The Threat - Aliens are Evil

reply to post by WingedBull

What "majority" of cases are you talking about? Who are you sourcing for the "majority" of abduction accounts?

Typical response I guess, I saw that coming a mile away. I'm talking about the mass of abduction accounts on the internet, in UFO databases, on ATS etc. I've spent at least 5 years studying the UFO and abduction phenomena. And before you ask me to find these accounts, if you look at my last post you'll see a link to a post where I've done just that. Do you want me to find more? 5 more? 10 more? Just say the word. I'll make it happen, it wont take long.

Aside from a vague archetype, the narrative developed by Jacobs certainly does not match the one developed by Mack, for instance.

Well I honestly don't know much about Mack or his research. I intend to study his research very soon. And I'm sure I'll find the same old things within his cases. The only difference will be in interpretation and the aspects of the abduction which he focuses on the most and hinges his theories on. No doubt there will be clear corroboration between Mack's and Jacobs abductee testimony.

Through his own actions in the years since. He has exposed himself as a charlatan time and again.

Yes. Greer is quite the charlatan these days, so I expect you don't put any credibility into the Disclosure Project for that reason then?

Why don't you tell us why Jacobs is right? Study after study after study shows us hypnosis is an invalid tool. Why not show us independent studies that support Jacobs' claims about hypnosis as a tool.

Study after study has shown hypnosis can retrieve confabulated memories, but time after time research has also shown it's just as easy to get real information. What you're ignoring here is the potential for these accounts to be real, you cling to the theory it's all fantasy based on the assumption hypnosis is an unreliable. It is unreliable, but it isn't invalid. There are many methods of deterring those who are easily led, as explained by Jacobs certain questions such as "do you see corners in the room", or "do the aliens have small eyes", or "are the aliens purple", or "are the aliens fat", all these questions should answer "no". This allows the hypnotist to measure their degree of suggestibility and allow for that in evaluation. Once the abductee starts giving previously corroborated information the account gains a lot of weight. "small grey being with big black eyes", "no visible bolts or welding", "staring into my eyes, telepathy, mind control, paralysis", "gynecological operation", "been abducted since childhood", "missing time", "the doctor", "egg and sperm removal", "fetus implantation and removal", "floating through walls", these are all signs of a genuine abductee account.

Originally posted by WhizPhiz
Why don't you ever reply to the points I make, you just keep pushing the same point over and over again without replying to any argument I present.

This is the first time you and I have ever had a conversation. I have only made two responses (as of the post you are responding to). I directly replied to points you made. Your above fit shows you have a very skewed and questionable perception of reality.

Originally posted by WhizPhiz
Different researchers simply interpret the abduction accounts differently, and the above quote would be moderately true, abductees would search our researchers they feel will "resonate" with the way they interpret their experiences.

Most abductees, when seeking out an abduction do so blindly, with little or no idea of what the researchers' personal beliefs are, aside from being a sympathetic ear. This is reflected in the literature of people such as Jacobs and Hopkins. They come to the researcher because they feel they may been abducted. It is only after the researcher starts delving into their supposed abductions do they find, by coincidence, that their patient's testimony matches that of the said researcher's personal beliefs.

Originally posted by WhizPhiz
However, it's still possible to find common trends in all genuine abductee accounts, no matter the person or the researcher.

The abduction narrative is so prevalent in society one can easily create an convincing abduction account with all the same archetypical elements after reading a couple of books or a few minutes of research on the internet. This is not to say that every abductee is a liar or conscious fantasist. What it is saying is that the human mind and the creation of memory is far more complex than Jacobs would have us believe.
He presents very solid logic and reasoning for most of his theories and why he is suspect of their operations. His work is not to be dismissed in the manner you suggest.

Originally posted by WhizPhiz
Because all you skeptics are avoiding my questions and just saying the same things over and over again - Jacobs is crazy and hypnosis is invalid.

Actually, your questions have been answered, ad nausem. You, however, do not like the answers and are dismissing them as answers. So what if we are saying the same things over and over again? Just because something has been said an arbitrary number of times doesn't make it invalid. Tell us why we are wrong.

reply to post by WingedBull

I have only made two responses (as of the post you are responding to). I directly replied to points you made. Your above fit shows you have a very skewed and questionable perception of reality.

So now you're implying I'm mentally ill? If you'll take note, I made a quick edit correcting my statement (which I note you removed from your above quote):

EDIT: The link post wasn't actually a reply to you, but I would still like your take on it. Because all you skeptics are avoiding my questions and just saying the same things over and over again - Jacobs is crazy and hypnosis is invalid.

Originally posted by WhizPhiz
Typical response I guess, I saw that coming a mile away.

Apparently not, because you grossly misunderstood the question. What researchers are you sourcing for the claims that the "majority" of abduction accounts follow Jacobs' beliefs?

Originally posted by WhizPhizWell I honestly don't know much about Mack or his research. I intend to study his research very soon.

So, you have not studied the other major researcher, yet proclaim the narratives are the same. Interesting.

Originally posted by WhizPhizYes. Greer is quite the charlatan these days, so I expect you don't put any credibility into the Disclosure Project for that reason then?

I put no credibility in anecdotes. They may be interesting and compel us to further research but an anecdote itself is not worthy enough to base an entire belief on.

Originally posted by WhizPhiz
Study after study has shown hypnosis can retrieve confabulated memories

It does not "retrieve" confabulated memories, it creates them.

Originally posted by WhizPhiz
but time after time research has also shown it's just as easy to get real information.

I asked for the studies supporting this. Where are they?

Originally posted by WhizPhiz It is unreliable, but it isn't invalid.

There is no separating the two. If it is an unreliable tool for research then by definition it must be considered invalid.

Originally posted by WhizPhiz
There are many methods of deterring those who are easily led, as explained by Jacobs certain questions such as "do you see corners in the room", or "do the aliens have small eyes", or "are the aliens purple", or "are the aliens fat", all these questions should answer "no". This allows the hypnotist to measure their degree of suggestibility and allow for that in evaluation.

Question is, does the abduction research accept negative hits as being negative hits? Abduction researchers have been criticized for asking patients under hypnosis the same question repeatedly, coercing them to give a "correct" answer. Kevin Randle cites an example of this in his response to Hopkins, the Philip Osbourne case (see my original post in this thread for the link). The problem is that researchers such as Hopkins and Jacobs are utterly convinced of hypnosis' ability to recover memories and that aliens create "screen-memories". So when an abductee produces a negative hit, the research keeps drilling until it becomes a "positive".

(edit to add: Or look at the Richard Boylan case cited by Randle in his article; two clients came to him because they thought they had been victims of satanic ritual abuse. But Boylan told them they had actually been abducted by aliens. Certainly, these clients would have produced negative hits for the researcher, yet somehow he was able to find the underlying abduction)

Originally posted by WhizPhiz
So now you're implying I'm mentally ill?

It must take a lot of effort knocking down those straw-men. No one said any such thing.

Originally posted by WhizPhiz
If you'll take note, I made a quick edit correcting my statement (which I note you removed from your above quote)

If there is any confusion here, the fault lies with you. You said the link was not a reply to me; you said nothing of the rant that preceded it.

Originally posted by WingedBull

Originally posted by WhizPhiz
Jacobs seems to view the alien intentions in a more skeptical manner.

Jacobs does nothing of the sort. He may have different beliefs about the intentions of the supposed aliens but skepticism has nothing to do with it. This quote from Mack in CDB Bryan's Close Encounters of the Fourth Kind is very revealing...

"And there’s another dimension to this, which Budd Hopkins and Dave Jacobs and I argue about all the time which is I’m struck by the fact that there seems to be a kind of matching of the investigator with the experiencer. So what may be the archetypal structure of an abduction to Dave Jacobs may not be the uniform experience of, say, Joe Nyman or John Mack or someone else. And the experiencers seem to pick out the investigator who will fit their experience."

In other words, researchers "just happen" to find abductees who's experiences "just happen" to match the expectations of the researcher.

edit on 27-2-2011 by WingedBull because: (no reason given)

According to Rainey, the majority of cases Hopkins and Jacobs deal with on a day to day basis don't support their "preferred" narrative and therefore never make it to print.

Originally posted by cripmeister
According to Rainey, the majority of cases Hopkins and Jacobs deal with on a day to day basis don't support their "preferred" narrative and therefore never make it to print.

Withdrawn. I horribly misread this.

reply to post by WingedBull

Apparently not, because you grossly misunderstood the question. What researchers are you sourcing for the claims that the "majority" of abduction accounts follow Jacobs' beliefs?

I have clearly stated this is essentially the first book on abduction that I've read. But I don't need to refer to researchers to answer your question, the underlying information is coming from abductees, and their stories aren't refined to a researchers filing cabinet.

So, you have not studied the other major researcher, yet proclaim the narratives are the same. Interesting.

No, I'm guessing, with full confidence, that the abductee reports will bear commonalities beyond mere coincidence. Just as I expected from Jacobs book, half of what I read wont come as a surprise. The similarities are always there, looming and taunting the minds of rational people who know it's more than coincidence but can't bring themselves to embrace the truth.

I put no credibility in anecdotes. They may be interesting and compel us to further research but an anecdote itself is not worthy enough to base an entire belief on.

Indeed, the Disclosure Project is but a large portion of the over all body of evidence, it's not worth all that much on it's own, but in conjunction with all the other testimony and even mass sightings that remain unexplained, so many mysterious cases that can't easily be explained, and it's hard to fathom all of them can be explained. It's also hard to fathom that hundreds of thousands of people are ALL misinformed, lying or delusional about their sightings or experiences. What you fail to see is the bigger picture my friend.

It does not "retrieve" confabulated memories, it creates them.

I wont argue that, but memories also become distorted over time, to compensate dreams and fantasies can fill in the gaps. This is a nasty type of confabulation, because it mixes fact with fiction.

I asked for the studies supporting this. Where are they?

Let me get this straight, you believe it's impossible for a person to give valid information while under hypnosis? Do you have any idea how silly that statement is? The person being hypnotized doesn't turn into some puppet that can't tell the truth. The hypnotist has limited control, as I've explained in moderate detail now, it's essentially impossible to make a hypnotized person do something they don't want to do, and if you want some "research" to back that up, please see my link to the official CIA paper titled "Hypnosis in Interrogation" on page 7. It's sort of like talking to a person while they're sleeping. They most certainly can tell you the truth. Must I still find you some research to substantiate these obvious facts? It's clear you know little about hypnosis yet claim it to be completely invalid.

There is no separating the two. If it is an unreliable tool for research then by definition it must be considered invalid.

As I've also stated, it's the only tool available to allow any sort of real analysis to take place. Photo's and video prove nothing and tell us nothing about their agenda. Until you have a better idea I will not consider this line of research invalid, because it's far from it.

reply to post by cripmeister

According to Rainey, the majority of cases Hopkins and Jacobs deal with on a day to day basis don't support their "preferred" narrative and therefore never make it to print.

Oh really, so why is then that using "my" and "abduction" as search terms yield abduction cases where at least 80% of them have 2 or more clear similarities between the cases presented by Jacobs? Go ahead and try it (title search refined to the UFO forum). Without any trouble my first few search results had accounts referring to missing time, mental manipulation, common Grey descriptions, floating through walls, egg removal, fetus removal, and a range of other things. Yet you guys sit here claiming there's no correlation. Stop ignoring these blatant facts, and present your theory for how it's possible.

EDIT: Correction, I searched "my" and "abduct".

If the aliens are evil then why are we all still alive? If these abdiction stories are true then the aliens either must not want to wipe us out or we under estimate the human race and we have more defence against them than we might think.

Maybe if these stories are true then the aliens might be after earth for them sleves and we have something that they know we could use to make it inhabiable if the worst came to the worst. Or maybe its another reason all together.

Originally posted by WhizPhiz
Oh really, so why is then that using "my" and "abduction" as search terms yield abduction cases where at least 80% of them have 2 or more clear similarities between the cases presented by Jacobs?

The abduction issue has been around plenty long enough for people to have heard of these anecdotes.
That makes it possible that they are just regurgitating something they heard or read somewhere. I know many abductees claim to have never heard of this kind of thing beforehand, but people do lie and decieve themselves on a pretty regular basis.

Just a thought, but it's a valid scenario.

D'oh! Double click!

reply to post by ThePeopleParty

If the aliens are evil then why are we all still alive? If these abdiction stories are true then the aliens either must not want to wipe us out or we under estimate the human race and we have more defence against them than we might think.

We definitely would have been gone a long time ago if they intended to wipe us out. I doubt they would have trouble doing so. They definitely have some sort of agenda, and all indications is that agenda involved a hybrid breeding program. Or some sort of genetic experiment at minimum. What their ultimate goal is, is hard to say. Jacobs believes they intend to merge the hybrids with our population at a future time, which does seem logical, but there are other possible explanations.

Originally posted by WhizPhiz
I have clearly stated this is essentially the first book on abduction that I've read. But I don't need to refer to researchers to answer your question, the underlying information is coming from abductees, and their stories aren't refined to a researchers filing cabinet.

You still wildly miss the point.

Originally posted by WhizPhizThe similarities are always there, looming and taunting the minds of rational people who know it's more than coincidence but can't bring themselves to embrace the truth.

How do you know it isn't more than coincidence? Humans love their archetypes. What compels you to believe they are more than coincidence? The similarities in stories? The number of people?

Even if it is more than mere coincidence it does not mean it is an objective reality either.

It's also hard to fathom that hundreds of thousands of people are ALL misinformed, lying or delusional about their sightings or experiences.

Why? Why do you think that an arbitrary number of people discussing an arbitrary subject makes said subject suddenly true?

Originally posted by WhizPhizI wont argue that, but memories also become distorted over time, to compensate dreams and fantasies can fill in the gaps. This is a nasty type of confabulation, because it mixes fact with fiction.

Very interesting you should bring that up. Doesn't that give you pause?

Originally posted by WhizPhizLet me get this straight, you believe it's impossible for a person to give valid information while under hypnosis? Do you have any idea how silly that statement is?

Yes, it is a very silly statement. That is why you are arguing against it. Problem is, I never said such a thing. It is much easier for you to attack your straw-man than my actual point.

Originally posted by WhizPhizand if you want some "research" to back that up, please see my link to the official CIA paper titled "Hypnosis in Interrogation" on page 7.

You cherry-picked one study that has little to do with the subject at hand. Abductees go to a research who is sympathetic, looking for help. Your study is about subjects under duress, in a hostile environment. However, notice what it states in the paper...

Orne has shown that the demand characteristics of an experimental situation may greatly influence a subject's hypnotic behavior. It is clear that at some level any cooperative subject wishes an experiment to "work out," wishes to help fulfill the experimenter's expectations. If he grasps the purpose of the experiment or the bias of the experimenter, he is disposed toward producing behavior which will confirm the experimenter's hypothesis. This is particularly true in a hypnotic relationship.

Originally posted by WhizPhizMust I still find you some research to substantiate these obvious facts?

Yes, thus far you have offered nothing to collaborate your (by proxy) claims regarding the validity of hypnosis.

Originally posted by WhizPhiz
It's clear you know little about hypnosis yet claim it to be completely invalid.

Thus says the person who's only sources about the validity of using hypnosis are Jacobs and a study that actually contradicts their claims.

Originally posted by WhizPhizAs I've also stated, it's the only tool available to allow any sort of real analysis to take place. Photo's and video prove nothing and tell us nothing about their agenda. Until you have a better idea I will not consider this line of research invalid, because it's far from it.

Really now? You admit to it being unreliable but do not question the veracity of information gathered under it? You have absolutely no idea how unreliable it is, yet still think it is a valid tool, even going so far as to say it is far from invalid? You accuse other people of knowing little about hypnosis but you only seem to support it, no matter how unreliable it is, because it supports your beliefs.

Originally posted by WhizPhiz
reply to post by cripmeister

 

According to Rainey, the majority of cases Hopkins and Jacobs deal with on a day to day basis don't support their "preferred" narrative and therefore never make it to print.

Oh really, so why is then that using "my" and "abduction" as search terms yield abduction cases where at least 80% of them have 2 or more clear similarities between the cases presented by Jacobs? Go ahead and try it (title search refined to the UFO forum). Without any trouble my first few search results had accounts referring to missing time, mental manipulation, common Grey descriptions, floating through walls, egg removal, fetus removal, and a range of other things. Yet you guys sit here claiming there's no correlation. Stop ignoring these blatant facts, and present your theory for how it's possible.

EDIT: Correction, I searched "my" and "abduct".

edit on 27-2-2011 by WhizPhiz because: (no reason given)

That sounds like something Jacobs would do and call it research. Again, I think Jacobs/Hopkins narrative has become a meme, part of the broader meme referred to as the dark side of UFOlogy.

reply to post by subject x

The abduction issue has been around plenty long enough for people to have heard of these anecdotes.

It would take a person with a moderate amount of knowledge pertaining to this topic to give a genuine sounding abduction account. I find it doubtful all these people just so happen to know about "the doctor" and other less commonly known, but common occurrences during abductions.If every single person were making this up, there would be vast inconsistencies because of people adding their own twists to the story. And the inconsistencies we do see imply a hoax story, but if you line up the ones that look genuine it's not conceivable they all came up with such similar scenarios. Children seem to be able to remember their experiences more often without hypnosis, and some of the things they describe isn't quite common knowledge to say the least, and a child should never know those things so young.

Originally posted by WhizPhiz
Oh really, so why is then that using "my" and "abduction" as search terms yield abduction cases where at least 80% of them have 2 or more clear similarities between the cases presented by Jacobs?

The answer is in Cripmeister's statement and my post which you ignored.

Originally posted by WhizPhiz
It would take a person with a moderate amount of knowledge pertaining to this topic to give a genuine sounding abduction account.

They don't need a moderate amount of knowledge. A person can create a genuine sounding account by just a few minutes research on the internet, watching a few hours of TV or a couple of books. But, fortunately or unfortunately, they do not need any of this. The abduction researcher is more than happy to help them along. I illustrated how this happens in above posts, but you seem to have ignored them.

reply to post by WhizPhiz

There are plenty of inconsistancies in the stories as it is, even those whipped up by one hypnotist, let alone adding the rest of them into the mix. You can doubt all you want, but that doesn't make the possibility any less valid.
I just think it would behoove you to search out other sources of info. This might mean waiting for quite a while for the answers you're looking for, but that would be wiser than believing suspect data as fact.

There's no rush for the truth.

Originally posted by cripmeister
That sounds like something Jacobs would do and call it research. Again, I think Jacobs/Hopkins narrative has become a meme, part of the broader meme referred to as the dark side of UFOlogy.

Which is what WhizPhiz either cannot understand or refuses to acknowledge. Cases of high strangeness that cannot be forced into the pigeonholed Jacobs and Hopkins have created are not reported in the literature. Only those that match their narrative make it in and are then consumed by the general public. Perception changes to match this contrived narrative. Under this influence, layman reporting abductions find (sometimes with the help of the researcher) that their abduction matches the contrived narrative, thus leading the researcher to believe the abduction supports his findings. It is a positive feedback loop.