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 Inconsistencies of UFOlogy.

page: 1
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 19 2012 @ 08:46 PM
link   
Hi everybody, I am convinced there is definitely something to the UFO phenomenon. It is real (whatever it is). However, there have always been several things lurking in the back of my mind that I find difficult to reconcile. For the sake of discussion, I have listed them below.

All items in the list are generalizations, so naturally there are exceptions to each. Perhaps you guys can help me fill any gaps (i.e. --- is there any proof or are there any logical explanations to my points?). Are there any additional things you can think of?

I hope this can stimulate some good discussions!
Cheers,
Chris

Some inconsistencies and problems with UFOlogy that trouble me:
The four general categories that trouble me are: 1) cultural inconsistencies, 2) changes in character of sightings over time, 3) the regionally and temporally restricted nature of UFO waves, and 4) the video evidence is not really commensurate with verbal testimony. These are discussed in more detail below.

Cultural differences in alien appearances. For example, initially most North American sightings were greys, while most Europeans reported Nordics. Later, this evened out between the two places (see Bullard, in The UFO Evidence).

South America aliens typically depicted as hairy, more animal-like.

Cultural differences in UFO appearances and behaviors. South American UFOs more commonly are spheres. Disks more common in North America.

1950’s humanoid wave in Europe. Small aliens with helmets, making repairs, collecting samples, observer sees them, they aim tube to freeze observer and then they leave.

UFO waves have always bothered me at some level. Especially when concentrated to a specific area. Media coverage could account for this.

Early US sightings 40’s 50’s typically were more frequently of formations of UFOs (as initially reported by Kenneth Arnold), rather than the more commonly reported single craft of later years.

Alien grey anatomical inconsistencies. Varied number of fingers (3-5). Sometimes fingers described as suction cups.

Later 1800’s early 1900’s sightings of airships. Airships fit the expectations of the day, containing propellers, rivets, ropes etc. They were typically thought to be rich inventors from foreign countries.

Green fireballs in the southwest in late 40’s, and ghost rockets in northern Europe in 40’s. Ghost rockets preceded the 1947 concept of the saucer (although numerous reports of disk or saucer shaped UFOs have been reported since the 1920s), although the green fireballs began after 1947.

Video evidence does not seem to be commensurate with verbal testimony. As far as I know, no close up landed ships, no aliens near ships, no impossible maneuvers as frequently described (sudden takeoff at incredible speeds, 90 deg turns at incredible speeds). No unequivocal video evidence of an alien, despite the ubiquitous nature of abductions.




posted on Aug, 19 2012 @ 09:17 PM
link   
Excellent observations, Vandelay. If you haven't read them I highly recommend the books below. They are the full volumes in pdf form.

While I take neither as complete gospel, I do believe they both make some very interesting and highly-intelligent suppositions about the very points you mention.

Passport to Magonia by Jacques Vallee

Operation Trojan Horse by John Keel

Valle especially, and Keel to a degree, hypothesize that the phenomena "molds" itself to the culture of the times and particular place.

Now that could be because it's all in the mind, but it could also hint that the phenomenon stems from an intelligence that is trying to "reconstruct" our beliefs and present themselves in ways that are time/location appropriate.



posted on Aug, 19 2012 @ 09:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Vandelay Industries
 


I hear you, man. Whatever is going on, it's not as black and white as we sometimes like to make it seem. But as you intimate in your first paragraph, these inconsistencies don't really poke a hole in the reality of the phenomenon, just in our simplistic interpretations of it.



posted on Aug, 19 2012 @ 09:27 PM
link   
It is indeed wonderful how often sightings and reports fit the common conceptions of the day.

We see nuts and bolts saucers with portholes and glass domes where the occupants can be seen for a time, and then, over time, we start to see energy balls that change shape and size gain ground as the collective consciousness generally fed by popular media massages people's creativity with possibility.

In early 3rd kind reports we get visitors from the Moon, Venus, Mars, and other planets/solar bodies. As social consciousness develops in understanding these places as uninhabitable, new places need be found, like Zodiac constellations, or other patterned formations found in the night sky.

Eventually, some of these patterns will be realized in the general public to have zero relevance because all the stars that make up the patterns appearing to be group locally from Earth perspective are light years apart, and no more related to each other than our own sun would be.

This doesn't discount that there is something going on regarding the UFO phenomenon, whatever it is.
It does, however, give strong indication that much of the phenomenon is the result of imaginative people seeking attention through the telling of a sensational 'personal' story.



posted on Aug, 19 2012 @ 09:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by The GUT
Excellent observations, Vandelay. If you haven't read them I highly recommend the books below. They are the full volumes in pdf form.

While I take neither as complete gospel, I do believe they both make some very interesting and highly-intelligent suppositions about the very points you mention.

Passport to Magonia by Jacques Vallee

Operation Trojan Horse by John Keel

Valle especially, and Keel to a degree, hypothesize that the phenomena "molds" itself to the culture of the times and particular place.

Now that could be because it's all in the mind, but it could also hint that the phenomenon stems from an intelligence that is trying to "reconstruct" our beliefs and present themselves in ways that are time/location appropriate.



Thanks! I have not read those books but have heard of them, and have been wanting to read them for some time. Seems my thinking may be somewhat in step with them.



posted on Aug, 19 2012 @ 10:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Druscilla

It does, however, give strong indication that much of the phenomenon is the result of imaginative people seeking attention through the telling of a sensational 'personal' story.



I certainly wouldn't say that "much of the phenomenon" is that, although I'm sure it occurs. Here's what Dr. James McDonald told the U.S. House Committee on Science and Astronautics in 1968 regarding people who report UFOs - after interviewing several hundred of them:


I want to emphasize, as one of the very important misconceptions that has been fostered, that instead of dealing with witnesses who are primarily looking for notoriety, who want to tell a good story, who are all out to gain attention, it is generally quite the opposite. And this is true in Australia, too. People are quite unwilling to tell you about a UFO sighting, afraid acquaintances would think they have "gone around the bend," as Australians put it. Over and over you encounter that. People are reluctant to report what they are seeing. There is a real ridicule lid that has not been contrived by any group, it just has evolved in the way the whole problem has unfolded.



Turning to some of the highlights of my interviewing experience, I first mention the "ridicule lid." We are not dealing with publicity seekers. We are not, and I here concur with Dr. Hynek's remarks, we are not dealing with religiosity and cultism. Those persons aren't really the least bit interested in observations. They have firm convictions entirely independent of observations. They do not cause noise that disturbs the real signal at all.



Another characteristic in interviewing the witnesses is the tendency for the UFO witness to turn first not to the hypothesis that he is looking at a spaceship, but rather it must be an ambulance out there with a blinking red light or that it is a helicopter up there. There is a conventional interpretation considered first; only then does the witness get out of the car or patrol car and realize the thing is stopped in midair and is going backwards and has six bright lights, or something like that. Only after an economical first hypothesis does the witness, in these impressive cases, go further in his hypotheses, and finally realize he is looking at something he has never seen before.


source
edit on 19-8-2012 by Orkojoker because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 19 2012 @ 10:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Orkojoker

I certainly wouldn't say that "much of the phenomenon" is that, although I'm sure it occurs. Here's what Dr. James McDonald told the U.S. House Committee on Science and Astronautics in 1968 regarding people who report UFOs - after interviewing several hundred of them:


I want to emphasize, as one of the very important misconceptions that has been fostered, that instead of dealing with witnesses who are primarily looking for notoriety, who want to tell a good story, who are all out to gain attention, it is generally quite the opposite. And this is true in Australia, too. People are quite unwilling to tell you about a UFO sighting, afraid acquaintances would think they have "gone around the bend," as Australians put it. Over and over you encounter that. People are reluctant to report what they are seeing. There is a real ridicule lid that has not been contrived by any group, it just has evolved in the way the whole problem has unfolded.



While this is a fine argument, one thing left out in regard for this is that feigned reluctance to tell a story is a common device used in making a story more believable, to draw a listener in and "hook" them.

I see this method employed as part of an act in many old silver screen films where some wiseguy or desperate heroine wants someone to believe something that's patently false.
"Oh, I don't know if I should tell you. You wouldn't believe me anyway ...". Next thing you know, someone's got 'chump' written all over them. whamp whamp whaaah.

It's almost as obvious as the old "I've got this, um, 'friend' that has this, um, problem ..." routine.

I'm not saying such should eliminate all anecdotal stories, but, should very well be taken into consideration regarding moral conceptions of the times some of these assertions were made were times where people were more readily and easily trusted for their 'word'.

All in all, stories that are just stories, that have no real supporting evidence, though nice stories, really shouldn't be given too much serious consideration else there's corroborating evidence from radar hits, unrelated testimonies, and other such.

Find, for instance, accounts that relate interactions with visitors from Venus, or Mars that fit the same sensational reluctance to tell the tale as many of the more 'believable' and accepted as canon accounts seemingly still relevant today.

It's part of the UFO culture. If you want your story to be believed, you have to act like you're scared to tell it.



edit on 19-8-2012 by Druscilla because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 12:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Druscilla
While this is a fine argument, one thing left out in regard for this is that feigned reluctance to tell a story is a common device used in making a story more believable, to draw a listener in and "hook" them.

I see this method employed as part of an act in many old silver screen films where some wiseguy or desperate heroine wants someone to believe something that's patently false.
"Oh, I don't know if I should tell you. You wouldn't believe me anyway ...". Next thing you know, someone's got 'chump' written all over them. whamp whamp whaaah.


That's an awfully pessimistic view of human nature, but it sounds like you maybe work in the psych or social sciences, so I understand where the view might come from.

Still... when so many UFO witnesses barely want the attention even of the Air Force officer or 'an investigator', and refuse to allow their names to be released, AND refuse to profit in any way from any accounts or pictures involving the incident.... well, that seems to me to pretty substantially deflate any idea that psycho-social pathologies comprise the bulk of the phenomenon.

One of the problems with those who keep espousing these types of view -- the psycho-social explanation -- is that they don't seem to realize that the very concerns they relate over and over in these forums were dealt with and mostly disposed of long ago.

Last week I believe that you, Druscilla, urged us all to pick up the DSMIV to see how (as you asserted) the Schizoid disorders were so prevalent among UFO believers. Wow....

But had you actually read the Condon Report, as people have been suggesting all along, you might have seen parts like the below, written by Condon himself (p.63)... and remember, he was a skeptic who expected to find behind UFOs the very psycho-social explanations you advance, but he didn't (though he continued to joke about the UFO 'loonies' even after the study) :


"Turning to the realm of psychiatry, we decided to refrain from mounting a major effort in this area on the ground that such a study could not be given priority over other investigations. This decision was buttressed by the evidence that we rapidly gathered, pointing to the fact that only a very small proportion of sighters can be categorized as exhibiting psychopathology and that, therefore, there is no reason to consider them any more suitable for study than psychotic or psychoneurotic individuals who belong to any other statistical class of the population as a whole." (My emphasis.)


Now of course this last part does not necessarily directly address your attention-seeking charge against a substantial portion of UFO witnesses, but I'd say that witness reluctance to report + desire for anonymity + refusal to profit, which is seen SO often, sure add up to something other than attention seeking.

I have miles of quotes by qualified professionals regarding the psychology of UFO witnesses. I'll start pasting them in when I have more time. But the general professional conclusion is that UFO witnesses are not different in any significantly statistical way from non-witnesses.



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 01:24 AM
link   
I think its all mass histeria .If Aliens were real our govt would tell us.Kiddin,..
No way too know for sure about which stories are real and accurate. I still read people on here quoting known and admitted hoaxers stories as fact.



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 04:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Druscilla
 


But scoffers still scoff at cases with witnesses in the air, in front of radar screens, and on the ground who simultaneously viewed then reported the same thing or airliner cases in which crew and passengers tell the same story.



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 12:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vandelay Industries

UFO waves have always bothered me at some level. Especially when concentrated to a specific area. Media coverage could account for this.


Mass media certainly have a part in it. Lincoln Steffens, a police reporter for the New York Evening Post a long time ago, wrote an interesting piece called "How I made a crime wave".




EVERY now and then there occurs the phenomenon called a crime wave. New York has such waves periodically; other cities have them; and they sweep over the public and nearly drown the lawyers, judges,
preachers and other leading citizens who feel that they must explain and cure these extraordinary outbreaks of lawlessness. Their diagnoses and their remedies are always the same: the disease is lawlessness; the cure is
more law, more arrests, swifter trials and harsher penalties. The sociologists and other scientists go deeper into the wave; the trouble with them is they do not come up. I enjoy crime waves.

I made one once; I was a reporter on the New York Evening Post. Jacob A. Riis helped; he was a reporter on the Evening Sun. Many other reporters joined in the uplift of that rising tide of crime, but it was my creation, that wave, and Theodore Roosevelt stopped it. He was the President of the Police Board. But even he had to get Riis and me to stop the wave. I feel, therefore, that I know something the wise men do not know about crime waves, and so get a certain sense of happy superiority out of reading editorials, sermons, speeches and learned theses on my specialty.

Entire article here



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 12:50 PM
link   
Ufology is just like my wife...

Consistantly inconsistant...



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by TeaAndStrumpets
...
One of the problems with those who keep espousing these types of view -- the psycho-social explanation -- is that they don't seem to realize that the very concerns they relate over and over in these forums were dealt with and mostly disposed of long ago.
...
But had you actually read the Condon Report, as people have been suggesting all along, you might have seen parts like the below, written by Condon himself (p.63)... and remember, he was a skeptic who expected to find behind UFOs the very psycho-social explanations you advance, but he didn't (though he continued to joke about the UFO 'loonies' even after the study) :


"Turning to the realm of psychiatry, we decided to refrain from mounting a major effort in this area on the ground that such a study could not be given priority over other investigations. This decision was buttressed by the evidence that we rapidly gathered, pointing to the fact that only a very small proportion of sighters can be categorized as exhibiting psychopathology and that, therefore, there is no reason to consider them any more suitable for study than psychotic or psychoneurotic individuals who belong to any other statistical class of the population as a whole." (My emphasis.)



This is interesting as a failure to observe scientific principal.
A 45 year old document gets run up the flagpole to the fanfare of trumpets. Interesting indeed considering one of the legs that scientific principal stands on is an examination and criticism of itself, yet, many will take such documents to parade them around like gospel without the barest bit of even attempting to temper the work they champion through critical inquiry and question.

Here we have a 45 year old document that arbitrarily dismisses the psycho-social factors which are entirely relevant to the examination of the subject. It doesn't just touch on the subject, or even try to pay it lip service, but outright rejects the psycho-social factor as beneath merit for inclusion or examination.

Such assertions willingly turn a blind eye on advancements in Psychology that examine the mechanisms, drives, and social pressures that go into lying, deception, and why people do it.

Everyone lies. Everyone lies near every day, often 2 or 3 times a day, and this doesn't even account for simple social niceties.
The Truth about Lying - Psychology Today

For starters, the work by Bella DePaulo, Ph.D., a psychologist at the University of Virginia, confirms Nietzche's assertion that the lie is a condition of life. In a 1996 study, DePaulo and her colleagues had 147 people between the ages of 18 and 71 keep a diary of all the falsehoods they told over the course of a week. Most people, she found, lie once or twice a day (...). Both men and women lie in (about) a fifth of their social exchanges lasting 10 or more minutes; over the course of a week they deceive about 30 percent of those with whom they interact one-on-one. Furthermore, some types of relationships, such as those between parents and teens, are virtual magnets for deception: "College students lie to their mothers in one out of two conversations," reports DePaulo. (Incidentally, when researchers refer to lying, they don't include the mindless pleasantries or polite equivocations we offer each other in passing, such as "I'm fine, thanks" or "No trouble at all." An "official" lie actually misleads, deliberately conveying a false impression.


Everyone lies.

I'm not Lying ... - NY Times

Touching up scenes or past performances induces none of the anxiety that (typical) lying or keeping secrets does, these studies find; and embroiderers often work to live up to the enhanced self-images they project. The findings imply that some kinds of deception are aimed more at the deceiver than at the audience, and they may help in distinguishing braggarts and posers from those who are expressing personal aspirations, however clumsily.


Such frames that regardless your understanding or practical reasoning behind dismissal for someone having any reason to lie, to fabricate a tale, a person may have reasons entirely outside your range of conscious, practical, and/or social understanding and experience for fabricating a deception.
In other words, many will actively deceive for no apparent reason, contrary to any perceptual value anyone else may explain.

Everyone lies. They'll often go to great lengths to live up lies that would cause them no trouble even if caught out. Yet, the perpetuation is insistent on being and becoming the new Truth.

Of course, no god-fearing Christian like Buck Nelson; The first man on Mars, and Venus too, would ever tell a lie. Nope.



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 03:12 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by The GUT
Valle especially, and Keel to a degree, hypothesize that the phenomena "molds" itself to the culture of the times and particular place.


There definitely seems to be a connection between the perception of the phenomenon and the way it presents itself to the observer. There's a curious interplay between the two, the way we co-create the shared reality. And the individual and cultural biases are strong possible evidence against the notion of nuts-and-bolts spaceships controlled or piloted by ET creatures.

Why do UFOs look different to different people, often even when they're supposedly looking at the same thing? Happens all the time. It's like me seeing an automobile as a Prius, and you seeing it as a Ford truck. Very odd. (Take the Stephenville, Texas, sighting for instance. A lot of people see something, but no two people describe it exactly the same way. The first Phoenix UFO flyover. There are others.)


Now that could be because it's all in the mind, but it could also hint that the phenomenon stems from an intelligence that is trying to "reconstruct" our beliefs and present themselves in ways that are time/location appropriate.

My general problem with the notion that it's part of some kind of covert, subtle educational attempt by the unseen intelligence is that if this intelligence understands us enough to present the phenomenon to us that way, then it should also understand that it doesn't need to do it that way. If human beings can find a benefit to understanding something, we become highly motivated to do it. They can present their lessons to us in a straightforward way, and we'll figure out some way to make it work for us.

As it is, if they're giving us lessons, we're not understanding them. But if they're dealing with multiple dimensions or quirks of time and time travel, then it's possible that it's simply beyond our comprehension. In that regard, we might never, ever understand what the UFOs or "aliens" are up to.


edit on 20-8-2012 by Blue Shift because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by TeaAndStrumpets

Last week I believe that you, Druscilla, urged us all to pick up the DSMIV to see how (as you asserted) the Schizoid disorders were so prevalent among UFO believers. Wow....


Further, you willfully ignore studies conducted in examination of the alien abduction phenomenon; a derivative of the UFO phenomenon.
The Psychology of Alien Abduction ...

About the only personality characteristic the sample group had in common was schizotypy. People with schizotypy are more likely than others to be perceived as eccentrics, engage in magical thinking and experience perceptual distortions. For example, one might “sense” the presence of another person. They tend to interpret incidents and events as having a special and unusual meaning. They may be prone toward a belief in superstitions. While people with schizotypy are not psychotic, they have a greater likelihood than the general population to have close relatives with schizophrenia. Clancy concludes that “these people are not crazy. They tend to have unusual ideas, experiences, and beliefs – ones that don’t necessarily conform to mainstream social beliefs and tendencies. They believe not only in alien abduction, but also in things like ESP, astrology, tarot, channeling, auras, holistic medicine, and crystal therapy.


You dismiss studies and assertions regarding Schizotypal Disorder among other similar diagnosis where there's a wealth of data and studies conducted (peer reviewed and peer replicated) that support such findings.

This willful ignorance of data that counters a favorite hypothetical posed in a 45 year old document is blatantly negligent in the due diligence of observation regarding criticisms that undermine said favorite hypothetical.

Everyone lies, and then, some people, may actually SEE something, but, such somethings are often the product of self deception, ignorance of known phenomenon, and, in some cases, more cases than you might like to believe or accept; the product of mental disorder.

Fringe topics by their very nature act as honey pot attraction points for personalities suffering from a wide range and variety of impairments. It's thus only prudent to practice proper diligence in accounting for this factor, despite social biases that a person would in no way ever go to such lengths of reluctance and protest for zero gain in accounting their anecdotal 'evidence'.
The impaired follow no such rule of reason, having their own personal motives, regardless how improbable for relating a deception, or personal delusion as fact.

I concur that there is indeed something going on as it applies to the UFO phenomenon, but, parading around a 45 year old document that arbitrarily discounts the importance of the psycho-social factors that play a very important role among claimed witnesses and experiencers is poor argument in comparison to evidence available in modern psychiatric/neuroscience medical doctrine.

You're welcome to continue believing in some 45 year old document while ignoring recent findings that contradict your favorite hypothetical, but, adhering to such a view and practice holds no wisdom, logic, or scientific relevance at all.



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Brighter
reply to post by Druscilla
 


I'm consistently amazed at your inability to think clearly about this subject. Most of your recent posts, where you focus on these supposed psychological 'issues' of UFO witnesses, as opposed to focusing on the content of their observations, are examples of another basic logical fallacy called an ad hominem argument.

An ad hominem argument is one in which someone focuses on the character of the person making the claim, as opposed to focusing on the claim itself. It is often employed by someone who knows that they don't have much of an actual argument to counter the person's claims, so they feel backed into a corner and begin attacking the person's character.

This is a common technique by the debunkers / deniers, especially the ones who are aware of the enormous amount of evidence for the existence of UFOs, as it represents their last chance at trying to save a shred of self-esteem as they watch their preconceived beliefs about the world fall to pieces.

The enormous irony in all of this is that the recourse to ad hominem attacks that question someone's psychological stability is itself an emotional lashing-out, as all reason is thrown out the door.


This might be true if I was claiming that all 100% of every witness account were the product of a psycho-social disorder.

I do not.

I do, however, lay claim that a large part of the phenomenon, in fact a larger majority of reported claims than you may suspect are the result of such.

As stated in my above post, yes, there is indeed a UFO phenomenon. Whatever it is, we as of yet know.

The phenomenon is also well know as an attractant for magical thinking personalities. This is held up time and again in studies conducted to examine the topic from the psychological perspective.
The malleability of memory for instance:
Construction of Space Alien Abduction Memories

Yes, there is a UFO phenomenon, whatever it is, but, ignoring/denying the psycho-social aspects is high logical fallacy in and of itself.

Thus, if you're stating that the psycho-social elements involved with and around the UFO phenomenon are without any merit, then, I would suggest taking another look at the data, as well as your own logical fallacy.

If you're truly interested in examining the topic, do so from all angles, and do so in enacting criticism against it as well. Embracing criticisms against your favorite pony, to test it, and see if it holds up against such criticisms, even if you feel affronted that a criticism may be below the belt, can only go toward making your hypothetical stronger, unless, of course, said criticisms knock it all down, then, you need start over.

Such is science. Pose your hypothetical, then brace for the criticism and review.



edit on 20-8-2012 by Druscilla because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 04:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Druscilla
 


Druscilla, who brought up alien abduction? Not me.... I just think you paint with much too broad of a brush, especially in a thread entitled "Why Do People Believe in UFOs?" That's what I was referring to.

Here's your comment re: ATS witnesses and the prevalence of mental disorder: "The majority sum of most accounts and reports made/claimed by members or the way in which they are discussed quite often reveal these conditions, especially over time.... "

"The majority... of most accounts"?

Seriously?

If you want to cite irrelevant studies, that's great, but I expect you have some data beyond your general impression to back up your specific claim? (Of course you don't.)

And for someone who says she's "not interested" in UFOs, 5 to 10 posts per day (often of significant length) is pretty remarkable... and those posts sure as heck are not relevant only to the 'fringe' UFO topics, as you like to claim. What I see from you is lots of over-emphasis about the unreliability of eye-witness and pilot testimony, that it all should be discarded, etc.... That's 'fringe' to you, or "checkers" and not "chess"? Strange....

So I'd just say lose the condescension and hyperbole if you want to be taken seriously. And though you'll say it doesn't matter, it's all a game, etc., it's evident from some of your posts that you DO wish to be taken seriously, at least some of the time.

(shrug)



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Druscilla

This is interesting as a failure to observe scientific principal.
A 45 year old document gets run up the flagpole to the fanfare of trumpets. Interesting indeed considering one of the legs that scientific principal stands on is an examination and criticism of itself, yet, many will take such documents to parade them around like gospel without the barest bit of even attempting to temper the work they champion through critical inquiry and question.


What you fail to understand, still, is this: that "45 year old document" is the very document scientists refer to when they dismiss and ridicule the UFO phenomenon... often without having read it themselves, just as you haven't.

If you're aware of more thorough and recent research regarding the psychology and sociology of UFO witnesses as a specific group -- which is exactly what you're dismissing here -- then please, do tell us about it.

Good luck!



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 05:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Druscilla
 


I think the reason why we're not seeing eye-to-eye is due to a gross disparity in our respective research (or absence of) regarding the UFO phenomenon. If anything is going to lend any credence to peoples' abduction accounts, it would be the fact that (1) UFOs indeed exist, and furthermore (2) that they are most likely not 'ours'. In order to feel comfortable with (1), it is necessary that you have actually done some serious research into the UFO phenomenon and its attendant literature. Yet you have explicitly stated that you don't even own a single book on the UFO phenomenon.

In fact, you have stated elsewhere that you are expressly against even reading any of this literature. This is a blatant revelation of an entirely subjective and un-scientific methodology regarding the entire issue. And I have the distinct suspicion that many of the people writing articles such as the one that you posted have a very one-sided, myopic understanding of the issue as well. They are relying on precisely the kinds of one-sided arguments that you are so critical of. It's the age-old case of someone who has been trained as an expert in one field (e.g., psychology), and then an irrational sense of entitlement sets in, wherein they believe that their highly specified field in and of itself has the answers to problems in every other field. They don't even have to touch any other kind of literature, as their field alone and its methodologies supposedly already has the tools to understand it.

Now of course, not everyone who claims to have seen a UFO, and not everyone who claims to have been abducted is necessarily telling the truth or is perceiving a real object or having a real experience. I think this kind of goes without saying, and is basically to state the obvious. But to continually focus on these cases, while intentionally tying on a blind-fold and intentionally avoiding any possible good cases is really the height of intellectual irresponsibility and dishonesty.

So until you do the research and take a good look at the actual data regarding the UFO phenomenon, it is very difficult to take anything you say seriously, as we have no common ground of background research as a launching point from which to have a meaningful conversation. This lack of actual research on your part is the same exact reason underlying your debates with the other more informed members on this forum.

And let me say that I wholeheartedly agree with your position that, in order to truly understand something, one must utilize the tools of diverse disciplines in order to see it from different perspectives. Unfortunately, you've yet to take your own advice, and have expressly stated as much.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join