Are aliens/ETs real or simply in your mind?

Originally posted by greyer

Originally posted by The Shrike
As far as I know, the concept of aliens from outside earth never started with real personal experiences. The concept came from authors who speculated and then from the hoaxers such as Adamski. And similar to the Roswell incident, the concept became entrenched in the cosmic human mind and like mental conditioning believers were convinced the concept was based on reality. Never mind that there was no evidence to support the concept, it was as good and real as life itself.

The situation we have is that in America a crashed something fell in 1947, and the people of the day who were involved later told their loved ones and some publicly that it was aliens. The entity of the government which was proven to lie said that it was not aliens. After the world seeing UFOs all over and military contact with them Betty and Barney Hill had a personal experience in 1961. Betty saw a glowing UFO cross the path of the moon, it came down to earth and chased her and her husband miles down the way and what happened out from that event, revealed a typical alien abduction. About 10 years later a woman witnessed a cow being abducted by a strange glowing light, she and her daughter were abducted. In that decade many strange things happened, ranchers in the neighborhood of Kentucky saw a car being abducted by a large glowing UFO, 3 women turned out to be in the car and they came back with scars on there necks with a detailed abduction event. Researchers started to catch on, the media started dispersing information to the public. One scientist was the closest to the aliens and he figured the whole thing out (even went to the pentagon and president) but the aliens started to abduct him because he got to close to them, they implanted his wife. By this time the researchers had done enough to reveal that humans and cattle were part of an alien breeding program, and that aliens used the souls of humans to feed off emotional energy. Military inside sources came out to tell the public. Then, in the late 90s activity decreased on a major scale. For instance, in the decade of 1970 there were 8,000 cattle abducted by UFOs in the southwest US, when the activity decreased in the late 90s, 2,000 cattle had been abducted by UFOs between the year 2000 and 2005 in South America. Not only cattle abductions but the same kind of activity that happened at skinwalker ranch, so whoever was abducting cattle in UFOs went down there (there was a famous daylight abduction at skinwalker). Let us not forget that aliens came down to an amazon town in Brazil during the late 70s and the government made contact with them.

Your reply is a synthesis of the popularly-known events without any reference to factual details. Since each one has been discussed here ad infinitum I'm not going to go beyond pointing it out.

Originally posted by Klassified

The Shrike: "Aliens and gods can be disproven simply by the lack of evidence."

I think we have plenty of evidence. Any court accepts witness testimony as evidence. Verbal or written. It only comes down to whether any of it is conclusive. And for whom. So it still comes down to faith at this point.

The Shrike: "We have plenty of circumstancial evidence for the reality of UFOs but none whatsoever for the reality of aliens/ETs. No court would uphold hearsay especially of the nature of the subject. Belief, faith, is all that exists and no judge would want to deal with beliefs."

The Shrike: "I'm not operating on faith since I don't have a belief system."

Of course you do. We all do. We have all built a paradigm for ourselves that suits us. And inevitably, a good portion of that paradigm is based on trust in some one or some thing. Whether that trust be in "god", the established scientific paradigm, or our own Flying Spaghetti Monster. There is something in your paradigm you trust as true. Even if it's the word of a peer-reviewed paper. That's called faith.

The Shrike: "I know what a belief system is, you don't. I do not believe, I either know or don't know. And forget faith, I'm an atheist."

We do have many who claim firsthand experience. Including some members of ATS. Their experience is real to them. The rest of us must decide whether their testimony is believeable. From there, it's a matter of faith for or against.

The Shrike: "I don't accept that any member of ATS have really had such experiences in the physical world."

reply to post by The Shrike

The Shrike: "I know what a belief system is, you don't. I do not believe, I either know or don't know. And forget faith, I'm an atheist."

So am I. I'm not talking about religious faith. I'm talking about the trust we humans inherently put in some facet of our paradigm. We all do it in some form or fashion it seems. But your point is well taken.

Originally posted by Klassified
reply to post by The Shrike

 

The Shrike: "I know what a belief system is, you don't. I do not believe, I either know or don't know. And forget faith, I'm an atheist."

So am I. I'm not talking about religious faith. I'm talking about the trust we humans inherently put in some facet of our paradigm. We all do it in some form or fashion it seems. But your point is well taken.

It is easy for me to say I don't have a belief system because I've gone thru the experience of shedding it although before I started on my experience I don't remember ever remember accepting hearsay. Even as a kid I knew the catholic religion depended on belief and I didn't develop beliefs. It was too fantastic to accept as real. Believers, on the other hand, have a well-developed belief system and it's a mental addiction that takes its toll but not like nicotine. Those that are addicted to beliefs have a difficult time "believing" that a person can be free of beliefs. I am. In none of my posts can you find me using the term "I believe".

Then in the early '60s I learned hypnosis from Joseph Lampl (www.abovetopsecret.com...) and I was on my way to learning how the mind works and how a belief system is formed. Mental conditioning is the biggest culprit and it is assiduous and difficult to get rid of. So I don't put any trust in any facet of my reality because reality is spontaneous and any act by me or anyone can change that reality so trust doesn't enter into the equation as I see it.

reply to post by The Shrike


so nothing short of full blown public disclosure is "evidence"?
why even start this thread?
you know full well that kind of "evidence" is not within public access.
but maybe that is the point?
for others to come to that same conclusion.
hmm gives me something to think about.
OP i noticed in your last post you mentioned learning the techniques on hypnotism
can i ask your opinion on dr. david jacobs?

best regards.

Well, the answer to the question of real or in you're mind is blurred. An advanced civilization of beings could possibly input signals into our brains and cause us to percieve images and sound. They may even be able to input touch. I don't think that our present government has this technology yet, but they have been studying this sort of stuff for years. I see science just learning of this but how far advanced is our governments research from this. Look how slow they released computer upgrading technology. Slowly letting it out to promote extra sales and upgrading. Someone/something could also block our perception of things too. Only damaged individuals would see them. Are aliens real? I don't know. I don't think I've seen any. The same is true with angels and fairies and other things. They could be some advanced beings holographic brain images/voices too. We probably wouldn't be able to detect some advanced race like this. They could steer us away from inventing something that could detect them by blocking things in our brains. This is just another idea that would make a good movie. There's no proof or evidence of this but I have given reason for that also. Is it real? what do you think....

Originally posted by kmarx
reply to post by The Shrike

 

so nothing short of full blown public disclosure is "evidence"?
why even start this thread?
you know full well that kind of "evidence" is not within public access.
but maybe that is the point?
for others to come to that same conclusion.
hmm gives me something to think about.
OP i noticed in your last post you mentioned learning the techniques on hypnotism
can i ask your opinion on dr. david jacobs?

best regards.

edit on 5-2-2012 by kmarx because: (no reason given)

By George he's got it!

Dr David Jacobs may be a nice and fun guy. But as a hypnotist he leaves a lot to be desired. I read his books and I could see right away that was a "leader" when using hypnosis. A "leader" asks leading questions or performs suggestive interrogation (en.wikipedia.org...). But Jacobs is not the only "hypnotist" using suggestive interrogation. Budd Hopkins is the worst "abduction hypnotist". Most any hypnotist associated with "abduction" hypnosis fails. This is because hardly any, if any, of them are classically trained in clinical hypnosis. As you know anyone can learn to hypnotize but the less qualified the teacher the worst the student turns out. Beiing a hypnotist carries a lot of responsibility 'cause you're "messing" with peoples' minds. Not to be taken lightly unless you're a stage hypnotist when it's all for fun.

Here, from wikipedia, are some applicable comments, edited by me:
[In recent years Jacobs has argued publicly that the evidence from his research, which includes using hypnotic regression with alleged alien abductees along with traditional interview techniques, shows that alien-human hybrids are engaged in a secret program of infiltration into human society with the final goal of taking over the Earth. He asserts that some of his research subjects are teaching these hybrids how to blend into human society so that they cannot be differentiated from humans, and that this is occurring worldwide.

Criticism
Carl Sagan and Susan Clancy have criticized the methods used by Jacobs and other abduction researchers. Sagan asserted that sightings and experiences could be attributed to mistaken identity and faulty memory. Clancy has highlighted problems associated with abduction research, such as faulty memory retrieval when hypnotists "lead" the patient,]

Pick up a book by Jacobs and using the above see for yourself how Jacobs leads. Here is an example of what format to look for, from wikipedia:
[a leading question or suggestive interrogation is a question that suggests the answer or contains the information the examiner is looking for. For example, this question is leading: You were at KC's bar on the night of July 15, weren't you?

It suggests that the witness was at KC's bar on the night in question. The same question in a non-leading form would be: Where were you on the night of July 15?
This form of question does not suggest to the witness the answer the examiner hopes to elicit.]

reply to post by The Shrike

So what made you change your sock(s) again.





ETA: Witness testimony is not hearsay (which is reporting what someone says), as has been pointed out to you before and is admissible in a court. Multiple witness testimony is considered VERY strong evidence in court and has sent many to the electric chair in the U.S.A.

In the absence of proof of the reality or otherwise of God, Atheism is as much an act of faith as Theism.

Agnosticism (belief we cannot know whether there is a God) is also an act of faith because we do not know whether we can know.

The only scientifically and philosophically viable position is skepticism - which is suspending belief AND ALSO disbelief in the absence of proof.

Alternatively, you can admit to having the non-skeptical position of Atheism. You can't have it all ways, Eduardo.

Originally posted by Pimander
reply to post by The Shrike

 

So what made you change your sock(s) again.

 

ETA: Witness testimony is not hearsay (which is reporting what someone says), as has been pointed out to you before and is admissible in a court. Multiple witness testimony is considered VERY strong evidence in court and has sent many to the electric chair in the U.S.A.

In the absence of proof of the reality or otherwise of God, Atheism is as much an act of faith as Theism.

Agnosticism (belief we cannot know whether there is a God) is also an act of faith because we do not know whether we can know.

The only scientifically and philosophically viable position is skepticism - which is suspending belief AND ALSO disbelief in the absence of proof.

Alternatively, you can admit to having the non-skeptical position of Atheism. You can't have it all ways, Eduardo.

edit on 6/2/12 by Pimander because: (no reason given)

I don't mind straying from the thread topic to have a lively discourse. But all I can tell you is that if someone claims that they've had an experience with what they consider to be an alien/ET, I don't buy it. You can call the claim witness testimony, I call it a tale. As long as the claim is not supported with evidence. If someone tells me that someone told them they had been abducted I'm listening to hearsay, I don't buy it.

There is no god of any kind and there has never been any gods. Gods are human creations and no one can prove otherwise. We are all born atheists. Since I don't accept the claims made by believers, I'm a natural skeptic and I'm not suspending belief, I just don't have such a belief. Skepticism is the natural way to be. We are all born skeptics and through time we are mentally conditioned to stop seeking evidence. Didn't happen to me but it happens to the majority of humans.

Not all skeptics are atheists and not all atheists are skeptics as they are this for this and that for that.

reply to post by The Shrike

I agree that the truly skeptical position is the scientific position. However, I am saying that both belief in God and Atheism are, in the absence of proof of either position, faith based. Neither position is skeptical. In my opinion, the real skeptic would be skeptical of both positions,.

The same goes for the belief in aliens or disbelief in aliens. Unless we have proof, the truly skeptical position is belief in neither position. Despite your opinion, the skeptical position is to admit we are not sure.

I could be unkind and say that Atheism is a pseudo-skeptical position. My true position is that it is OK to have irrational beliefs, or faith, in Atheism or in God providing we do not confuse either belief with scientific skepticism. In the absence of proof, my position is that the same is true about the topic of this thread - aliens.



Having said all of that, the educated position (most scientists lean this way) is that the believers are likely to prove correct in the long term. The sheer magnitude of the universe is the clincher here.

There is plenty of room for debate, of course. There is much less consensus among scientists as to whether or not aliens are likely to have visited Earth in the cosmic blink of an eye that is our lifetime. Furthermore, many UFOlogists (many of whom are also scientists), myself included, argue that it seems extremely unlikely the UAP/UFOs that appeared in the 1940s could possibly have been ours given the extreme manoeuvrability of the craft and the technology available to humans then.





ETA: You have just inspired a thread. Thanks.

reply to post by The Shrike


Hello again The Shrike,

I appreciated your reply. But...

You can't say that you don't know where ETs come from, etc., because to do so means you've accepted their reality. Something has to exist to wonder about its origins.

Agree.

Let's just agree to call it "speculation"...

A long list of evidence but no actual proof? Evidence and proof are synonimous! Presently, there is no evidence/proof that ETs are among us.

Disagree.

There was a lot of evidence that OJ murdered. None of it turned into actual proof and so he walked. There was a lot of evidence pointing to the fact that the earth was round but until actual proof, it was still claimed as flat. There was a lot of evidence to the fact that the earth was circling the Sun but until actual proof, we were the center of the universe.

There are tons of evidence that ET is visiting us. But until there is actual proof, it's as good as saying that the earth is flat, we are the center of the universe and OJ is a Saint...

reply to post by SonoftheSun
Some of the simple technologies I have been studying can cause great turmoil in this world. In the wrong hands they can be used to cause great destruction. I will not share these things with others because of the possibility of abuse. I'm sure that it is in the best interest of the masses for some of these patents that were created to be bought up and the knowledge buried till mankind evolves a little more. Not all technology is buried because of greedy corporations or corrupt government, some has good reason to be ignored or it's credibility denied. Where do you draw the line? Too much change too fast is not good either.

My friend believes in aliens and ETs less than she believes in ghosts/paranormal activity (in that she doesn't believe in them AT ALL. Full stop).
Now I wouldn't say I'm NOT religious, not in the organised sense of the word, I'm not Christian or Jewish or hold any faith of any denomination. I don't believe in the One God, I don't believe the Creation theory of the Earth.
But I do believe in aliens, and I do believe in ghosts.
I believe there is more to life than we can see with our eyes, or hear with our hears.
I think there are questions that won't ever be answered because we don't know what the questions are or who to ask for the answers.

The way I see it, the Universe is incredible. That our planet should be such a distance from the Sun that it sustains life, and that our moon is such a distance from us that it appears the same size as the Sun... that's one hell of a coincidence to me.
There are a number beyond counting, of almost perfectly spherical orbs in the vastness beyond our atmosphere, in perfect balance with destructive forces.

It doesn't make any sense that one 'being' could create it, but it also doesn't make sense to me that it was all down to chance.

What does it have to do with why I believe in aliens?
Despite the Universe's size, it is expanding. What is it expanding into? I don't know. Maybe no-one does.
But there is no way we know 1% of anything that rests beyond what our telescopes and satellites can see, and I just do.not.believe we are the only life in the whole of the beyond.
There could be microbes one fifth of the size of a skin cell with more compound knowledge than we possess.

But do you know what I do know?
There is just as much of a chance of there being aliens as there is of there having been a magical man who turned water into wine, healed the sick and died on a cross for all our sins... Do you know what the difference is?
Aliens really don't give a rats ass how you live your life, they'll still probe you.

reply to post by The Shrike


"Imagination never produced a single dollar bill"

That's weird ... you can't produce any inventions without imagination. Inventions are what makes a "payday". Imagination is greater than knowledge, as without it you would not be able to fly in an airplane or type on a computer. You can have all the knowledge in the world but without the imagination to use it ... you would't make much progress.

reply to post by Lulzaroonie
You are speaking of collective intelligence in small organisms. That is not only possible, it is probable. We are under the influence of the organisms that live symbioticly within us. They have chemical and electrical signals that interact with our bodies. If we fear them they fear us and take actions to adjust our body chemistry. They are not evil, they are actually our friends. If we eat something they don't like they can make us sick. If we eat some bad bacteria they can fight to the death for us. They help us digest foods because we lack the ability to make chemicals. This is well known documented science yet peoples fear makes them try to destroy these creatures. Doctors have been slowing their use of antibiotics now because of this knowledge. Probiotics are becoming normal supplements but there is a flaw in the assumptions of this research. Some of us have had problems in our genetics that makes us attack certain organisms because of their overburdening our bodies in the past or past generations. Our Mamillian imune system attacks these microbes and the ones we can live with were killed unintentionally by antibiotics in the past. This is a genetic specific need and at present there is no way of testing for this problem. Maybe in a few years they will figure this out.

Many medications and food additives along with certain foods and spices themselves lower the mammilian immune system response to things so we don't show signs of sickness. If we don't show signs of sickness in a day or so of doing something we do not relate it to what we ate. These things are called immune system suppressants or antihistamines and various other names. When these things are added to foods they may not in themselves cause us to get sick but dampening our immune systems alows other microbes to get out of control. We normally eat companion foods during our meals or after meals just because of cravings. The communication between these microbes and us is critical and an understanding of this communication by us subconsciously is important. We have millions of years of genetic knowledgee stored in our junk DNA and it will be a long time till science even has a clue as to how it works.

I believe there is a god or controling energy of sorts. I don't know exactly what it is but don't care. Tapping into this energy allows a communication at subconscious levels with other things in nature. Trust in something that is not good and the path gets grown over and we cannot find our way. Good and evil are perceptions but there are certain underlying rules that need consideration. Making sure nature is around is one of them. If we desire only to communicate with man then we have gone astray. Communication with the inner self is important because it allows the communication with other microorganisms within us. The mind controls the body, the body does not control the mind. We have to be the king of our body and be a fair and honorable king. We have to keep in touch with our followers, the microorganisms that live within us. They have to control their numbers and our body has to help them with our immune system. The chemicals added to foods and the changes in our foods make this hard, especially if we eat too many antihistimine foods when we don't need them. Certain Histimines fight cancers and cancer doesn't appear to trigger release so we need to sometimes injest these things. Some B vitamins are good at this but having them in proportion with body chemistry is a crutial and presently untestable perception. I still need much more research on all this, it's really complicated and prevention sometimes can have complications causing other diseases. Too much anticarcinogens in you're diet seems to have a bad effect on the heart health sometimes. There has to be some way of figuring out how to test this ballance. Our bodies are super computers with switches on the genetics. Our brains somehow control this but the interactions with our genes and other organisms is crutial too. Confusing this system with too much change too fast causes all sorts of health and mental problems. Maybe the science of medicine will someday figure it out. It will require them to admit that they really didn't know as much as they thought they did. HaHa...It may never happen Sorry to bore you guys with this stuff

reply to post by The Shrike

Dr David Jacobs may be a nice and fun guy. But as a hypnotist he leaves a lot to be desired. I read his books and I could see right away that was a "leader" when using hypnosis. A "leader" asks leading questions or performs suggestive interrogation (en.wikipedia.org...). But Jacobs is not the only "hypnotist" using suggestive interrogation. Budd Hopkins is the worst "abduction hypnotist". Most any hypnotist associated with "abduction" hypnosis fails. This is because hardly any, if any, of them are classically trained in clinical hypnosis. As you know anyone can learn to hypnotize but the less qualified the teacher the worst the student turns out. Beiing a hypnotist carries a lot of responsibility 'cause you're "messing" with peoples' minds. Not to be taken lightly unless you're a stage hypnotist when it's all for fun.

This is one place I must agree with Shrike. I don't know anything about Dr. Jacobs, but I do know hypnosis. Regression "therapy" is very touchy indeed. You must take great care not to lead, suggest, or even hint at anything with your questions. The human mind remembers everything it ever encounters fully. But it experiences and remembers through conscious filters. The wrong question only adds to those filters, and the muddying of the waters. And the more trust the patient has in the practitioner, the more care that needs to be exercised.

A good example of this is past life regression. Anyone can remember a past life, even if you don't believe in reincarnation. The very idea of that being the purpose of going into trance, and the suggestion that you go back to a time before you were born, can trigger "memories from a past life".

reply to post by Klassified

So if I was told by a rock that I was once Apollo I should believe it? I think what can be brought out in hypnosis can also be inner memories of things you may have heard or seen in you're past. Like when you were watching tv as a baby. These things are not known by us but our subconscious could have a knowledge of them. Maybe we have past lives, who really knows for sure. I see possibilities on both sides and have no real way of knowing what is real. We are what we know, even though we don't know we know it. Pride of knowledge blinds us, protection of our knowledge binds us.

reply to post by rickymouse

Maybe we have past lives, who really knows for sure. I see possibilities on both sides and have no real way of knowing what is real.

I should have made it clear that I am neither a believer or disbeliever in reincarnation.

I think what can be brought out in hypnosis can also be inner memories of things you may have heard or seen in you're past.

I have no argument with this. My statement was aimed at carelessness in doing so.

reply to post by Klassified
It would be nice to know if things were real but it also would destroy the mysticism of life. That would make life boring and this site would be nonexistant.

Here's a nice quote from The Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy:

'Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mindbogglingly useful could have evolved by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God.
The argument goes something like this: "I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
"But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED"
"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.'