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 creation of the Abduction Phenomenon (new video) : Manhattan Abduction

page: 3
18
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 07:15 PM
link   
I don't really know much about Muertos Blog yet, but he makes some good points about Whitley Streiber's "mystical" background in his article, “Communion” at 25: Whitley Strieber’s Alien Claims Re-examined. (Part I)

He provides some deconstruction of Budd Hopkins & the Hypnosis angle as well.

Check it out.


…Strieber reports a long-time association with the Gurdjieff Foundation beginning in the 1970s.  This is an organization promoting the work of G.I. Gurdjieff and P.D. Ouspensky.  These are noted “mystics” (translation: charlatans) who figure large in New Age philosophy circles.

*Strieber states toward the end of Communion that his life and philosophy has been heavily influenced by “the tarot.”  He says, “Please, set aside any notion of fortune-telling,” and then says that he became interested in tarot about 1971 and he “came to realize that the tarot is much more than a deck of fortune-telling cards; it is a sort of philosophical machine that presents its ideas in the form of pictures rather than words.”

So, instead of being an “ordinary guy,” it turns out Strieber has always been interested in UFOs and aliens, believes in tarot cards, and is a follower of weird New Age mystics.  Is the picture changing here?... muertos.blog.com...

edit on 7-3-2011 by The GUT because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 07:25 PM
link   
The creation of the Abduction Phenomenon (new video) : Manhattan Abduction

---

Hi All and OP. Nice to see new analysis on an old subject. Seems to me, Mr Hopkins initially said that amongst all the stopped motorists the Sec Gen (UN) was amonst them and had written Budd a letter.
Somehow, I thought this thread would have had something more than the "third man"?

But just the same -- cool stuff on vid above.

Decoy



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 07:25 PM
link   
reply to post by The GUT
 


Fascinating article, thanks for the link.



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 07:33 PM
link   
NO ET ufo alien had better ever --- get between me and a Snicker's Bar. ( The -dark- chocolate covered one.)
Or they will wind up at Wright Patterson in sections.....



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 11:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by The GUT
I don't really know much about Muertos Blog yet, but he makes some good points about Whitley Streiber's "mystical" background in his article


I had asked Whitley once in one of our interviews if he thought that the action of focus and intent (or if you want to think of it in the sense of "the more you give the more you get")had anything to do with his experiences. He stated he believed this is why they happened at all.

This notion cannot be ignored (and long has been swept under the rug) when talking about alien encounters. Marginality and anti-structural elements have long been a part of all this.



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 12:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by jritzmann

Originally posted by The GUT
I don't really know much about Muertos Blog yet, but he makes some good points about Whitley Streiber's "mystical" background in his article

I had asked Whitley once in one of our interviews if he thought that the action of focus and intent (or if you want to think of it in the sense of "the more you give the more you get")had anything to do with his experiences. He stated he believed this is why they happened at all.

This notion cannot be ignored (and long has been swept under the rug) when talking about alien encounters. Marginality and anti-structural elements have long been a part of all this.

You guys do have a way of asking the questions that many in the field overlook. I think the idea is coming into its own, but imo we have to meet some folk halfway.

Meaning that at this point it's so subjective that to catch the ear of the more objective minded we have to address it from both it's possibilities: Myth/Subconscious/Archetype to the possibility of Real Intelligences.

I see more and more "believers" here at ATS turning from the ETH, so I know the "marginality" is getting "fatter." But the objective minds, as of course you know, will only come closer if they have an objective foothold to stand on for further perusal.

That's what I think George Hansen seems to be very adept at. (Paratopia Podcast with him is highly recommended.) I heard one, but I think there's at least two right? Magazine is pretty hip, too, I hope there will be more teasers.



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 09:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by jritzmann
This ultimate inquiry into the validity of hypnosis as a tool for studying this facet of the phenomenon started with our interview with Dr. Scott Lilienfeld.


It’s obvious that there are different opinions about the use of hypnosis as a reliable tool for studying the abduction phenomenon.

Dr. Scott Lilienfeld said that it is absolutely not reliable while Dr. John Mack said that it is an important tool for uncovering repressed information.


Under hypnosis, a practice criticized by disbelievers but defended by Mack as an important tool for uncovering repressed information, experiencers are taken back to the last moment they consciously remember, such as the appearance of a small being in their bedroom or the presence of a blue light.

www.johnemackinstitute.org...


But so long there is no better scientific alternative, then what, let all those people standing in the cold as if there is nothing to it?

It’s also clear that Dr. Scott Lilienfeld doesn’t believe at all in the reality of the abduction phenomenon, because the lack of pretty extraordinary evidence.


Dr. Scott Lilienfeld,
I need pretty extraordinary evidence to persuade me.


Of course it would better if we finally got some solid scientific evidence, but on the other hand, how can we ever get solid scientific evidence of that phenomenon, if most if not all of the people like Dr. Scott Lilienfeld continuously keep saying at the forehand, that it does not happen, it is not real, without doing some thorough investigation as for instance John Mack did.
The only things I see happening is that they all are doing nothing regarding that then ignore and avoid it as a hot potato despite there is already some very interesting information/cases available about it.

Then he said;


I have little off no doubt that most if not all of the people they studied really believe that that is happened to them.


So if he has little off no doubt that most if not all of the people they studied really believe that that is happened to them, why then does that not ring a bell for him that it could be very well possible that because there are so many people from all kind of social levels who come forward with such claims that there really could be something going on here.

How can he do that off as that all those cases must be nothing else than fabrications?
I really do not understand that.

Then he said the following,;


Another interpretation is that these reports have nothing to do with the actual event but, they have to do with cultural contaminations, watching television shows and now of course they internet.


It is also in my opinion very well possible that by some of those people this is indeed the real reason behind their claims, but to think that that would count for all those cases is in my opinion very naïve if not narrow-minded thinking.


Originally posted by jritzmann
The drawings? There's no doubt in my mind they're the same person - and probably the same box of crayons.


May I ask you why or how you did come to that conclusion?


Originally posted by jritzmann
I'd have been suspicious even getting 2 drawings in the same medium like that.


I could be wrong of course, but I thought that only one drawing [Janet’s version] of that UFO was in that manila envelope, not two, not Richards version.


edit on 8/3/11 by spacevisitor because: Made some corrections and did some adding



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 09:48 AM
link   
reply to post by spacevisitor
 


And bbbbut what about all the high strangeness cases and physical trace cases (Ted Phillips) BEFORE the internet, and even long ---before--- Streiber's Jacob's and Hopkin's books?



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 11:52 AM
link   
reply to post by spacevisitor
 


Please don't mention Dr. John E. Mack spacevisitior, it makes debunkers disconcerted.

Here's a man with better merits than any of them, an outstanding person in his field that logically should represent the established way of thinking (in psychiatry), and therefore logically should have been skeptic to this outlandish phenomenon that psychiatry cannot even define as a particular disorder (jumping from hallucinations to temporary schizophrenia to epileptic seizures to sleep paralysis, or a combination of all of them, depending on what 'expert' you ask). Interesting by the way how psychiatry can define extremely rare mental disorders such as boanthropy (in which sufferers take to the belief that they are cattle) or Capgras delusion (a disorder in which a person holds a delusional belief that a friend, spouse or other close family member has been replaced by an identical-looking impostor), disorders with no more than a dozen or so documented cases per decade, whereas a 'disorder' that manifests itself tens of thousands - counting low - of people globally escapes understanding...

But then again the issue of the thread wasn't whether the Alien Abduction phenomenon is real or a collective mental delusion, but whether there is some type of hoax involved in the Manhattan Abduction case, as presented by Budd Hopkins in his book "Witnessed".

Rainey's sweet attempt to distance herself from the Alien Abduction crowd and re-establish her credibility as a writer/producer/filmmaker in the medical/educational/cultural field will of course pass over Budd Hopkins, because either it is his credibility or hers which is at stake. I don't know which is worse, actually believing that alien abductions are taking place and working with that conviction, or simply go along for ten years while having doubts... I nevertheless welcome an objective, non-biased investigation of the Manhattan Abduction case, if that is the intention she has. So far, I haven't seen any serious debunker or researcher take the case apart convincingly, there are too many loose ends. Let's hope that Perez de Cuellar will enlighten us about what he saw or did not saw that evening in New York in 1989, before his time is up. Not that it will change much for the skeptics community though. As to Hopkins, he is neither a professional psychiatrist or an investigative reporter, something the established academia always have used to belittle his work and conclusions. I guess it will stay that way until they land on the White House lawn.



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 12:04 PM
link   
While I find naivete & and folk who lack guile refreshing in the real world, it's a problem for investigator/authors.

The following article proposes some information the author gleaned from a meeting(s) with Dr. John Mack and is only now, after Dr. Mack's death, putting this out there. Why did he wait?

So I kind of hesitate to post this here for that reason, but it has a ring of truth and directly addresses the issue of this OP. What do you think?

THE FABRICATION OF ALIEN ABDUCTION: MY CONVERSATONS WITH DR. JOHN MACK by Anthony Bragalia



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 04:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by The GUT
Meaning that at this point it's so subjective that to catch the ear of the more objective minded we have to address it from both it's possibilities: Myth/Subconscious/Archetype to the possibility of Real Intelligences.


If you listen to the program, you know what I'm going to say to that: I don't see why one should negate or preclude the other. I don't think they're mutually exclusive.

And, thank you for posting that piece on Mack from Anthony - beat me to it.

Btw, you mentioned the magazine - it's full issue is now out on the site.



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by spacevisitor

Originally posted by jritzmann
The drawings? There's no doubt in my mind they're the same person - and probably the same box of crayons.


May I ask you why or how you did come to that conclusion?


The same color being used, the same medium, and there's plenty of the same style including the pressure of the medium to the paper.

Crayola, if that's what was used has 133 color standard. No go look at those 2 again. Think about pressure, medium and style.



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 04:57 PM
link   
reply to post by The GUT
 


Oh goll, this piece about John Mack does not surprise me at all. Ever since I first heard of him in Ufology, I thought to myself, instantly, "This guy sounds like a totaly gullible --nieve-- (sheltered) NewAgey woowoo", and thennnnn, DONNA BASSETT came along........

www.pbs.org...



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 06:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by simone50m
reply to post by The GUT
 


Oh goll, this piece about John Mack does not surprise me at all. Ever since I first heard of him in Ufology, I thought to myself, instantly, "This guy sounds like a totaly gullible --nieve-- (sheltered) NewAgey woowoo", and thennnnn, DONNA BASSETT came along........

www.pbs.org...

Good Link to the transcript, simone50m.
I looked for the vid online but no go.


ANNOUNCER: Tonight, on NOVA—

BUDD HOPKINS: Have you seen him?

CHILD: Yeah.

BUDD HOPKINS: Where do you see him?

CHILD: Outside.

ANNOUNCER: Alien abductions.

ABDUCTION SUPPORT GROUP MEMBER: I'd be floated outside and then, in a beam of light, lifted up in to a ship.

ABDUCTION SUPPORT GROUP MEMBER: My legs were being spread apart.

ABDUCTION SUPPORT GROUP MEMBER: You can't breathe. You can't move.

BUDD HOPKINS: You're dealing with a phenomenon that has an absolute core of reality.

ANNOUNCER: But how real is it?

CARL SAGAN: Whether what's going on is in outer space or inner space, that's the question.

ANNOUNCER: "Kidnapped by UFOs?"
www.pbs.org...



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 01:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by jritzmann

Originally posted by spacevisitor

Originally posted by jritzmann
The drawings? There's no doubt in my mind they're the same person - and probably the same box of crayons.


May I ask you why or how you did come to that conclusion?


The same color being used, the same medium, and there's plenty of the same style including the pressure of the medium to the paper.

Crayola, if that's what was used has 133 color standard. No go look at those 2 again. Think about pressure, medium and style.


Thanks for your reply.
I must admit that I did take yesterday before this reply already a better look to those pictures.
I am colorblind, which is serious and really not a joke , it have caused always problems at home sometimes and even more at my work regarding the colors of electric wiring and the color code on electronic components and such.
But after a while I did noticed the following and I am sorely not an expert in this, so can only say something about the style.
Looking a bit long to each drawing I saw at a certain moment also some resemblances regarding the big to me yellowish looking stripes below the object in both drawings and the for me not recognizable color striping above the object, I even let my wife look at them to give me her opinion which I also always do [serious] when I must connect the electric wiring in our house again after putting new wall paper.


So, I see also definitely some remarkable resemblance now, which I did not noticed earlier.






edit on 9/3/11 by spacevisitor because: Made some corrections and did some adding



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 06:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Heliocentric
reply to post by spacevisitor
 


Please don't mention Dr. John E. Mack spacevisitor, it makes debunkers disconcerted.


Hi Heliocentric, because it is off topic regarding this thread I will keep it short.
I am shore that mentioning Dr. John E. Mack’s work in discussions like this will not make any debunker disconcerted.
I do it and continue to do it when I see fit because I have a very great respect for his work and sorely his courage for taking the abduction phenomenon serious back then.


Not many scientists are prepared to take tales of alien abduction seriously, but John Mack, a Harvard professor who was killed in a road accident in north London last year, did.
Ten years on from a row which nearly lost him his job, hundreds of people who claim they were abducted still revere him.
He turned the academic community upside down because he wanted to publish his research in which he said that people who claimed they had been abducted by aliens, were not crazy at all.
Their experiences, he said, were genuine.
They were not mentally ill or delusional, he said, and it was the responsibility of academicians and psychiatrists not only to take what they said seriously, but to try to understand exactly what that experience was.

www.johnemackinstitute.org...



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 07:10 AM
link   
reply to post by The GUT
 


I think that was an interesting and very telling article but as you said why wasn't it published before Mack died? Anyway, it seems Mack shared the gullible personality trait along with Hopkins and Jacobs. It goes to show that a scientific background is no safeguard against gullability.
edit on 9-3-2011 by cripmeister because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 04:07 PM
link   
As for Betty and Barney they may be the first case studied but there are many of us that had experiences well before them, we just didn't report them.

Ufo's or AFO's Alien Flying Objects >>>>> (the ships) and Alien's are real .....



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 08:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by observe50
As for Betty and Barney they may be the first case studied but there are many of us that had experiences well before them, we just didn't report them.

Ufo's or AFO's Alien Flying Objects >>>>> (the ships) and Alien's are real .....


Thank you for that post observe. I had a missing time incident in the early '60's, then ufo phenomenon was around my family and upbringing thereafter. There was NO 1.discussion of 2.Interest in 3.Knowledge of; the ufo phenomenon amongst us, --certainly-- not the Betty and Barney Hill case. Plus, re. my "incident", I was only a little kid!
I think there is an intelligent High Strangeness thats been targeting humans for a very long time ( merely see Jerome Clark, John Keel, Mac Tonnies, and Jacques Vallee's works) but what/why it is, I have decided to take no strong stance on.



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 09:11 PM
link   
Well pretty sure his ex wife has an agenda, I take it the divorce was pretty bad. I think Bud's beliefs gets in the way of his thinking at times. He is based due to his own experience and research and that is to be expected. Overall Bud is a great researcher very nice guy and still one of the best. Im sure she did not receive alimony and this is her way of revenge.

Im sure if you talk to my ex, and ex girlfriends they will swear I am the Anti Christ


Nothing fair in love and war, just girl talk.

But a psuedo-debunkers dream come true, maybe she is Dating Bill Nye now?

Anyhoo the Manhattan abduction still is inconsistent and has holes in it. Such as the many witnesses themselves with hearsay from Bud. I wont judge him on that and it is one case of countless cases he has worked on. Many considered authentic. Attacking his person and character out of scorn does not impress me. I still have questions about this case yet to be answered. I wont call it a hoax either.


edit on 9-3-2011 by Unknown Soldier because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join