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.

 

Alien Contacts

page: 11
11
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by starheart
How about you trying to search further what thousands of people say and not just some psychologist? Or are you waiting to have a really bad experience before considering that most all reports aren't from over-imaginative people, or, as you seem to prefer, mentally ill?


Do you even read my posts? Is there something wrong with your reading comprehension?
Do you have to interpret everything said into another language?

When thousands of subjects tested, interviewed, and tested again show the same thing that is reported in the "wild", I'm going to go with the explanation that fits with scientific paradigm, especially where I've been involved with some of the research.

Additionally, I don't know what your hangup on mental illness is. I have yet to make any statement that says someone IS mentally ill.

Let me quote myself for the FIFTH TIME:



Schizotypy isn't necessarily a 'bad' thing.
There is such a state as "Healthy" Schizotypy:

Although aiming to reflect some of the features present in diagnosable mental illness, schizotypy does not necessarily imply that someone who is more schizotypal than someone else is more ill. For example, certain aspects of schizotypy may be beneficial. Both the Unusual experiences and Cognitive disorganisation aspects have been linked to Creativity and academic achievement. Jackson proposed the concept of ‘benign schizotypy’ in relation to certain classes of religious experience, which he suggested might be regarded as a form of problem-solving and therefore of adaptive value. The link between positive schizotypy and certain facets of creativity is consistent with the notion of a "healthy schizotypy", which may account for the persistence of schizophrenia-related genes in the population despite their many dysfunctional aspects.


I encourage those unfamiliar with, or biased against Psychological classifications to educate yourselves.
"Crazy" is not a clinical designation, but a societal perception.

Schizotypy in some ways, considering the creative aspects associated with healthy subjects, could be like having Synesthesia which is actually quite a wonderful and fascinating condition.


If however, you really enjoy the concept of "mental illness", which you seem so fond of bringing up, you are more than free to consider yourself mentally ill if you want to.
I, however, am not calling you mentally ill, or attempting to diagnose you as being such, though I have suspicions regarding your evident penchant from bringing it up in those terms as you seem a little overly defensive.
I have not called anyone mentally ill, but, you keep getting defensive about mental illness? Are you hiding something?

Lastly, taking the side of proven science, by default, means you're right.

I've yet to see any documentation or citation to challenge my last post.
All I see is talk.

Noises coming out of your face might work for a court conviction, but, science could care less about fairy tales unless those fairy tales can stand up and present verifiable testable evidence.

Nothing as of yet describes anything that can't be described as purely Psychological Phenomenon, regardless of how esoteric some may wish to interpret events that occur only inside their head.

Sure, it's blasphemy to whatever near religious significance many seem to attach to these self delusions, but, that's understandable as it is indeed a little upsetting when someone assaults your belief in Santa Claus.

I'm more than open to the idea of Aliens. Bring one. Show me one. Make aliens rain from the sky.
However it happens matters not. Make aliens happen and I'll be happy to withdraw the 'majority" aspect of my assertions.



edit on 5-9-2012 by Druscilla because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by ZetaRediculian
reply to post by Druscilla
 


Until similar documented counterpoint of topical relevance is offered for debate, the premise that the majority of Alien Contact accounts can be attributed to Psychological Phenomenon will stand as my stance on the subject, and until such debate with proper citation is presented such that challenges this position sufficiently to topple this position, said position will stand.


OK. I accept your challenge! I was looking for something to support my beliefs/argument and came across this:

Voyaging to '___' Space with Dr. Rick Strassman, M.D.

Though expecting mystical raptures and deep psychological insights, in his study he was astonished to find many of his volunteers reporting unexpected encounters with strange and sometimes disturbing alien beings with advanced technology in what amounted to classical UFO "abduction" experiences. Unable to explain away the volunteers' experiences, he concluded that these were genuine encounters with independent sentient beings in otherwise normally invisible dimensions


What do you make of this?

www.mavericksofthemind.com...


Rick Strassman, M.D. is a medical researcher who conducted the first U.S.-government-approved-and-funded clinical research with psychedelic drugs in over twenty years. These studies, which took place between 1990 and 1995, investigated the effects of '___' (N,N-dimethyltryptamine), a powerful naturally-occurring hallucinogen. During the project’s five years, Dr. Strassman administered approximately four hundred doses of '___' to 60 human volunteers. This research took place at the University of New Mexico’s School of Medicine in Albuquerque, where he was tenured Associate Professor of Psychiatry.

Dr. Strassman holds degrees from Stanford University, where he received Department Honors in Biology and Albert Einstein College of Medicine of Yeshiva University, where he was a member of the Davidoff Honor Society. He took his internship and general psychiatry residency at the University of California, Davis, Medical Center in Sacramento, and received the Sandoz Award for outstanding graduating resident in 1981. He spent ten years as a tenured professor at the University of New Mexico, performing clinical research investigating the function of the pineal hormone melatonin, in which his research group documented the first known role of melatonin in humans.

Dr. Strassman has published thirty peer-reviewed scientific papers and serves as a reviewer for several medical and psychiatric research journals. He has been a consultant to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, National Institute on Drug Abuse, Veterans’ Administration Hospitals, Social Security Administration, and other state and local agencies.

In 1984 Dr. Strassman received lay ordination in a Western Buddhist order. He co-founded, and for several years administered, a lay Buddhist meditation group associated with the same order. Dr. Strassman currently practices psychiatry in Gallup, New Mexico and is Clinical Associate Professor of Psychiatry in the University of New Mexico School of Medicine.

Dr. Strassman is also the author of the book '___': The Spirit Molecule, which is a compelling and fascinating account of his research with psychedelics. In the book he discusses how '___' may be involved in near-death experiences, alien abduction encounters, and mystical experiences. As the book unfolds, what begins as a study to explore the pharmacology and phenomenology of '___', becomes a science fiction-like journey into an hyper-dimensional reality inhabited by intelligent alien creatures. To find out more about Dr. Strassman’s work visit his Web site: www.rickstrassman.com




It seems I am being avoided by both sides of the subject.

Here we have an induced Alien Abduction Experience in a controlled setting ...

This research took place at the University of New Mexico’s School of Medicine in Albuquerque, where he was tenured Associate Professor of Psychiatry.

....and it was concluded that these were...

genuine encounters with independent sentient beings

by somone who...

has published thirty peer-reviewed scientific papers and serves as a reviewer for several medical and psychiatric research journals. He has been a consultant to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, National Institute on Drug Abuse, Veterans’ Administration Hospitals, Social Security Administration, and other state and local agencies.

....and nobody has anything to say?



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 02:49 PM
link   
reply to post by starheart
 


In my humble opinion people that report being abducted by Aliens fall into the following categories:-

1) Mentally ill

2) Liars

3) Hoaxers

4) Money making scheme. See No. 2 (Whitley Strieber)

5) Genuinely Believe , but are misidentifying 1sleep paralysis.

The list could go on but that's what I think.

All you have to do is look at the numbers that claim abduction in the United States alone, and you will soon see that the numbers are so impossibly huge that the supposed Aliens would require thousands of ships traversing our skies every week.

The phenomenon is completely implausible.



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 03:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by rigel4
reply to post by starheart
 


In my humble opinion people that report being abducted by Aliens fall into the following categories:-

1) Mentally ill

2) Liars

3) Hoaxers

4) Money making scheme. See No. 2 (Whitley Strieber)

5) Genuinely Believe , but are misidentifying 1sleep paralysis.

The list could go on but that's what I think.

All you have to do is look at the numbers that claim abduction in the United States alone, and you will soon see that the numbers are so impossibly huge that the supposed Aliens would require thousands of ships traversing our skies every week.

The phenomenon is completely implausible.





In my ever so humble opinion people who do not believe this happens fall into these categories.

1) To dumb to ever be considered mentally ill

2) Liars , because its right before there eyes if they dare to open them

3) Hoaxers (see number two)

4) Money making scheme. See No. 2 (OMG that is absurd . See number one again please)

5) Genuinely Believe , but are misidentifying their disbelief as science and are very good at double speak



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 03:06 PM
link   
reply to post by bluemooone2
 


Oh well I'm sure you have lots of evidence to back up your ever so
humble beliefs.
edit on 5-9-2012 by rigel4 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 03:50 PM
link   
reply to post by ZetaRediculian
 


Interesting.

So if an "experiencer" happens to accept the conclusions of a highly credentialed proffessor, they have to accept that this is an experience created by taking a....substance that happens be readily available ...endogenous...and realeased whilst they sleep. Also, if they comment that that these are not "real" experiences even though the people who have them believe them to be so...then what? These experiences are virtually identical right down to beings examining them who look like reptiles to the sensation of metal rods being pushed through their heads underneath their eyes.

Conversely, if a skeptic accepts the conclusions....well they can't.

At any rate, these are experiences that were reproduced in a controlled environment and the people experiencing them believe them to be true.

anyone?
edit on 5-9-2012 by ZetaRediculian because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by rigel4
reply to post by bluemooone2
 


Oh well I'm sure you have lots of evidence to back up your ever so
humble beliefs.
hello? hello? knock, knock...is this thing on? Did you know that some professor somwhere, an MD or something did an extensive study of people and was able to reproduce abduction exeperiences? Did you know they were observed while they were going through this and that his conclusion was that these were real encounters with real beings?

hello?

can anyone see this?



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by swan001

Originally posted by The Magicians Apprentice


Do not bother some are not ready to take a peak behind the curtain

Everyone has a life time or a time period when one wakes up from the coma so be understanding with those that don't


You are right.
Hello? who is not ready to look behind which curtain? This conjures up images of the Wizard of Oz....you know the small man behind the curtain. Curtains are also used in magic shows to hide the magic tricks....and strip clubs...well thats been covered already.

can you answer my question? Are these "real" experiences by people who consumed a substance? They met beings and talked to them. Are these real beings? The study concluded that they were. What do you think? or are you not ready to look behind that curtain?



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 06:28 PM
link   
reply to post by ZetaRediculian
 


Some of the research you illustrate regarding '___' supports what I've already included in previously provided links; that nothing shown in the majority of Alien Contact reports isn't already artificially replicable in the lab.

Since these experiences are replicable in the lab, it would hold that this is largely a psychological phenomenon.

As to the prevalence of descriptions regarding supposed interactions with independently sentient beings from some 'other' space during these experiences, the veracity of such claims is dubious regarding the human propensity for character interaction in normal REM sleep cycles.

One may as well argue that conjugation with characters in normal REM sleep cycles are 'real' interactions with independently cognizant sentient beings as well.

Pharmaceutical interactions are typically predictable in effect, with some variation in cases, but, this predictability is the very reason we have drugs in the medical field to begin with.
We can reliably expect the resulting outcome of anesthetics in common use for invasive surgery.
We can reliably expect the resulting mediation of pain in subscribing a post surgical dosage of morphine, but, only in such amounts that do not endanger patient addiction; another (unwanted) reliably predictable outcome.

With '___' and other drug interactions we get a predictable result in roughly half the cases tested of what's called Sensory Homunculous:

Sensory Homunculous, as illustrated, gives exaggerated effect.

There's also a very good article describing the human mind propensity for 'alien'; faces being rooted in our wiring for facial recognition with the proto-face:
Close Encounters of the facial Kind
The linked article proposes that these alien faces are inborn facial recognition templates.

Such holds relevance in the respect that our already developed brains will interpret these templates as representations of non-template fully formed faces and even go so far as to fill in details.

Thus, your own citations, coupled with the citations listed in the linked material I've previously provided uphold the precedent that these Alien Contact experiences are Psychological Phenomenon, entirely subjective, and the result of internalized mechanisms.

Were subjects to exit these experiences with detailed working knowledge of precepts previously unknown to science that test positive as "new" or original knowledge they could not have previously learned or have any facility for, then, there could be argument for contact with some 'other'.

We've yet to get any scientific breakthroughs in physics or any other science from psychedelic explorers as it seems the only universe they're exploring is the inside of their own skull.

Thus, nothing as of yet indicates these experiences are anything other than subjective internalized Psychological Phenomenon.




edit on 5-9-2012 by Druscilla because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by ZetaRediculian

Sorry. This is one of those times when my mind closes completly. I just don't buy it.


Duh. Your mind is always closed. Go figure why it doesn't work.



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 06:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Druscilla
reply to post by ZetaRediculian
 


Some of the research you illustrate regarding '___' supports what I've already included in previously provided links; that nothing shown in the majority of Alien Contact reports isn't already artificially replicable in the lab.

Since these experiences are replicable in the lab, it would hold that this is largely a psychological phenomenon.

As to the prevalence of descriptions regarding supposed interactions with independently sentient beings from some 'other' space during these experiences, the veracity of such claims is dubious regarding the human propensity for character interaction in normal REM sleep cycles.

One may as well argue that conjugation with characters in normal REM sleep cycles are 'real' interactions with independently cognizant sentient beings as well.

Pharmaceutical interactions are typically predictable in effect, with some variation in cases, but, this predictability is the very reason we have drugs in the medical field to begin with.
We can reliably expect the resulting outcome of anesthetics in common use for invasive surgery.
We can reliably expect the resulting mediation of pain in subscribing a post surgical dosage of morphine, but, only in such amounts that do not endanger patient addiction; another (unwanted) reliably predictable outcome.

With '___' and other drug interactions we get a predictable result in roughly half the cases tested of what's called Sensory Homunculous:

Sensory Homunculous, as illustrated, gives exaggerated effect.

There's also a very good article describing the human mind propensity for 'alien'; faces being rooted in our wiring for facial recognition with the proto-face:
Close Encounters of the facial Kind
The linked article proposes that these alien faces are inborn facial recognition templates.

Such holds relevance in the respect that our already developed brains will interpret these templates as representations of non-template fully formed faces and even go so far as to fill in details.

Thus, your own citations, coupled with the citations listed in the linked material I've previously provided uphold the precedent that these Alien Contact experiences are Psychological Phenomenon, entirely subjective, and the result of internalized mechanisms.

Were subjects to exit these experiences with detailed working knowledge of precepts previously unknown to science that test positive as "new" or original knowledge they could not have previously learned or have any facility for, then, there could be argument for contact with some 'other'.

We've yet to get any scientific breakthroughs in physics or any other science from psychedelic explorers as it seems the only universe they're exploring is the inside of their own skull.

Thus, nothing as of yet indicates these experiences are anything other than subjective internalized Psychological Phenomenon.




edit on 5-9-2012 by Druscilla because: (no reason given)


You forget the sensory, er, homnuculous, has VERY BIG hands, VERY BIG ears, and VERY BIG lips, which greys do not possess.
Your attempt to classify everything into Psychology, even as far-fetch as it seems, is impressive.
edit on 5-9-2012 by swan001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 07:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by ZetaRediculian


You are right.
Hello? who is not ready to look behind which curtain? This conjures up images of the Wizard of Oz....you know the small man behind the curtain. Curtains are also used in magic shows to hide the magic tricks....and strip clubs...well thats been covered already.

You purposefully misunderstood my analogy, and I know you did it purposefully as it disgress from the current subject. I never saw the Wizard of Oz. I am french and I rarely watch movies.

can you answer my question? Are these "real" experiences by people who consumed a substance? They met beings and talked to them. Are these real beings? The study concluded that they were. What do you think? or are you not ready to look behind that curtain?


You know what I think? I think a part of these experiences are dreams, misinterpreted past evens, and I know there even are sexual fantasms which actually includes alien abductions. I know everything, as I am interrested in psychology in addition to physics and astrophysics.

But I also know Earth is not the only Goldilock planet, that heavy documentation exists on the aliens that crashed and contacted the Government itself in 1951, that greys have been filmed by the KGB and the tapes buried for years. I know everything about that too. Are you now suggesting the Government and its intelligence agencies all experienced a massive illusion, documented it, and that novel military technologies (included as an exchange with the Greys according to the Edwards Agreement) all popped out from these illusions? That the videocamera from KGB has a funny way of getting crazy and starting filming greys that are not there?
edit on 5-9-2012 by swan001 because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-9-2012 by swan001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 07:19 PM
link   
reply to post by swan001
 


You neglect to see how the illustration of Sensory Homunculous is an illustration.
Further, you neglect to reflect on the nature of subjective interpretation.

The argument is also supported by the protofacial template described in the article Close Encounters of the Facial Kind which you seem to have altogether ignored in favor of a superficial jab without even attempting to understand the nature of the material presented.

You can believe in aliens if you want to. That's entirely your prerogative.
Disputation of the scientific standard as it relates to Alien Abduction phenomenon as researched, documented, and replicated without evidence supporting such disputation is an embrace of ignorance, or faith, which, as said is entirely your prerogative, but, devoid of legitimate support or relevant argument to counter the paradigm.

You may as well say you don't believe in Evolution, or Gravity because you think it's stupid.
Such fallacies as stated are of course entirely your prerogative.
Believe away whatever it is you wish to believe if that's what you will.



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 07:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Druscilla

Originally posted by Rubicant13
reply to post by Druscilla
 


Those sources mean nothing when trying to make sense of experiences that go beyond the confines of the psyche. They are looking at from only the psychological explanation to these matters, not as a possible experiences beyond their understanding of such experiences, and are completely biased within the confines of their professions.


The same can be said about any paranormal "researcher", even more so in consideration that such researchers hold no academic credibility or legitimacy to stand on that would hold them to a true and scientific pursuit and approach to the subject in concern.
Unlike the assertion that the psychological model is biased, it follows rigorous scientific principle, and maintains oversight with peer review.


Scientists reports are more biased than individual people, cause even with a peer review, they are all made by scientists (which i have, and many people have said the same thing, already stated being funded by the government; a government that want people to believe only the media and not their personnal experiences). So yes, i believe more individuals' reports than those of scientists and psychologists, because individuals are not funded.



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 07:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arles Morningside
To be honest, I find many of the reports of abduction and contact disturbing in nature, if they are infact, factual, I believe some are. I also find the whole movement towards weird theology and idolizing other beings disturbing as well as this opens up a person to be manipulated. Perhapes most disturbing is how people excuse what is clearly disturbing. I'm not saying all of these beings are sinister, but there is certainly something going on in some of these encounters that are not OK and from my own experiences with the diversity of beings, there are certainly entities which cannot be trusted and who make deception an art form. It is never wise to trust anyone but yourself and your Higher Power if you believe in one, one should always be on guard (but not paranoid), even if the entity should appear like an angel and radiate exquisite love. If they are truly an entity worth while, they will understand and even expect such precaution.


That was also what i was thinking. If indeed a good alien present himself and you're very suspicious, he will understand and let you time to trust him.
And yes, some alien species present themselves as good aliens; the Nordics, i have heard, and reptilliens are masters in shape-shifting.



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 07:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Magicians Apprentice
So....... I thought I would throw my $5 into this blundering situation.

1. You as a citizen of Earth get contact if and when you are ready to as contacts can have lets say risks on an individual.

2. Et's like individuals who are more open to understanding and open to contact. They do not like people who are negative, doubting and so on so forth.

3. Contact has 5 levels, level 1 dream time, level 2 OBE(Out Of Body Experience), level 3 contact sighting, level 4 telepathic contact and final level 5 contact is physical contact etc etc...


Thank you enormously, The Magicians Apprentice! You really gave good advices and informations, which was also the purpose of this thread. Did you have experiences?



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 07:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by ZetaRediculian

Originally posted by starheart
reply to post by ZetaRediculian
 


I was just trying to help, sorry if i crossed a line.
No line crossed. I was just Trying to make a point that I don't believe there are any "attacks" being made on me. ...and whimsically


Ok, thanks.
... but then why did you made that post? (about not being able to move).

If it didn't had aliens involved, then why?



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 07:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by starheart
Scientists reports are more biased than individual people, cause even with a peer review, they are all made by scientists (which i have, and many people have said the same thing, already stated being funded by the government; a government that want people to believe only the media and not their personnal experiences). So yes, i believe more individuals' reports than those of scientists and psychologists, because individuals are not funded.


It's interesting that you touch on the topic of "Bias", and not your first time in doing so either, when your entire post is the very exemplification of bias.

If you think "The Government" is forcing science to pay lip service for the sake of funding, you should present some evidence that supports your claim.

If you have no evidence, you have no claim. You're just making noise of the sort that could be interpreted as approaching Paranoid Delusion; a term you may desire to familiarize yourself with.

Further, and importantly, your evidence should be relevant to the argument at hand, so, while you're looking for evidence to support your claim, you should look for my name, as well as the names of those listed in all the links I've provided supporting my own argument.

Your rider, otherwise has no horse.



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 08:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Druscilla

Originally posted by starheart
Scientists reports are more biased than individual people, cause even with a peer review, they are all made by scientists (which i have, and many people have said the same thing, already stated being funded by the government; a government that want people to believe only the media and not their personnal experiences). So yes, i believe more individuals' reports than those of scientists and psychologists, because individuals are not funded.


It's interesting that you touch on the topic of "Bias", and not your first time in doing so either, when your entire post is the very exemplification of bias.

If you think "The Government" is forcing science to pay lip service for the sake of funding, you should present some evidence that supports your claim.

If you have no evidence, you have no claim. You're just making noise of the sort that could be interpreted as approaching Paranoid Delusion; a term you may desire to familiarize yourself with.

Further, and importantly, your evidence should be relevant to the argument at hand, so, while you're looking for evidence to support your claim, you should look for my name, as well as the names of those listed in all the links I've provided supporting my own argument.

Your rider, otherwise has no horse.






Is there evidence that conflict of interest (COI) has influenced science and biomedical publications? Several studies suggest that the answer is yes.10–13 Friedman and Richter14 studied COI and research results published in 2 leading general medicine journals. They used 3 different definitions of COI, and found that depending on the definition, the prevalence of COI by one or more authors varied between 19% and 29% of all original manuscripts published in both journals combined. They observed a strong association between positive study results and COI among all treatment studies, and also noted that the odds are extremely small that authors with COI would publish negative results.

As editors, our primary concern is in the communication of peer-reviewed information to improve the health of patients. Charlton15 defines peer review as the primary evaluation process of applied science and states that despite its convenience, peer review has significant limitations related to its reliance on opinion. One major limitation is its inability to deal with conflicts of interest, especially in a “big science” context when prestigious scientists may have similar biases, and conflicts of interest are widely shared among peer reviewers (cf 16). In the short term, Charlton15 suggests that reliance on peer review may allow damaging distortions to become “locked-in” to clinical practice and health policy.


jabfm.org...

[Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine]



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 08:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Runciter33
 


That's fine ... as it applies to those cases.
If you want to generalize, and thereby label every single finding in science you disagree with as being government sponsored and tainted, then, please, by all means don't throw a fit when someone brings up a few cases of people that are very obviously suffering from a severe mental pathology when they also over generalize (which I have not yet done) in saying ALL alien abduction people are such.

Now, if you'd like to find links that are RELEVANT to the specific papers and links I've cited, then, we might have something to talk about.

If you want to play Blanket Party Generalization in using a few non related cases to generalize all of science, then, you might expect others to play by the same rules.



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join