proofs to prove it is however a natrual phenomenen or a human thing or even a hoax if they have any doubt.


Funny how according to your flow chart "natural" requires proof, while "not natural" does not, and "terrestrial" requires proof while "extraterrestrial" does not.


Just out of curiosity, did you or EP design this chart?


Not funny though. The reason no "proof needed" is attached to "REAL" and "Not Natural" is because there exist sub-sets in each category and you have to consider desperately.

This is a rather simple logic chart and one can finish it within 10min. BTW, I just don't get the meaning of EP.


Actually the real reason is what's called the Burden of Proof Fallacy.

Your chart eloquently speaks to what is really undermining the Aliens and UFO forum.



posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 09:53 AM
link   
a reply to: draknoir2

I think what he is inadvertently showing is that "unknown" explanations are not falsifiable. "Other conjectures" could include unicorns or even bigfoot.



posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 09:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: draknoir2

I think what he is inadvertently showing is that "unknown" explanations are not falsifiable. "Other conjectures" could include unicorns or even bigfoot.


Or that the standards of evidence are weighted in favor of "not natural"/"extraterrestrial" which, barring proof to the contrary, should be considered the default.


Bigfoot is real, natural, and terrestrial.



posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 10:13 AM
link   
a reply to: draknoir2


Bigfoot is real, natural, and terrestrial.

Good point.



posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 10:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: draknoir2


Bigfoot is real, natural, and terrestrial.

Good point.


And he has beautiful hair, as this youtube video proves.




posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 12:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Paperjacket

This is a rather simple logic chart and one can finish it within 10min. BTW, I just don't get the meaning of EP.


Neither do I, PJ.



Neither do I.



posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 02:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Tangerine




A number of years ago, I was reading something about werewolves and decided to take a break and walk my dogs. It was late at night and there was a full moon. A cemetery was located near my home with nice walking paths (yes, I know) so I decided to walk my dogs there. In a clearing some distance away I saw something canine-shaped and, yes, for an instant, to my mind it was a werewolf. An instant later, it was a German Shepherd. I became concerned that one of my dogs would initiate a dog fight. The German Shepherd moved and it became clear that it was really a deer. Initially, my mind had simply not had enough information to go on and had filled-in the gaps creating the images in my mind of a werewolf and then a German Shepherd.


Yes, but the source of your experience was a real deer, an objective reality. Likewise there must be a real source behind the alien abduction phenomena.
When we have misperceptions such as you describe they usually get resolved in a few seconds. In abductions this does not happen; there is a narrative, or storyline, that goes on for hours. So if things are, for example, being clothed in cultural imagery, there are two narratives going on. There is the real narrative - what is really happening - and there is the perceived narrative - what the abductee sees.

But it is unlikely that an illusory narrative would be sustained for hours on end. It would resolve into the real narrative in the same way the werewolf resolved into the deer.

At any rate, the perceived narrative is developed and sustained; car stalls, bright lights, OBE, beings, examination, staring procedures etc. etc. Now, if the perceived narrative is developed and complex then so too must be the real narrative. The real events behind the abduction experience must be at least as developed as the perceived narrative.

This is where the sceptic becomes stuck if he says that all that is really happening is that cultural imagery is dressing things up because then he must explain what the real narrative is; what is really happening and, since this real narrative is at least as weird as any abduction account, the sceptic must admit that there is something very strange happening.

The only way around this is to say it is entirely in the mind of the abductee. But leave that aside for the moment because we are talking about real events dressed in cultural imagery. What kind of real events could provide a narrative such as an abduction and sustain that narrative for hours on end? Whatever it is it is very strange.

But, as I have already argued, cultural imagery does not have such a powerful effect on the mind - otherwise people would be seeing King Kong and getting abducted by Spock. This does not happen.

This means that there are not two narratives - a real one and a culturally induced one dressed over it. This is most unlikely.

Consequently, it makes more sense to accept that the abductee is seeing reality and there is only one narrative, the real one.
edit on 28-1-2015 by EnPassant because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
94
<< 41  42  43    45  46  47 >>

log in

join