Eyewitness accounts and U.F.O.'s

reply to post by neoholographic


I honestly have no idea who Michael Shermer is. Oliver Sacks is the author. that's the guy I know. I have been reading his books for over 20 years and they have nothing to do with UFOs. The topic I am really interested in is neurochemistry and perception. So I really have no response to your critique of Shermer. I think it would be more interesting contrasting Sacks and Hyneck and their insights into perception.

Sacks has been around quite a while even had a movie made about him where Robin Williams played him.

Your confusing me with some Idea you have of "Skeptic" which is not at all what I identify with. Do you have any idea how many books or articles I have read by any of those "skeptics" you have swimming around in your head?

Exactly zero.

However, the Leslie Kean book is on my shelf right next to Stanton Friedmans and a whole bunch of others.

Why are you giving so much weight to Shermer's ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE? LOL

Why do you think I "give so much weight" to this account? I must have skipped that part of the article and really have no idea what your talking about. I actually cant even find what you quoted! I'm sorry thats all you got out of that article though.

So I am glad you have an open mind and will go run out and get the Oliver Sacks book "Hallucination" that came out late last year. I just discovered this last night and I'm excited to get it myself since it ties in these two topics.

Also, 2 people can look at the same EVIDENCE and reach a different conclusion. Lokk at Quantum Mechanics. You have some that believe Copenhagen is correct and the wave function collapses because the wave function is a mathematical description of the Observers uncertainty. You have others who believe Many Worlds and the wave function doesn't collapse.

That's great. I just think its interesting how you go off on these tangents as If I disagree with your point.

You're making several huge mistakes.

No I'm not. You are.

Oh, I see the confusion. You clicked on the link where the Shermer account was given in the same blog post about the new Sacks book. what you quoted really has nothing to do with anything. You didn't actually read the Sacks article which has nothing to do with Shermer. The Shermer account was posted by the blogger and not by Sacks or by me. No, you can't make this stuff up. Nice try though.

This is a blog post ABOUT the new Sacks book along with the shermer thing you are hung up on. ufocon.blogspot.com...

This is a blog post about the Sacks article I was actually discussing ufocon.blogspot.com...

Here is the actual article by Sacks www.nybooks.com...

Originally posted by ZetaRediculian

Here is the actual article by Sacks www.nybooks.com...

edit on 13-4-2013 by ZetaRediculian because: (no reason given)

Super-interesting article. Thanks for posting it.

reply to post by neoholographic


I agree that we shouldn't dismiss eyewitnesses because it's 'just stories'.
One of the main reasons, I believe, why eyewitnesses aren't being taken seriously is that there have been one too many people crying wolf.
That has affected the credibility of every eyewitness.

The amount of disinfo leaves me confused. So much so, that the real good info get's lost in the pile.
I know there have been eyewitness stories that are backed up with other evidence like radar readings.
But primitive a being as I am, there have been so many false alarms, that I tend to just shrug at any information regarding UFO's and such. As of now, I don't know who or what to believe.
I just believe people have seen unidentifiable 'things'. And I believe it's worthy a thorough investigation.

It would be nice if an independent, non-profit group would investigate the phenomenon. A credible down to earth authority. But I don't think I will see that happen anytime soon.

reply to post by neoholographic

NOBODY HAS TO SKIP TO ALIENS BECAUSE THERE'S TONS OF EVIDENCE TO BUILD A HYPOTHESIS!

Sorry to point out the obvious,

What hypothesis are you trying to build? Is it the ET Hypothesis?

How are you going to get to a conclusion not involving ET and have ET hypothesis?

No one is saying skip to Alien but that's what is required for the hypothesis to stand against other valid and more earth bound theories. The evidence used to form the hypothesis is shady at best and requires more confirmation or investigating of individual cases that would be used as evidence to form the hypothesis.

Do aliens exist? I am pretty sure they do, plus NASA knows everything, but they're not going to share everything. However, its far-fetched to suggests aliens control every aspect of the world. Some alien sighting/reports make sense, even the ones with the cow dissections , others, even needless to say the Rendlesham forest incident seem like fairy tales.

I think the claim that all UFO stories are disinformation is the disinformation itself. Anyone with a clue about the topic should not even doubt that UFOs are seen by people, and while sometimes or often times they are something explainable, there are cases when they are something non-conventional.

The skepticism (the rational one, I exclude the complete ignorant one), is about whether such things or machines are of some other origin. This is explainable.

Eye witnesses should not be ignored in those cases they are multiple. You cannot call everybody an idiot... this is not New Zealand aborigens tribe.

But is there a reason to believe they are non-human? Abductions while sleeping - I can account for nearly all cases being some state of mind, semi-dreaming, suffering emotional state or sleep disorder. There was an article that people with sleep problems start seeing demons, maybe the same goes for aliens while you sleep?

The cases of seeing non-human MiB is so far by single people that could have made the cases up, better cases are needed.

reply to post by ImpactoR

Eye witnesses should not be ignored in those cases they are multiple. You cannot call everybody an idiot...

I don't think you can call anybody an idiot. Eyewitness acounts should not be ignored. What good would that do? What we should do is educate ourselves about what eyewitness testimony means. I provided some links to help gauge that. Why not start there?

Originally posted by bigfootgurl

Originally posted by ZetaRediculian

Here is the actual article by Sacks www.nybooks.com...

edit on 13-4-2013 by ZetaRediculian because: (no reason given)

Super-interesting article. Thanks for posting it.

You're welcome. He's a very intriguing writer. I'm glad you enjoyed it.