Violent encounter with an alien being

Well first of all, I've not made a single personal attack on Dan. I've been logical, polite, and I've come to my conclusions based on facts, not guesswork. I think on page 60 I broke down many problems I have with this story. Why don't you address those, and if you can explain them away, perhaps I'll see this in different light.

It doesn't take a professional in the study of UFOs to break this one down though. Although, I've closely followed the study of UFOs for around 28 years or so now, so I am not completely ignorant on the subject.

I believe in respect as well though. I haven't called Dan any names. I've not even directly called him a liar, just indirectly, by way of saying I think this is a hoax. Am I sure? Actually yes, I'm pretty darn sure. It only takes common sense to tear this one apart fairly easily.

His own account has lies in it. If he says he stabbed a creature 35 or so times, and then later in the story, this magically changes to over 100 times, why is this my fault, someone who is just trying to get the truth of the story? I'd certainly know if I stabbed a creature 35 times, or over 100, there is a big difference there.

The lighting makes no sense, the grappling on the bed, the pictures of ufos afer the fact, the dramatic flair added at many points. Again, it doesn't take a professional to see that there is serious issues with this account. Only someone with a decent amount of common sense.

I am a polite, very nice fellow. I take offense to you suggesting otherwise, simply because I feel it's within my rights to claim this as a terrible hoax.

And why is it an issue to me? Well let's see. We are on page almost 80 in this thread. A thread which imo, is full of the fanciful delusions of a rather poor storyteller. While an important thread about the radar reading in Stephensville, which harbors MUCH more solid evidence, is at page 7. This is a waste of time. It's a hoax. A fraud. Yes, he is a liar. I'm not a jerk for pointing this out, and I'm surprised you feel someone is rude or nasty, simply because he tries to break down the account of a very close encounter.

Have YOU bothered to very carefully go over this account? Until you do, I don't think you should tell others to not call this out as a hoax.

I don't doubt your story

However this is probably, a very poor example of how contact or encounters with alien creatures should be addressed.

Planet of the Apes attack on a curious creature from another place?

They likely have the power to exterminate all life on this planet. Thank God they are probably operating under some form of a "Code of Ethics"

See Lunar Lizardz Moon Research Pics

I read a book a long time ago. I can't remember the name of the book, but it had to do with alien abductions. There was a therapist who wrote the book. This therapist used regression therapy to get the stories out of the subjects.

There was one story in the book from a guy who told of being abducted and trained by aliens as a combatant. He was taken to a planet where the ship he was on swooped in low, and he hit the deck running.

When I read that story I went what crap. Since that story though, I have read other even more bizarre stories like betty lukas andreason affair which her step son came forward and told of his father, bob lukas sr being the instigator to the stories betty made up.

At this point I have to stamp this story, as a story, and it appears regression was used in part if not all of the story. Since the poster and wife, friends are involved in the health field, this explaination is plausible.

The poster is now leading the forum on with dead end post.

My opinion to the forum: close the post and stamp it HOAX.

My mistake, I meant 80 miles per week.
Roughly 10.2 Miles per day.


[edit on 12-7-2008 by Malevolent_Aliens]

All too often, claims of the paranormal, alien abductions, cryptid sightings have an inherent 'fuzziness'. We only catch a glimpse of something. An object flies off the shelf, things go bump in the night, an impossibly large shadow goes by the campfire.

What to do with claims that are just too specific and detailed? Shall we over-analyze these tales, as though they have to make up for the usual fuzziness, by being turned inside-out, looking for logical answers as to why things happened?

Can beings not-of-this world show up in our bedrooms? For the moment, that's not really important. The story requires attention to the 'who', 'what', 'when, 'where', 'why', and 'how' of things. Though life isn't a movie with a coherent script, things happen for a reason. You can't ignore instincts which tell us that 'things just don't happen that way.' We have an instinctual understanding of the way humans react in crisis and we want the story to conform, at least so that it's internally consistent.

Once that story starts to break down, our inner detective looks for other problems. Is the story-teller believable? Are there ulterior motives; are we being manipulated as an audience.

Some of this processing takes place in us in layers below the reasoning mind, just as we recognize fleeting facial expressions and pick up on subtleties, so we can 'read between the lines'.

Is it a matter of the old adage, 'you can fool some of the people, some of the time?' Or how about 'the bigger the lie, the easier the sell'. Though people are naturally sympathetic, part of the nature of empathy is knowing what makes someone tick, and when those alarms go off, it's how we know when we're being played as the fool.

Given the right set of circumstances, emotions, and approach, humans are frequently gullible. They have an instinctive need to support one another. Sometimes we have to set aside this tendency and look at things for the way they really are. Though we might believe a story of pigs flying, we want to assure ourselves that it's under their own power or at least get a good look at the wings.

2 cents.

reply to post by Badge01

---

You make a really good point about the fuzzyness. When I was about 15 I was walking home from a friends house at night, when I got to my street I saw a bright light behind some trees, after a few seconds looking at it floating there, it suddenly shot off in an arc and was gone in a couple of seconds. I remember running to try get another glimpse of it. But the fuzzyness you talk about is there almost immediately and only gets worse as I get older. Did I really see that? was it just a plane or a trick of memory? As I get older I'm not even sure if I saw anything strange at all, though at the time I was sure. Maybe half of what I remember is youthful imagination and exaggeration.

Can this possibly be the biggest thread on ATS?
yes.

reply to post by Badge01

---

I had an experience when I was a child - a close encounter - a perfectly round beautifully lit orb floated in my bedroom window and came over to me at eye level and hovered there for a few minutes before leaving out the same window - I made the mistake of telling my family about it the next morning - and was met with complete ridicule - never made that mistake again...it was not a "fuzzy" encounter, I was fully awake and I will never forget it...but do I care whether you or anyone believes it ?....not in the slightest...

No "Sleeper's thread" is the largest.

Please correct me if I am wrong.

quote from page 67

How many times has this phrase been proven wrong?

I did it really fast.

Has anyone else?

[edit on 12-7-2008 by Youarearegularriotalice]

reply to post by Youarearegularriotalice

---

I don't know what you see in that quote, but to me it says 80 miles a week.

Dan says he runs 80 miles a week. He has been consistent on this detail. So, how about we let this thread die because all relevant debunking has already been done. It does no good to repeat these same details over and over especially when you are getting them wrong.

reply to post by TheComte

---

I think you need to re-read my previous post.

Then you will find the difference of opinion.

[edit on 12-7-2008 by Youarearegularriotalice]

reply to post by realshanti

---

Yeah, but sadly you seem to have missed the whole point of my summation.

Oh well, orbs will do what they will and neither man nor beast shall matter in a trice. To thine ownself be true.

You use the phrase again on page 11 "never did I say I"
when you leaped out of bed. Of course you didn't but I feel, left out important informaiton. inbetween these 2 sentences.

Everything is in such detail. Except for what happened. Cleary you must remember if you can recite the whole event.

[edit on 12-7-2008 by Youarearegularriotalice]

Do you mean this post? It says 80 miles a week. What am I mis-reading? Here, it's in bold so it's easier to see.

[edit on 12-7-2008 by TheComte]

reply to post by TheComte

---

Originally posted by Dan Tanna


I never said I was a superman, I never said I run 80 miles a day

It is pointless to argue with the comte. he seems to have a personal agenda in debunking dan and holds a severe hatred for this thread close to his heart.

reply to post by Youarearegularriotalice

---

Yes, read it. It says he "NEVER said he runs 80 miles a DAY."

That's because he runs 80 miles a WEEK. U2U me if you need further clarification.

reply to post by Mad_Hatter

---

Why do you say that? Can't you see I'm defending Dan's point of the 80 miles per week? Surely you can see that, can't you?