reply to post by phi1618
The main underlying thing beneath all your info is trust, your trusting their stories and accounts.
im not doubting alien abduction here, im doubting the existence of greys.
When you have countless numbers of individuals (even 20% of which is still a very large number) stating the SAME THING, THE SAME MO, THE SAME
CREATURES, as well as government reports of THE SAME CREATURES I think it obviously goes way past a "trust issue" here. It is logic, it is much more
logical to assume that indeed the Grey aliens do exist given the frequency of reports, than it is to just place some theory with little or no evidence
to back it other then pure speculation because you or whoever personally (for whatever reason) do no think the Grey aliens exist, so you attempt to
place something that "sounds good" on top of the theory to make it fit. You are forcing a answer to something without doing the proper research
I am the first to admit that I can not prove Greys exist, hell it could all be something mundane. However, I am also the first to admit that there is
not enough evidence to rule one way or another.
Based upon the available evidence
we have regarding the Grey aliens, it currently
seems FAR more likely that they exist rather than not. In any case, your theory does appear to make some sense when we talk about the 60 or 70% of
cases that can be chalked up to mundane explanations. It is the legit cases that I am concerned about. It is those that I think for whatever reason
you are trying to claim without much research into it, that you have explained the Greys away. We can NOT do that in this field.
To do something like you appear to be pushing that you have done (which is to explain the Greys) one must conduct months or years of study, this is
called a longitudinal study
, one must be fully aware of the details
behind the cases, one must be aware of the theoretical aspects of
astrobiology and astroevolution
. One also must look at the probability, given the evidence available(whether circumstantial or not) of
so many people encountering the same creatures, and all those creatures fitting into your theory (or anyone's that disputes the Greys being an actual
entity), the probability that all those people are delusional as opposed to at least some are telling the truth and the event did happen.
Okay, so now you will move to the "aliens in disguise as Greys" right? That is all fine and good, but that theory of yours lacks even 1% of the
evidence in favor of Greys actually being what they look like. So when that is taken into consideration, as well the aforementioned other reasons it
quickly becomes apparent that there is still MUCH work to be done before ANYONE can go around confidently stating the Greys do or do not exist. All we
can go with is the best theory based on probability and available evidence.
One also needs to weigh Occam's Razor pretty heavily here, which
when it is, the theory that Greys are what they appear to be is MUCH more simpler than any other theory out there for the remaining 20 or 30% of
reply to post by Skeptical Ed
You don't seem to understand that it is very easy to dismiss reports of aliens and, particularly, alleged alien abductions. Why? Because we
have NEVER been shown any irrefutable evidence. What has been offered suffers and could never be admitted in a court of law. What we really have from
the "abduction victims" is hearsay.
I think you do have an erroneous view of some cases and the proper way to investigate and use logic.
Because something has no "concrete evidence" makes it WITHOUT A DOUBT false according to you. That is a major fallacy, one must realize that ufology
especially is all based on circumstantial evidence, eyewitness accounts, and probability of truth based on the available evidence. According to your
premise just because you have no solid, undeniable proof that something exists you will disregard any other types of evidence or probabilities that
point to it being real.
So basically you are saying that unless you see it you will claim to all that it is complete bunk right? I think your apparent
approaching dangerous levels of close mindedness and ambiguity. To automatically refute something because you have no absolute proof is nothing but a
bad thing that always leads to ignorance IMHO. I really hope you can do some more research into ufology and at least remain open to the possibility
before so confidently stating something as bunk. Oh and by the way, the Walton case has NEVER been proven a hoax.
ALSO: Your case is classic Sleep paralysis, it, like others mentioned in this thread, are not close to a classic abduction case.
Overall I must say it looks like some of you guys are just trying ANYTHING to discredit something, regardless of the evidence you are always sticking
to your theory and paradigm without even being open to anything else. That is a slippery slope, one that is not needed in ufology or anywhere else
Again great thread phi1618
but I think you and some others on here are trying to push theories into places where they don't fit. It appears as
if you are giving answers without answering the questions.
[edit on 9/22/2009 by jkrog08]