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.

 

"They're only in it for the money" - CHALLENGE TO THE SKEPTICS

page: 2
1
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 04:52 PM
link   
Whitley Streiber doesn't count.

As I've said before, he was a successful novelist and screenwriter before he published Communion. If anything, he had quite a lot, potentially, to lose by coming out as a contactee. Look at the guy's Wiki entry.

Communion came out in 1987. By that time he'd already published the novels:

The Wolfen (1978) and The Hunger (1981), both of which were later made into movies
Black Magic (1982)
The Night Church (1983).
Warday (1984) (a New York Times bestseller)
Nature's End (1986)
Wall of Shadows (1985)
Catmagic 1986.

So... two good selling novels made into movies, a recent NYT bestseller... he had a career going for him. Now, as it turns out, he has turned being a contactee into a good thing for himself. But he was already doing ok, and if he was just making it all up, it's an incredibly risky move.

Not proof, not even balance of probabilities evidence.




posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chadwickus
You know I don't think (genuine) contactees or abductees would make much money from their experiences.

It's the charlatans who either take advantage of these people or fake their own experience themselves that make the dollars.


Ok, so far the only person I'm really thinking has made any money from an abduction scenario (had to stop myself using the phrase "from their experience" because I'm agnostic about whether he had one or not) is Whitley Streiber, and like I say, he was rich already, rich enough that writing about abductions was a very risky strategy: as I say, I think too risky to be worth writing about unless you felt you had to.

So who are these people who are getting rich off abductee or contactee experiences?



posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 05:06 PM
link   
reply to post by rich23
 
Let it go. Whitley Strieber is the exception to the rule. Your point still stands; contactees don't make it rich through their claims.



posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 05:11 PM
link   
I think that with some of the people argued about as potential "get rich contactees", the drive for attention is as strong as the drive to get rich. I also think that some of these people just get so far "into it" , they find it hard to back out because of their fear of personal embarassment & ridicule.



posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 05:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by gimme_some_truth

The man owns an apartment in NY and cabin out in the country.

The man is rich and that is not speculation.


Hmm, would this be the same apartment and cabin in the woods that Strieber mentions in "Communion" as the location where some of his ET encounters occurred, which would mean that he already owned them before he had his ET experiences, or wrote about them or made any money from them?

Strieber definitely doesn't count.


[edit on 28-3-2009 by Malcram]



posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 05:23 PM
link   
This is what? The fourth or fifth thread in a week that is about the horrors of skeptics? Either way, I'm running out of fingers to count on...

The entire premise of this thread is flawed.

First, it assumes that this accusation, though leveled by individuals, is the stance of every skeptic or that every skeptic on ATS has made the accusation (or at least supports it). How can you demand or challenge people who have never made the claim to defend the claim?

Second, it assumes that there have never been people who have used the UFO phenomenon for their own selfish ends. The amount of charlatans and hucksters that plague this field should tell you that isn't true.

Third, it ignores the fact that "being in it for the money" and "getting rich" are not one-in-the-same. To use a more mundane example, many of us are not working in a field we love, but rather have a job because it "pays the bills." In other words, we're in it for the money, but with full knowledge we'll never be rich.



[edit on 28-3-2009 by SaviorComplex]



posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 05:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sam60
I think that with some of the people argued about as potential "get rich contactees", the drive for attention is as strong as the drive to get rich. I also think that some of these people just get so far "into it" , they find it hard to back out because of their fear of personal embarassment & ridicule.


Maybe. But that's pure speculation. Maybe these same people were actually abducted? I've always felt casting aspersions on those who claim abduction or the like is a pretty shady way of dismissing eyewitness accounts.

However, I have no doubt that some people who were actually abducted also thoroughly enjoy attention and money. The desire for money and attention doesn't rule out abduction, unless ET's confine their abductions to saints which, seeing as some of them also also apparently have a penchant for coring out cow anus..usus - what the plural of anus? Ani? - seems pretty unlikely.


[edit on 28-3-2009 by Malcram]



posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 05:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Malcram
Strieber definitely doesn't count...


Yes, he already had a bit of money before the release of Communion. However, he capitalized on the popularity of Communion. He would be a more obscure writer if it were not for Communion.

I never liked him as a writer anyway; The Hunger and The Wolfen are a rare example of movies that are better than the books.



posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 05:38 PM
link   
reply to post by SaviorComplex
 


Actually I hated Communion. I have rarely been so pleased to turn a last page. Unfortunately I have a bad habit of making myself finish books I start reading. So I'm not surprised that the movies were better than his books. I don't think I could bring myself to read anything else by Strieber.

Sorry, Whitley, if you're here.

(everyone's a critic).



posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 05:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Malcram
 


That is why I did not state I rejected the idea that people have been abducted.



posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 05:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Sam60
 


I thought when you said that "some of these people just get so far "into it" , they find it hard to back out because of their fear of personal embarassment & ridicule", that you meant they were making it up and didn't know how to "back out" from their made up abduction stories. Your post seemed to only offer three options: in it (as in made it up) for money, attention or a lie that simply got out of control. But I must have misunderstood you. I gather you mean that besides legitimate abductees there will always be a few who made it up for money, attention or because they started with a yarn that got way out of control? I'm sure that has happened. But calling the individual cases is extremely hard without real proof of deception. And unfortunately, the vast majority of abduction claimants often get tarred with the same brush, as whackos/liars.


[edit on 28-3-2009 by Malcram]



posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 10:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sam60
I think that with some of the people argued about as potential "get rich contactees", the drive for attention is as strong as the drive to get rich. I also think that some of these people just get so far "into it" , they find it hard to back out because of their fear of personal embarassment & ridicule.


Now this is the kind of twisted logic that I find absolutely astonishing and yet typical of the genre.

If they have a "fear of personal embarrassment and ridicule", why are they espousing something so ludicrous in the first place?



posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 10:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Malcram
 


Yes Malcram......
That's about how I see it.



posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 11:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaviorComplex
This is what? The fourth or fifth thread in a week that is about the horrors of skeptics? Either way, I'm running out of fingers to count on...


Well you don't have to read it or reply, do you?


The entire premise of this thread is flawed.


Really? Why?


First, it assumes that this accusation, though leveled by individuals, is the stance of every skeptic or that every skeptic on ATS has made the accusation (or at least supports it).


BZZZZZ! Wrong answer! If you look at my OP you'll find that I said,


One of the most frequent ad hominem attacks one comes across is the accusation that "they're only in it for the money".


It says it's a frequent attack. It doesn't go anywhere near saying what you impute. Please try not to over-react and put words in my mouth.


How can you demand or challenge people who have never made the claim to defend the claim?


Please show me where I incorrectly accused or challenged someone. It's an open challenge. That means it's open to anyone who wishes to try. No names have been mentioned, no arms are being twisted.

I feel you're being a little defensive here.


Second, it assumes that there have never been people who have used the UFO phenomenon for their own selfish ends.


It assumes no such thing. I'm asking for PROOF that it has occurred. What's unreasonable about that?


The amount of charlatans and hucksters that plague this field should tell you that isn't true.


You have not a shred of evidence to support this ludicrous and outrageous assertion. Evidence. That's all I want.

Strictly speaking, to keep it on topic, I'd like proof that someone has fabricated abduction claims to make money.


Third, it ignores the fact that "being in it for the money" and "getting rich" are not one-in-the-same. To use a more mundane example, many of us are not working in a field we love, but rather have a job because it "pays the bills." In other words, we're in it for the money, but with full knowledge we'll never be rich.


This is actually not an unfair point. However, the accusation, which has been levelled at Jonathan Reed, Steven Greer, George Adamski, Whitley Streiber, Travis Walton et al, is pejorative in nature and discounts the idea that they might have told their stories simply to get the information out there, not for the express purpose of making money.

Lighten up, SC. But it IS a serious point. This accusation gets thrown around a lot, and there's generally less evidence for it than there is for UFOs. I've never seen a picture of Whitley Streiber actually counting his money. I'm just enforcing the same standards on this as the skeptics.

And you know what? It's a lot easier to play this side of the game.

[edit on 28-3-2009 by rich23]



posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 11:18 PM
link   
Id like to put up the city of Roswell as a candidate they have been making money of tourists and lots of it. They have taken it to the extreme.

And heres my proof! roswell



posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 11:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by dragonridr

Id like to put up the city of Roswell as a candidate they have been making money of tourists and lots of it. They have taken it to the extreme.

And heres my proof! roswell


Ooh, nice one. LOL.

Though I fear you may be disqualified on the technicality that the city of Roswell has never claimed to have been abducted, as far as I know. But we'll have to wait for the ruling from our host. Still, I like the way your mind works



[edit on 28-3-2009 by Malcram]



posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 11:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by rich23
It says it's a frequent attack. It doesn't go anywhere near saying what you impute.


Frequent implies it being common, thus my point still stands. Where on ATS has this become a common accusation? And the fact it is an open challenge to any skeptic implies that this is something that all skeptics engage in. Why not direct it towards those individuals who make the claim?


Originally posted by rich23
You have not a shred of evidence to support this ludicrous and outrageous assertion. Evidence. That's all I want.


Are you serious? Are you seriously claiming that no one has ever used the UFO phenomenon to their own selfish ends? Are you claiming that there have never been hoaxes or scams? To call the fact such things have happened a "ludicrous and outrageous" assertion says a lot.


Originally posted by rich23
However, the accusation, which has been leveled at Jonathan Reed, Steven Greer...Whitley Streiber, is pejorative in nature and discounts the idea that they might have told their stories simply to get the information out there, not for the express purpose of making money.


Whether or not Strieber needed the money, it is undeniable that he did make money off of his experience. And Greer had made quite a deal of money off of his claims as well, charging hundreds of dollars for "vectoring" sessions and the like.

(I don't know about the others, thus why I did not mention them)


Originally posted by rich23
I've never seen a picture of Whitley Streiber actually counting his money. I'm just enforcing the same standards on this as the skeptics.


So, the point of this is not defending contactees who may have made money off their claims, or examine any facts for or against any accusations, but rather just to mock skeptics.



posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 11:36 PM
link   
reply to post by dragonridr
 


This is proof that items are for sale. There's no proof that they have actually sold any, nor that the salespeople are even based in Roswell. More and better evidence please!

Besides which, it's a whole town, not an individual contactee. I mean, there are people who try to make money out of alien tourism, like the Little Ale'inn, but that's just the great American spirit of entrepreneurialism at work!



posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 11:42 PM
link   
I just want to add the caveat that while Strieber has enriched himself, and I do think he would not be as well known today if not for his experience, I will not fault him for making money from his claims. He's an writer, he wrote a book, it's what they do.



posted on Mar, 29 2009 @ 12:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by SaviorComplex
Frequent implies it being common, thus my point still stands.


Only if you ignore the difference between the concepts of "some people" and "all people". Just to quote what you said, again,


this accusation... is the stance of every skeptic or that every skeptic on ATS has made the accusation (or at least supports it).


Your accusation would only stand up if I'd used a word like "constant" or "invariable". I didn't. I used the word "frequent". That means some people but not every person.

Now, if you think that "some people" = "every person", I can't help you.


Where on ATS has this become a common accusation?


Frequent and common are not quite the same thing. But you can't have it both ways. You can't try to attack me for saying it's common while still advancing the argument yourself. that's hypocritical.


And the fact it is an open challenge to any skeptic implies that this is something that all skeptics engage in.


No, it doesn't. It's an invitation to all who wish to, to debate. Please refer to my distinguishing between the meaning of the phrases "some people" and "all people" above. You're really labouring this point and it's not going well for you, I have to say.


Why not direct it towards those individuals who make the claim?


Because on ATS you put up a thread and those people who are interested will come and post. Those who aren't will stay away in droves. I wish I knew why you were feeling so defensive about this.



Originally posted by rich23
You have not a shred of evidence to support this ludicrous and outrageous assertion. Evidence. That's all I want.


Are you serious? Are you seriously claiming that no one has ever used the UFO phenomenon to their own selfish ends? Are you claiming that there have never been hoaxes or scams? To call the fact such things have happened a "ludicrous and outrageous" assertion says a lot.


It says that your sense of humour needs a little bit of a tweak. I had my tongue in my cheek when I said this was a "ludicrous and outrageous assertion." I am, however, serious in that if you want to make these claims you have to provide some evidence for them. That's all. Just some evidence.


Whether or not Strieber needed the money, it is undeniable that he did make money off of his experience. And Greer had made quite a deal of money off of his claims as well, charging hundreds of dollars for "vectoring" sessions and the like.


Ok, you say it's undeniable. Now I've seen elsewhere that Greer charged for vectoring sessions, I won't dispute that, and he also has had books out. But my point is that the accusation is pejorative in nature, and the implication is, as the title of the thread states, "they're only in it for the money". Now I've heard stories of both success and failure for the vectoring sessions, so while it may not always work, he does appear to have some satisfied customers and may actually be doing something right, I don't know.

However: Greer was an emergency room MD, so I think we can assume he wasn't exactly poor before he went into UFOlogy or whatever you'd call it. To prove the accusation of "fraud" and "charlatan" you'd have to demonstrate that he's doing it exclusively for financial gain... and I don't think it's a case you've yet made.

Bear in mind that I didn't mention you by name in the title of the thread, it's not necessarily aimed at you. However, if you want to prove that those people are frauds, I'd like better evidence please.


So, the point of this is not defending contactees who may have made money off their claims, or examine any facts for or against any accusations, but rather just to mock skeptics.


No. I have a sense of humour and am approaching this in broad good spirits. The point of this... well, it's just a post on ATS, isn't it? I'm here to learn, and I'm learning a lot from this thread. It's even possible that some skeptics out there are learning something from it as well.

All I'm doing is demanding the same standards of proof skeptics do. That's all. And I'm having a certain amount of fun while I'm at it. Sue me.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join