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.

 

The evidence you want, the evidence you need...?

page: 2
15
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 20 2015 @ 12:28 PM
link   
a reply to: JackHill

When the abduction cases started to be researched around late 60's and 70's, worrisome patterns started to appear that couldn't be denied.

Not until it was shown that the research techniques used were greatly flawed and that the patterns that emerged were those of the abduction researchers and not the experiencers. Recovered memories from hypnosis has been shown to not be the most reliable research technique and particularly when it has been done by people not even qualified to pump gas. Denied.




posted on Sep, 20 2015 @ 01:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: JackHill

When the abduction cases started to be researched around late 60's and 70's, worrisome patterns started to appear that couldn't be denied.

Not until it was shown that the research techniques used were greatly flawed and that the patterns that emerged were those of the abduction researchers and not the experiencers. Recovered memories from hypnosis has been shown to not be the most reliable research technique and particularly when it has been done by people not even qualified to pump gas. Denied.



Did I talk about hypnosis? Not at all, there are a lot of registered cases, with persistent patterns, uncovered without hypnosis. Nice try, well, actually not.

Ignoring the facts and talking half truths, meaning, trolling. If you're going to spam the thread with lies, you better try harder.

In any case, I certainly don't agree at all with your vision about 'hypnosis' being 'not reliable', and you're generalizing (lying) about the people who used such techniques with alleged abductees... many of them had the proper qualifications and background.



posted on Sep, 20 2015 @ 01:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: VP740
a reply to: HomeBrew

...Perhaps it would be better to ask what evidence would give you the same level of confidence as in the other things you believe?


I think you have hit the nail on the head with this statement. Thank you for this.

For me, it is a personal experience that was so far out of the box I almost decided to pretend it didn't happen, but forced myself to go over it in my head until I could accept that it did happen: I saw a UFO in the daytime, classic siting, no missing time, but it was freaky to say the least. (I've shared this in a number of other posts.)

What I DON'T have enough evidence for is the simple answer to what it was: earthly tech?, alien tech?, elves?, beings from the imaginal realm of Jung??? Heck if I know...

So, what I DO have enough evidence for is that, well, I saw something unexplainable by any current knowledge.

peace,
AB



posted on Sep, 20 2015 @ 02:03 PM
link   
a reply to: JackHill

Did I talk about hypnosis? Not at all, there are a lot of registered cases, with persistent patterns, uncovered without hypnosis. Nice try, well, actually not.

I really have no idea what you are referring to so I took a guess. link or reference? anything?


Ignoring the facts and talking half truths, meaning, trolling. If you're going to spam the thread with lies, you better try harder.

Lies? Trolling? Spamming? that's your counter argument?


In any case, I certainly don't agree at all with your vision about 'hypnosis' being 'not reliable', and you're generalizing (lying) about the people who used such techniques with alleged abductees... many of them had the proper qualifications and background.

Name one besides Mack. Its well established today in psychology that hypnosis is useless as a memory retrieval technique. Its odd since the idea that hypnosis was a good tool to retrieve memory came from psychology. Since then advances in the field have definitively shown that the memories recovered from this state are most likely confabulation between the subject and the therapist. For more info look up Elizabeth Loftus. It seems to me that after the documented research and studies establishing the uselessness of hypnosis for memory retrial that we then get claims that they weren't under hypnosis. I have even seen where abduction memories were recalled years later and from dreams. Not reliable. At any rate, once you abandon the idea of "memories recovered under hypnosis", abduction research falls apart. Cases of memories of childhood sexual abuse recalled under hypnosis are a thing of the past. The field was able to move past this error and yet people in the abduction circuit want to hold on to this idea.

Also, hypnosis is NOT needed in order to create false memory. People can create those all their own. However, when you have a patient-therapist situation, it is rather easy to create a confabulation without hypnosis.

But let me be clear. My belief is that there is something that people experience that is not adequately explained yet. My issue is with abduction researches who undoubtedly took peoples anomalous experiences and turned it into their own thing. They muddied the waters either unintentionally or intentionally.


edit on 20-9-2015 by ZetaRediculian because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2015 @ 04:01 PM
link   
a reply to: HomeBrew

Dont need any because the proof is everywhere. What it also everywhere...are people who refuse to accept the evidence and stare at the sky watching for them.

Thats stupid...



posted on Sep, 20 2015 @ 06:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Aliensun

I always knew aliens were more intelligent should they be present.
I just think we can't know who they are yet.



posted on Sep, 20 2015 @ 08:13 PM
link   
a reply to: cavtrooper7


Tthis time, let's view them as wise teachers and not as gods..



posted on Sep, 20 2015 @ 08:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Aliensun

Only ONE God, they call it the "Source" I know God as my creator,it's cool.
edit on 20-9-2015 by cavtrooper7 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2015 @ 08:24 PM
link   
a reply to: JackHill

The effects of the ETs with their abductions and giving of instructions and drastic visual depictions of the future go even further if you venture into the heart of the situation. I said in a humorously attempted in a thread two or three years ago that "All ETs are Democrats. --Actually, I should have said that they are progressives which is more accurate.

Basically, the ETs tinkered with the DNA of abductees and others and that explains the current growth of that ideology, the growth of the Democratic party and the end of conservatism. They never were just watching.



posted on Sep, 20 2015 @ 09:47 PM
link   
IIt is so refreshing to find a good site like this is and how much goes into the answers instead of just random things people have heardsomewhere. I would have to be pretty convinced from a very good source to be a full on believer, but the best I can do is select a few stories from pilots in the fleet air arm, and RAF, as the general consensus is that they are spotted regularly above 30,000ft and it is a belief that we are being studied, watched or however you want to call it, but since nuclear testing and the space race, the sightings have increased by 400%



posted on Sep, 21 2015 @ 01:22 AM
link   
a reply to: HomeBrew



I know it is going to be impossible for me personally to ever get the proof required to usher in 'Belief' but I simply can not discard the evidence either.


Let's be clear here about belief and experience. Once you experience something.. you don't believe or not believe anymore, you know! There's a huge difference, belief or non-belief relies on one not knowing through experience.

Until you get there though, its better to balance yourself by not becoming a fanatic ufo believer or a hardened skeptic that rejects anything related to the topic. Keeping an open mind to facts yet also being skeptical to eliminate fraudulent ideas and speculation from corrupting your psyche.

The evidence for visitation is abundant, so it's clear that something is indeed going on. But there's also a bunch of speculation and fantasy relating to the whole subject as well.



posted on Sep, 21 2015 @ 02:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kandinsky
a reply to: HomeBrew

For example, the object we saw was a red light that performed manoeuvres at a speed that isn't currently possible. If another person then claims they saw a different-coloured object doing the same thing, it's intuitive to consider they are being truthful. In terms of leeway, if someone says they saw an object in daylight behaving the same way, but described as a disc, I'd entertain the possibility.


I understand your reasoning but at the end of the day you saw a red light how many threads / posts do we have on here when people have seen a dot a light and been totally wrong on what they assumed.



posted on Sep, 21 2015 @ 02:43 AM
link   
a reply to: HomeBrew

Well put post OP but why, when you say you believe there is something to it all beyond mass hysteria, do you jump to alien beings visiting earth ?

Have you considered the other hypothesis in between and dismissed them or is your definition of alien beings "seemingly sentient physical manifestations of unknown origin ?



posted on Sep, 21 2015 @ 10:46 AM
link   
a reply to: HomeBrew

That depends on what we have evidence of.

There is no doubt that the UFO phenomenon exists; no doubt. However if the evidence was tangible and we knew the origins of these anomalies we would no longer be calling them UFO's, we'd by calling them 'Alien craft' or 'extra dimensional entities' or one of the other explanations that have been pondered upon for decades.



posted on Sep, 21 2015 @ 11:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: Thecakeisalie
a reply to: HomeBrew


However if the evidence was tangible and we knew the origins of these anomalies ...


Y'all are gonna hate this; Your expectation and requirement of "tangible" is unreasonable!

The reason: this is 2015 and I can collect data, and save that data in such a manner that you will never be able to "touch" it, yet; that data will be every bit as valid as any other evidence regardless of it's nature.

Data no longer needs to be "tangible"...only valid.

By way of example: any data collected that indicates, and verifies an exoplanet.



posted on Sep, 21 2015 @ 11:26 AM
link   
a reply to: wmd_2008

I understand your reasoning but at the end of the day you saw a red light how many threads / posts do we have on here when people have seen a dot a light and been totally wrong on what they assumed.



True. I'm sure that there is also a class of people that can identify exactly what they saw. Like Venus for example. In the end we have subjective experiences where some are accurate and some aren't. So what we might be seeing here is people reporting things that aren't so good at accurately identifying something. I'm pretty sure you and I can identify balloons but we aren't going to post pictures of identified balloons. point being that we aren't going to get the best cross sample here.



posted on Sep, 21 2015 @ 11:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: wmd_2008
point being that we aren't going to get the best cross sample here.



I disagree, I think we have a reasonable cross-section of "observers" here. After all, we should want that diversity of report, it will help us to find the common elements and perhaps gain better understanding not only the "object in question", but human/observer dynamics as well.



posted on Sep, 21 2015 @ 11:56 AM
link   
For me I suppose it's a little complicated. I do believe aliens exist, I think it's crazy to think we are alone in this vast universe. However with hoaxes, the myraid ways people can perceive stuff that isn't true but fully believe it, and other potential explanations I can't really believe any account 100% though I do find many intriguing and believe they might be true. I'm open to the existence of aliens and believe they are out there, I do truly believe that 100%. I am not sure if I believe they are visiting us or not, everything else is still up in the air for me. I'm open to just about any possibility but without hard proof that's as far as it goes. That I can believe it but I also know it may not be true. If that makes any sense.

As for that hard proof....personal experience would definitely qualify it for me, unless I was in some situation where I could question my own perception of reality. Daily visibility would also solidify belief in me pretty well. Everything else you mention I get interested in but can't say for sure one way or the other, since with pictures and videos they can easily be faked today. Personal testimony from others I can only go on if I feel I can believe they are genuine or not.

I'm not sure where this puts me honestly.



posted on Sep, 21 2015 @ 01:33 PM
link   
a reply to: tanka418

I disagree, I think we have a reasonable cross-section of "observers" here.
possibly, but I would definitely argue biased sampling until we agree on what is reasonable.


After all, we should want that diversity of report, it will help us to find the common elements and perhaps gain better understanding not only the "object in question", but human/observer dynamics as well.

Absolutely.



posted on Sep, 22 2015 @ 06:21 AM
link   
Speaking of hypnosis, Dolores Cannon had an interesting technique for getting information out of people's heads about alien encounters. But then again, we just have to take her word for it...right?

I found the OP's thread to be exactly the way I see all this alien stuff. It must be real...maybe it's not. Well, the XX video I just saw was so believable, but other commenters have debunked it so it's not real. Who do we believe then? The ones with the evidence or the debunkers?

Great thread BTW !
edit on 22-9-2015 by SamHill because: (no reason given)

edit on 22-9-2015 by SamHill because: sp




top topics



 
15
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join