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: 45
94
<< 42  43  44    46  47  48 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 03:30 PM
link   
a reply to: EnPassant

Honest question. Why do you get to decide what is unlikely or not? You don't show your work. You don't have any references and as far as I can tell, you don't have any background in psychology. Where does your information cone from? If you say "ufo books" or "Jenny Randles", you should at the very least reference those sources properly. Otherwise, there is really nothing to argue or discuss because there seems to be an endless circularity in your reasoning. You are just making assertions whenever you need to and discounting someone's personal experiences in order to fit your own views.
edit on 28-1-2015 by ZetaRediculian because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 03:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: EnPassant
a reply to: Tangerine


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.



Culture does have a profound effect on perception.

Fatima.

Chupacabra.

Greys. [Jenny Randles agrees in your one singular book].

And don't get me started on the wacky stuff reported in India.


Fact is flying saucers and abducting aliens are as American as apple pie and baseball, and have been since the forties. A constantly reinforced folklore, hopelessly ingrained in the public psyche.



posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 03:57 PM
link   
a reply to: EnPassant


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.


Where do you get "hours on end"? And the initial illusion would only be a part of it then you have your recall under hypnosis embellished by your favorite ufologist grossly misinterpreted by the ufo community and endlessly propagated throughout the internet.



posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 04:00 PM
link   
I don't mind if someone exposed a hoax and without a doubt proved it that it is a hoax. But making a thread, posting what seems to be just an opinion and putting a title 'Debunked' or 'The Myth To Rest' hello.. those are believers.


originally posted by: draknoir2

Fact is flying saucers and abducting aliens are as American as apple pie and baseball, and have been since the forties. A constantly reinforced folklore, hopelessly ingrained in the public psyche.


Fact? Is this how facts are made? You know that there are many cases in Europe as well as documents on that matter like UK,. I don't see how this is American
edit on 28-1-2015 by CollisioN because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 04:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: moebius
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.


Should there also be a nobelievers and nodebunkers tag on a thread? After all, what is the point of people simply posting, "I agree", "I agree", "Me, too"?



posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 04:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: EnPassant

Honest question. Why do you get to decide what is unlikely or not? You don't show your work. You don't have any references and as far as I can tell, you don't have any background in psychology. Where does your information cone from? If you say "ufo books" or "Jenny Randles", you should at the very least reference those sources properly. Otherwise, there is really nothing to argue or discuss because there seems to be an endless circularity in your reasoning. You are just making assertions whenever you need to and discounting someone's personal experiences in order to fit your own views.


I could write imho before every sentence but you should take it that I am expressing an opinion, that is all. In the case of the werewolf turning into the deer the illusion resolved itself very quickly and I am basing what I say on how the world usually works. You don't have to be a psychologist to use common sense.
edit on 28-1-2015 by EnPassant because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 04:20 PM
link   
a reply to: CollisioN

The UK and the US have a lot of cultural overlap. You have the Beatles and we have the Monkeys.



posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 04:21 PM
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.


Where is there room for skeptics? Or do you categorize skeptics as debunkers? The onus is always on the person making the positive claim to prove it. No one can prove a negative.



posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 04:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: draknoir2


Bigfoot is real, natural, and terrestrial.

Good point.


Actually, Bigfoot may be paranormal.



posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 04:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: CollisioN
I don't mind if someone exposed a hoax and without a doubt proved it that it is a hoax. But making a thread, posting what seems to be just an opinion and putting a title 'Debunked' or 'The Myth To Rest' hello.. those are believers.


originally posted by: draknoir2

Fact is flying saucers and abducting aliens are as American as apple pie and baseball, and have been since the forties. A constantly reinforced folklore, hopelessly ingrained in the public psyche.


Fact? Is this how facts are made? You know that there are many cases in Europe as well as documents on that matter like UK,. I don't see how this is American


Reread my post and try again.
edit on 28-1-2015 by draknoir2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 04:40 PM
link   
Somebody mentioned that flying saucers could be an illusion. Some Christians believe this. They believe that they are created by the devil to deceive mankind. But if you go do down that road then nothing can be resolved. How could you figure out a grand illusion perpetrated by some incomprehensible being(s)? That would be the end of all investigation. I prefer to take it that there is a substantial degree of reality in what is being seen and take it from there. If the phenomenon is real then the ETH is the best fit.

One reason it is the best fit is that witnesses, which I have argued are reliable, report physical craft. Landing traces support this assertion. If the craft are physical they were not made on earth because we did not have the technology in 1945 or at the time of the dirigibles. This means that these physical craft were made elsewhere and are, by that definition, alien craft.

That the dirigibles and flying saucers are the same thing is easy enough to argue; both phenomena exhibit the same characteristics. One of these characteristics is the way the beings in them pretend that they are broken down. There are many reports of dirigibles and flying saucers breaking down. But they are not broken down. This is a ruse, an act, to lure the witness in or to distract him from what is really going on or to buy time. So, the beings in both cases are playing the same game; Look at us, our machine broke down. Come closer...while in the meantime the real agenda is underway and probably involves missing time and some kind of psychic overpowering of the witness.

It may be the case that people saw dirigibles because of the brain providing stock imagery from cultural conditioning and while this argument could be extended to whole abduction scenarios I am not convinced because abductees get up real close to the beings and observe them even to the point of seeing wrinkles on their skin. This is too detailed and too sustained to be an illusion.
edit on 28-1-2015 by EnPassant because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 04:45 PM
link   
a reply to: EnPassant

EnPassant?

Have you ever experienced "alien abduction" or any of this stuff that the subjects of the people that you are citing describe experiencing, or seeing?

Thanks, have a good afternoon.




posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 04:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Tangerine

As I keep saying over and over again, demands for proof are not justified at this point. Please stop continually asking for proof. The only real discussion that can be had at this point is what hypothesis makes the best sense of things. Please stop asking for proof all the time, it is not forthcoming.



posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 04:52 PM
link   
a reply to: EnPassant

I could write imho before every sentence but you should take it that I am expressing an opinion, that is all.

OK fair enough.


In the case of the werewolf turning into the deer the illusion resolved itself very quickly and I am basing what I say on how the world usually works. You don't have to be a psychologist to use common sense.

Well there you go again! You are asserting.

It is also well known as rhetoric, because an assertion itself isn't really a proof of anything, or even a real argument - assertion only demonstrates that the person making the statement believes in it. An inability to provide anything other than an argument by assertion may be the result of brainwashing, basing ones belief on blind faith or ignorance as to what forms a proper argument. Those who argue by assertion often do think that they're making a real argument. They might simply not realise where they haven't provided a full argument. The point of constructive debate or discourse is to draw attention to this sort of thing, and for people to further develop and evolve their arguments in response. A truly fallacious argument by assertion is when someone continues to assert without advancing their argument, even after it has been pointed out.
rationalwiki.org...

These events you are talking about are experiences of anything but real world common sense experiences.



posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 04:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bybyots
a reply to: EnPassant
EnPassant?
Have you ever experienced "alien abduction" or any of this stuff that the subjects of the people that you are citing describe experiencing, or seeing?
Thanks, have a good afternoon.



No, never got abducted - not to my knowledge at least! - I don't have any of these symptoms. I have seen these beings but I ignored them and they went away. How I saw them is not something I will talk about because it is personal. There is a Buddhist concept - I forget what it is called at the moment - that explains how a kind of accidental seeing occurs when someone enters a spiritual path. Secondary things are seen out of the corner of one's eye, so to speak. They are noticed, by the way, or as a by product, of spiritual awareness, but they are not the objective of spiritual awareness - they are just there and can be seen.
edit on 28-1-2015 by EnPassant because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 04:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: EnPassant
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.


How do you explain Terrence McKenna's experiences with Ketamine? He and others who took Ketamine claim to have encountered that which McKenna called machine elves, beings with apparent intelligence, purpose and a world of their own. The people experimenting with this drug apparently visited this "world" repeatedly. Was that an objective reality? When the effects wore off, the users maintained the conviction that this world and the machine elves were real and that the drug simply allowed access to them.

We simply don't know how long an illusory narrative can be sustained. Your claim that if the perceived narrative is developed and complex then so too must be the real narrative is not based on testable evidence. How do you explain developed and complex dreams? How do you explain that which people experienced using Persinger's helmet?

Skeptics don't claim that all that is really happening is that cultural imagery is dressing things up. That would, defacto, not be a claim of fact made by a skeptic because a skeptic requires testable evidence before reaching a conclusion. A skeptic may propose that as a possibility to be considered.

I'm a skeptic and I agree that something very strange is happening.

No, the only way around this is not to say it is entirely in the mind of the person claiming abduction. I don't think you've been listening carefully to skeptics. There could be many explanations including those not yet thought of. Among the possibilities are encounters with interdimensional entities (paranormal), temporal lobe epilepsy, the release of natural chemicals in the body in response to trauma, delusions, mental illness, outright fabrication, misidentification, government black ops, and a plethora of other options I can't think of now and may never be able to conceive of. It may be a combination of some of these things.

If you've ever listened to a small child spin a yarn and present it as a real adventure they've had, you know that their "memories" can be quite creative. Now imagine an adult doing it. Now imagine an adult doing it in response to some sort of trauma with which they could not cope. Memories are very unreliable.

As for your claim that cultural imagery does not have such a powerful effect on the mind, otherwise people would be seeing King Kong and getting abducted by Spock, you simply don't know that. Can you explain why ancients claimed abduction by faeries and not greys? Can you explain why modern people claim abduction by greys and not faeries?

You have the tendency to reach conclusions in the absence of evidence. May I suggest that you do so because certainty is more comforting to you than uncertainty? May I further suggest that it is possible that some people who have traumatic events with the unknown prefer the certainty of ETs abducting them to the uncertainty of an experience they can't begin to understand?

I know someone who is seriously into Bigfoot to the point where the focal point of his entire life is Bigfoot. He is absolutely certain that every account he is told about someone hearing a noise in the woods is the result of Bigfoot. Sounds of brush crashing? Bigfoot. A bad odor? Bigfoot. The sound of a splash in the water? Bigfoot. A broken tree limb? Bigfoot. A pile of rocks? Bigfoot. A dislodged boulder? Bigfoot. He has created a very detailed narrative about Bigfoot which he presents with absolute certainty. He can tell you where they live, where they walk, what they eat, why they like some people and not others, and who is involved in the coverup of their existence. He will even state with absolute assurance that they have never been captured on stationary wildlife cameras attached to trees because they know what cameras are and avoid them. I have no doubt that he could pass a lie detector test because he is absolutely certain of these claims. That's his narrative. Is it real?
edit on 28-1-2015 by Tangerine because: (no reason given)

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



posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 05:01 PM
link   
a reply to: EnPassant

Sure, I was a student of Zen, I don't remember any teaching that said to notice them enough to decide that they are "Aliens".

So if you have never been abducted by aliens, and you have never had any sort of experiences that are like those of these "abductees" that you stand beside so strongly, how can you know what you are talking about?

You just take their word for it that it's "Aliens".

I find it hard to understand you in any other way than that you wish to believe in "Aliens" and how they are behind all of this subterfuge with 'abductions', and that's your bottom line.




posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 05:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: EnPassant

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: EnPassant

Honest question. Why do you get to decide what is unlikely or not? You don't show your work. You don't have any references and as far as I can tell, you don't have any background in psychology. Where does your information cone from? If you say "ufo books" or "Jenny Randles", you should at the very least reference those sources properly. Otherwise, there is really nothing to argue or discuss because there seems to be an endless circularity in your reasoning. You are just making assertions whenever you need to and discounting someone's personal experiences in order to fit your own views.


I could write imho before every sentence but you should take it that I am expressing an opinion, that is all. In the case of the werewolf turning into the deer the illusion resolved itself very quickly and I am basing what I say on how the world usually works. You don't have to be a psychologist to use common sense.


Does a child's illusion that a monster lives under his bed resolve quickly? Some children persist in this belief for years and can even describe the monster that creeps out from under the bed whenever Mommy turns off the light and leaves the room at bedtime.



posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 05:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: EnPassant

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: EnPassant

Honest question. Why do you get to decide what is unlikely or not? You don't show your work. You don't have any references and as far as I can tell, you don't have any background in psychology. Where does your information cone from? If you say "ufo books" or "Jenny Randles", you should at the very least reference those sources properly. Otherwise, there is really nothing to argue or discuss because there seems to be an endless circularity in your reasoning. You are just making assertions whenever you need to and discounting someone's personal experiences in order to fit your own views.


I could write imho before every sentence but you should take it that I am expressing an opinion, that is all. In the case of the werewolf turning into the deer the illusion resolved itself very quickly and I am basing what I say on how the world usually works. You don't have to be a psychologist to use common sense.


Yes, please write imho before every sentence in which you make a claim unsupported by testable evidence.



posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 05:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Tangerine

How do you explain Terrence McKenna's experiences with Ketamine?

I love you man but lets get our entheogens correct! N,N-Dimethyltryptamine produces those effects


Ketamine (INN) is a medication used mainly for starting and maintaining anesthesia. Other uses include sedation in intensive care, as a pain killer, as treatment of bronchospasm, as a treatment for complex regional pain syndrome and as an antidepressant. It induces a trance like state while providing pain relief, sedation, and memory loss.[2] Heart function, breathing and airway reflexes generally remain functional.[2]

Common side effects include a number of psychological reactions as the medication wears.[3] This may include agitation, confusion and psychosis among others.[3][4] Elevated blood pressure and muscle tremors are relatively common, while low blood pressure and a decreasing in breathing is less so.[3][4] Spasms of the larynx may rarely occur.[3]
YUCK!
en.wikipedia.org...


"Machine Elves"[edit]

One common feature of the halluginogenic experience caused by N,N-Dimethyltryptamine are hallucinations of humanoid like beings, characterised as being otherworldly. The terms Machine Elf was coined by ethnobotanist Terence McKenna for the experience, who also used the terms fractal elves, or self-transforming machine elves.[92][93]
en.wikipedia.org...




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



new topics




 
94
<< 42  43  44    46  47  48 >>

log in

join