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.

 

Thoughts about people claiming alien contact

page: 12
24
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 12 2013 @ 02:30 PM
link   
PS: Although I just saw this that may someday 'almost' relate -- clearly not yet, of course.
www.abovetopsecret.com...




posted on Sep, 12 2013 @ 10:01 PM
link   
reply to post by RedCairo
 

You're killing me with all of this quoting. I don't have time to pick apart everything you noted. So forgive me if I skip over particular question(s) you wanted answered.


Implants are concrete and real for the individual who experiences them [I would testify to that personally]. However, they don't say "made on mars" on the side, they are not "extraterrestrial materials" and we do not have a technology matching it to make it even seem like technology to us. Hence they are dismissed as being anything more than "biological anomalies which those claiming alien abduction associate with their experience." To me this merely indicates that even in a field where there is almost no evidence, even when there IS evidence, it's dismissed for reasons which range from completely retarded to possibly simply lack of our own scientific advancement, so much for just wanting something measurable.


Implants may be concrete and real to the people that experience them, but, what about to the general public? That's an extraordinary claim that should be shared and independently studied. Here we have Dr. Leir saying these objects are implanted by alien beings. He follows and believes these abduction stories brought to him and removes these "implants". We have a physician that discovers aliens have implanted objects into humans. That would seem like something that the rest of the medical community would want to know. Why hide it and save it for his books or his audience at one of the UFO lectures he gives? Because it will be easily accepted by the believers? Why wouldn't he share this overwhelming evidence of alien visitation with his colleagues? Through a scientific journal for example? Because it won't be so easily accepted and he'll have to provide actual verifiable real evidence that will stand up to scrutiny? If you make such a claim, you better back it up. Many believers don't need much convincing and are an easy target for spreading these type of stories.


You have a big set of assumptions there, of which I see no evidence.
Such as:

a) They clearly ARE intelligent enough to hide the fact that they abduct people given there is no objective physical evidence for it. And, it may be that only a tiny percentage of the people actually abducted actually remember it (consciously, I'm ignoring the hypnotic angle here), and this may be for reasons which are actually beyond easy control, such as physiological variables in the individuals themselves. Even in our own technologies, we can give people drugs of all kinds and how they affect the people, and how they affect memory for example, varies greatly, even if they are "mostly" predictable.

b) By "seen" I don't know if you mean seen by the abductees (see point A) or seen in craft (see point C).

c) You are making what I consider the same wild-assumption many abductees do: that UFOs which crash (I have no idea how many of these occur since I assume at this point our and other militaries are good enough and fast enough to drag them underground incredibly fast) are directly related to "abduction experiences." EVEN IF abduction experiences describe people/creatures similar to what have allegedly been found on crashed craft, that doesn't mean it is the same technology involved. Even in our own models we are much better and more consistent with some technologies than others, especially where individual human biology/psychology are involved.


a- You have a memory of being abducted and what was done. How is that hiding the fact that you were abducted? For the sake of needing physical evidence, that explanation works great. But it doesn't show much intelligence otherwise. People say hours go by in what seems to be 15 minutes. Apparently, "they" can somehow erase a reference for time. Not for what they did though? Betty and Barney Hill said it took 3 more hours to get home than usual. In those 3 hours, no one saw their car on the street in the area they said they were abducted? Too late? Nothing came by in 3 hours?

b- Seen, I mean all aspects. UFOs, aliens, etc.

c- There's been a connection between UFO's and aliens for many years. You have people saying they see a UFO hovering, which then draws them aboard with a beam of light. Travis Walton for example said something similar. He's then inside this UFO and sees the stereotypical grey alien. He will see a star map as well. Same with Betty and Barney Hill. I'm not making a "wild assumption", this is what abductees actually say. Would you say both Travis Walton and Betty/Barney Hill were lying? You would have to if you're stating there's no correlation between aliens and UFO's.


It did give us something. Not just in decades, but in Millennia. It gave us individual unrelated testimonial accounts even from otherwise believable people with rather clear correlations that are overlapping extended eras and a variety of cultures. The data it provides is sociological and empirical, not physical, but it is still data.


If that's all you need.. more power to you. I need something a little different and more than that when discussing an alien civilization visiting Earth. More than assuming religious stories or ancient gods are connected to UFOs or alien beings. You know, my father who was involved with nuclear science and an intelligent person once said: 'UFO's and aliens could be connected to the bible and angels.' At the time, I was too young to ask or try to debate him on that. But, he did believe that. Even at that young age, I remember it tumbling around in my little mind and not connecting to a realistic scenerio.


I don't see how anyone could read 'Alien Identities' by Thompson, about Vedic history (oral which became documented), and not see the startling if not overwhelmingly obvious correlations between modern day UFOlogy reports and ancient Vedic history. I am pretty sure that 4000+ years ago they were not influenced by Western science fiction, nor do I think most Western people are aware of let alone influenced by Vedic history.

I think if there is any burden of proof -- and I don't think there is one, but if there were -- it should be on the debunkers to explain why these empirical overlaps have occured around the world and throughout time if there is nothing to it.


I won't even comment on Veric and the 'golden flying chariots' type of stories as I'm sure you know where I would stand on that.
Why should the burden of proof fall unto the debunkers/skeptics/non-believers? It's the responsibility of the person(s) making the extraordinary claim, not for us to prove it's not true. That's the same as people who post YouTube videos saying they see a shape-shifting craft, while obviously it's only a group of balloons. People have to go out of their way to prove it's balloons. That's ridiculous. It's a backward methodology in regards to this field. You may have proven to yourself that theres enough "evidence" to show aliens are here. That doesn't mean anyone outside of your bubble believes the same.

You and g2v12 seem to travel on the same parallel path. Both have abduction experiences, both study and share the abduction phenomenon.


That's like saying, why don't you want to be independently rich? Why settle for working for a living? I think most people settle for no physical evidence because they don't seem to have any choice in the matter. The only data appears to be sociological and empirical and of course things like implants; that data is not nearly as objective, logical and measurable as we would like, nor is it always even strongly indicative of -- let alone proof of -- any relationship to the flying Chevy NORAD was tracking.


Key word is "settle". I can't just settle for less than when it comes to this topic.


I don't think people willing to "not mock and ridicule" others speaking of abduction experiences are simply not-wanting evidence or not critical thinkers at all. I think they are simply realistically observing what appear to be the facts: we have reportive data, we have some correlations in that, we do not have physical data, at least nothing provable as alien related; we merely have whatever data we have. It would be nice to have more, especially the physical and objective stuff.If that isn't enough, then why not walk away. You're right, if we don't have it after 65 years -- or millennia of these experiences as seems to be the reality of them -- chances are objective physical evidence is not going to leap out at us soon and it's certainly not going to come through a discussion forum.

So that brings it back to: what do skeptics get out of hanging about on threads maligning the accounts and the people reporting them? To me it seems like "evangelism" and even "crusade-ism" psychology, which I see as just as dysfunctional as anything that could be leveraged at abductees.


Again, you're taking on the defensive while I've said nothing personally about anyone's abduction story. It's the belief in other abduction stories I question. Are you giving the benefit of the doubt that other stories are truthful because of your own experience? Do you have a barometer as to what's acceptable and what's not? Let's face facts, everyone has been lied to in one way or another throughout life. When it comes to these stories, how do you discern the truth from lies? Do you leave the possibility open for anything goes, within reason?


So he made a reasoned and well-written and accurate explanation related to science and you essentially say 'talk to the hand.' The tendency of people to dismiss the most reasoned arguments with a single scornful insult is an example of the scoffer, not skeptic, mentality.


An explanation to his personal definition to "claim". But other than that, nothing productive to the topic of this thread. Same side-tracks with a definition to "proof" and "evidence" elsewhere. It's done here all the time. I'm not scoffing at a story, just the "schooling" type of attitude that goes on in this forum at times. There's seems to be this belief that non-believers think: "Believers are gullible idiots". Leading to a need to *grunt grunt* puff out the chest that you're not. Believe it or not, I'm not one of those people that think that.



posted on Sep, 12 2013 @ 10:17 PM
link   
reply to post by compressedFusion
 




Can you name any respectable institution that offers a degree program for this topic? What about a specialization within a degree? How about a class that takes it seriously. At the bare minimum can we name an academic professor doing research into this over the last 40 years besides John Mack?


Does it take someone with a degree to provide physical evidence of an abduction? Does it take someone highly skilled in photography to photograph an alien spacecraft closeup? The answer is no to both of those questions. That's why the answer to this question is simple and lies with average Joe. He has no special skills, no education on the subject and doesn't need it. He could provide the one piece of physical evidence that's tested and undeniabley from another world. Having every scientist in the world studying the subject will do nothing to getting us closer to an answer.


It seems quite obvious to me why there wouldn't be any evidence. Nobody is researching it. Outside of the Condon report this topic has received close to zero exposure. If ETs are flying about snatching up people what evidence do you expect to find from a bunch of anecdotal stories? What evidence are you expecting if there are no scientific observations?

If we want to figure out what is going on then it needs to be thoroughly researched. Anecdotes are not evidence and the burden of unraveling the mystery lies with all of society. Without scientific research we are simply guessing at the cause of the "thousands" of events you suggested. We can't guess at the answer, even if it is simple. We must research it and it needs to be done rigorously.

But it is not taken seriously. We have not been open minded about it. It is ridiculed and examples like John Mack are a cautionary tale for those daring to study what is happening.


If you want to throw academia into the mix as if that somehow will solve this problem. J Allen Hynek studied the phenomenon for years. At the end of his life, he was no closer to an answer than when he was when he first began. He had access to records and to witnesses. His conclusion was that the subject needed further study. Not really adding anything as far as an answer to what is going on. Stanton Friedman studies it now. Has he gotten us closer to an answer? No. As I said above, scientific study isn't where this subject will be resolved. It will more than likely be resolved by an average uneducated(relative to this subject) citizen who comes forward with something undeniably not from this world.



posted on Sep, 12 2013 @ 10:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Ectoplasm8
 



Ectoplasm8
Does it take someone with a degree to provide physical evidence of an abduction? Does it take someone highly skilled in photography to photograph an alien spacecraft closeup? ... He could provide the one piece of physical evidence that's tested and undeniabley from another world.

J Allen Hynek studied the phenomenon for years ... His conclusion was that the subject needed further study. Not really adding anything as far as an answer to what is going on. Stanton Friedman studies it now. Has he gotten us closer to an answer?


I agree. These are very good points.



Having every scientist in the world studying the subject will do nothing to getting us closer to an answer.


It wouldn't hurt to have just a few
.

I realize you were using hyperbole to illustrate your point about the average Joe, but the kernel of truth in my joke remains.


Ectoplasm8
Has he gotten us closer to an answer? No. As I said above, scientific study isn't where this subject will be resolved. It will more than likely be resolved by an average uneducated(relative to this subject) citizen who comes forward with something undeniably not from this world.


I see your point. If you replaced the 2nd occurrence of "resolved" with "advanced" then I would be in near complete agreement.

My main point is that there is no reason to either believe or disbelieve people making claims of contact. Ideally it should be filed away for study. In addition, there seems to be this unfortunate problem of ridicule that has leaked into all aspects of society including academia. This will make any resolution that much more difficult.



posted on Sep, 13 2013 @ 12:53 AM
link   
reply to post by compressedFusion
 

I agree that ridicule of this subject is done by uneducated and educated alike. That stories can bleed over into each other and effectively ruin what could be considered a serious case by believers. For every possible serious case, there could be 100 hoaxes or nut-job cases. I understand that is a difficult hurdle to get over. But that hurdle could be destroyed by a piece of physical evidence. Just one piece in the thousands of cases. It's understandable if we're speaking in terms of 20 people, or even 100 that we have absolutely nothing. But, it needs to be addressed that this phenomena has been going on many years and witnessed by many people. This is supposedly happening on a physical level and beyond just a visual one. At what point does common sense kick-in and say "Wait a second, there should be something of value discovered by now."? At what point do you stop making excuses for logical questions asked. For example: "With so many claimed cases, why no physical evidence?" We don't get an answer, we get excuses why you don't have an answer. With excuses, it's an endless loop where anything is possible and anything is explained.

There are people in this thread that are seemingly intelligent. Why is the line so blurred between Earthly reasonable explanations and fantasy explanations? Alien involvement is still considered a fantasy explanation at this point. So it shouldn't supersede or be combined at this time with a mundane Earthly answer. But it seems to do exactly that.



posted on Sep, 13 2013 @ 01:36 AM
link   
Response to Ectoplasm8


Implants may be concrete and real to the people that experience them, but, what about to the general public?

You're right, to the general public my 'experience' means nothing. I suppose in theory this goes as much for non-esoteric experiences. You can't really prove you had ANY subjective experience any more than someone can prove you didn't.

I understand you're saying they should prove or at least evidence some kind of "objective" elements of the experience. I'm just not sure those elements completely overlap with the physics-reality we are currently focused in, except in rather rare instances which perhaps are some of the ones that make the press (e.g. Walton). That doesn't make them non-physical, only non-physical "here." Yes I realize I just created something unfalsifiable and I might as well be raving about the fairies -- this is part of the problem with the entire genre, though, it is completely exasperating that the experience and the current-world understanding or technology for capturing it are so mismatched. I wish I could fix that. It is not that my brain doesn't see the logic of the request for evidence obviously. It's just that I don't HAVE any, I was unable to GET any, but there's nothing I can do about that. Still, not having it doesn't make me find it altogether fair, although it is reasonable (not often do those terms part like that), that those claiming 'alien contact' are often treated poorly (the OP point).


Here we have Dr. Leir saying these objects are implanted by alien beings.

Well, I can't be responsible for what other people say, although I see your point. I don't know of him, I don't know of much of the field. I think many of the people I at times see at a distance in the UFO field publicly are at best uncritical and/or egocentric, and at worst probably not entirely stable. Had I not met so many people who are not in public, and whom I respect, I think I'd have had serious doubts about my own sanity for a lot longer than I did...

I am kind of a 'free information' freak by nature anyway. One of my biggest gripes is people insisting they have some brilliant technology or therapy but everyone has to pay a lot of money to get a glimpse and it has more hype than TV. To me, anything that is of genuine concern to the larger public, be it health solutions or the possible involvement of non-humans-as-we-know-them-ians, not only ought to be as free as possible (I'm not against people selling books or videos it took them time and/or $ to make, but it should be very affordably) but anything claiming evidence or science should be made fully public. If it can't be published in a journal (because peer reviewers wouldn't touch it, for the journal's reputation, no matter WHAT it had), it could still be put out as a book or made publicly available via web for social-peer-review.


He follows and believes these abduction stories brought to him and removes these "implants".

Well, using the abbreviated account I posted a bit ago related to implants, let us say that someone (me. Pretend I live next door to you) tells you of this experience, and says they woke up with these 'objects' or so it feels like in various places in their body. Maybe you have no reason to believe their "experience" (whatever it might be) but they clearly believe "something" happened, and physical evidence would be good, so you slice 'em open where they point to, and there something IS -- what the hell is it -- god only knows, but wow that's a helluva coincidence that there actually IS something there.

And it IS 'something' that is not ordinary, either, and has no good explanation even biologically. Which seems to me to lend some credence to the "something happened" (not much of any credence to what that might have been of course).

I hold that so-called implants for me were "not there when I fell asleep, and were there on awakening." (In fact I literally collapsed when I stood up from bed in the morning, due to the problem with the one in my knee.) How they got there is a slight mystery (or rather, my opinion on the how is so completely lacking in not only evidence, but even common cultural framework, there is no point in using it here). It's slang to say "aliens inserted implants" but really, we don't know that they are aliens, and we don't know that they are necessarily inserted versus spontaneously internally generated in some fashion or some weird combo. No idea.

This is one of those instances where we lack terminology for communicating about a new thing. So, we use the only terminology available. But it has "baggage and paradigms." And then people want to diss the experience or the data based on the assumptions the terminology carries. But the relevant part is the underlying thing, not the words pointing to it.

I would think the point would be that at the very least, something we CAN measure (even if we have no idea what to do with that) showed up in time-concordance with a notable experience the individual has subjective reasons for believing is related, and this happens to multiple people, for which we have multiple 'measurable anomalies.' Hell that's way more than we had 30 years ago right?

Dismissing this because someone's raving about aliens does rather overlook the point that someone actually evidenced some kind of physically measurable anomaly, and even though on its own it cannot 'prove' anything, it's still more physical evidence than we had to begin with. That seems like a good thing to me, I guess. No? Maybe it's not enough but it's more than we had and to me it seems like, critical review of this, may lead to things in the future which somewhat improve on the data collected etc.

I think rather than stop all data flow because someone disagrees with the idea that "aliens" are behind it, trying to better understand that data and its anomalies like the implants might eventually lead to understanding it better -- which may very well just prove that it wasn't aliens to begin with, who knows?

I might add that I did not perceive any aliens or entities during the lead up to, and apparent period of acquiring in some fashion, implants.

I did have an experience 3 days following where someone with what seemed like a hand reached INTO my body (all over, though starting with the knee). Now in hypnosis you can make someone "not see" things, and perceive all kinds of crap, so I can't prove the "non-visual" element wasn't psychological, though I was wide awake with the light on, but the experience appeared to be fully physical otherwise (visual isn't the only data in our physical reality).

I can't prove those were aliens either, though. I don't have anything vested in them being so. Of course 'alien' in terms of 'foreign to us' is a fair term; we even call Canadians and Mexicans aliens LOL; it's the whole "OUTER SPACE" assumption that throws a semantics-baggage wrench into it. That's why I so freakin detest that assumption. It just creates this artificial "zone of argument" ABOVE the data that keeps any useful inquiry from happening it seems like.



posted on Sep, 13 2013 @ 01:37 AM
link   
Response to Ectoplasm8


We have a physician that discovers aliens have implanted objects into humans. That would seem like something that the rest of the medical community would want to know.

Oh please. Side rant: The medical community is quite possibly the most paradigm-distorted bias-educated anti-contributor to the good of our culture of any community out there and they're still more than happy to give people bad drugs and surgery and watch them die than give them a few amino acids and a vitamin that underlie the reason for the problem in the first place -- even national politics can't compete for mercenary corporatism with that industry. If you're going to be using logic as leverage, don't be using the allopathic medical field on your side, that only hurts your case. Far as I'm concerned, assuming they truly want to know anything is as ludicrous to me as you'd find the story I could tell you about the Tall Telepathic Insect who saved me from the obnoxious blonde guy working security. Nothing personal ok... and I do get what you're saying, that it should be conveyed to other medical people.


Why hide it and save it for his books or his audience at one of the UFO lectures he gives?

I think that when you have information, especially if it likely has a lot of details and is important to you, that putting it together in a single presentation where you can make all your points, provide all your evidence, address the many questions and issues you know it brings up, is fair.

People do this all the time. Why is it only unreasonable if people in the UFOlogy field do it?

I have books by lots of people including science writers, medical specialists, researchers and more, and sometimes they are "presenting their perspective" on something with notes from their own client case studies or research projects and so on. It seems like a fair way to do it. It seems biased and unfair to attack the guy on this particular point.


Because it will be easily accepted by the believers? Why wouldn't he share this overwhelming evidence of alien visitation with his colleagues?

I'm sure his medical colleagues can afford a paperback -- far cheaper than a medical journal -- and charging a little for the time and effort and sometimes related expenses it took to write a book does not seem unfair to me -- we do not assume that every person who publishes a book is a bad guy so I find it illogical and injust to assume this of people in the UFOlogy topic.


Through a scientific journal for example?

You know as well as I do it would never be published there, so that is a straw man demand.

Hell even scientifically physically measurable things can't get published in journals when there is serious controversy about them and that's even for trivial crap like a virus, never mind "alien implants" LOL.


Because it won't be so easily accepted and he'll have to provide actual verifiable real evidence that will stand up to scrutiny?

Maybe because he wants the chance to provide a sufficient amount of data, in an organized fashion, that it gets the presentation it deserves, rather than someone just one-off mentioning it on the internet? I mean if he didn't treat it with respect and organize it, I'm sure he'd be attacked for that instead.

I never heard of the guy and I don't know anything about it. But I find it great that someone is actually digging 'em out and studying them. Damn, studying ANYTHING is such a step up from the "bunch of people raving about chaotically unconnected stuff" I feel pretty happy about the idea personally!

Er, maybe my standards are low, as you keep saying...


Many believers don't need much convincing and are an easy target for spreading these type of stories.

Believers semantic baggage: "completely uncritical morons." It's a fair stereotype but it IS a stereotype, not fair to apply to all. So I should skip ahead to your last comment:

There's seems to be this belief that non-believers think: "Believers are gullible idiots". [...] Believe it or not, I'm not one of those people that think that.

Well I think the 'believers' phrase itself implies some of that, but moreso the overwhelming number of people in any environ that rant on about that plainly says it loudly and often brutally with no interpretation required. This topic is definitely a case where for both 'believers' and 'debunkers,' 99% of them are giving the other 1% a bad name...



posted on Sep, 13 2013 @ 01:37 AM
link   
Response to Ectoplasm8


a- You have a memory of being abducted and what was done.

To be more precise, I have mostly pieces of memories. The beta- and even alpha- brainwave state appears to be seriously screwed with during these experiences and "linear memory" that is complete is rare. I have a few. And they are so far out that it probably would have been more comfortable to only have pieces lol.

Note: I actually did a great deal of biofeedback work with hypnosis in the years prior to this stuff, so when I refer to the dominant brainwave states, I think I do have some idea what I'm talking about. Using EEG I could generally, and quickly, shift my dominant state to whatever I wanted eventually. Including 'conscious' delta (meaning there's more alpha/beta streams in there than usual in that state). In fact when this stuff started happening to me (at least that I was aware of) I actually thought it was an artifact of this: that my ability to hold delta while being so lucid was literally wrapping a sort of 'perceptual reality' into my 'normal' reality that didn't belong there. (In theory, this is still possible, though we'd have to apply to other people for other reasons too, if so.)

The experiences have occasionally had me snap into a high degree of awareness (usually sponsored by great adrenalin) that is very similar to my ordinary state of mind (during panic anyway), but that was only on rare occasion, and usually only occurred because I was trying to get away from some jerk blonde intent on stopping my escape.

Note that my state of mind even then however was oddly limited; had I been in the ordinary state of mind I have 'here' I likely would have gone about it all differently. I believe the technology that shifts the dominant consciousness/body 'there' and leaves a portion of one 'here' is responsible for this difference... but perhaps that is just theory of me trying to understand it. I was often, later, just enraged about that element, I *wanted* my "full and critical mind" to be 100% present so I could function the way I wanted to, interact (and sneak) the way I wanted to, and I felt like they were handicapping me, like handcuffs for the brain in a way. I had enough lucidity (I suspected because of my long self-hypnosis experience) to be 'aware' of what was going on -- mostly, sometimes, partially or in period-pieces -- but not enough of the higher frequencies present to be more "autonomous" (much like in depth hypnosis, if you don't force more of the higher frequencies into the stream, the subject will just sit happily like a Zen cow for hours). Usually those more alert frequencies didn't seem to kick in until adrenalin from fear or fast physical motion did.

Sometimes I was fully aware that I was not in "my" world, even had long arguments with myself about how this was impossible and I knew it wasn't real in the 'real' world (although it was consistent and repeated 'there'), but the degree of memory I would have later really varied a lot, both in its linearity and in its completeness. I haven't had hypnosis related to any of this so when it comes to memory, I just have what I have -- I wrote some of the "weird stuff" down not long later, and sometimes the instant I would 'come to' abruptly (often mad as hell), is the only reason I likely remembered what I did.

Anyway so my point is, my memory of these experiences is not as clear-complete as my memory of, say, the production meeting I had earlier today, where my coworkers (read: aliens from San Francisco LOL) interacted with me. If my "state of mind" during most the experiences were exactly the same as it is now, then some of what people demand of abductees might have been possible. Most the time it was not, however. Even when one is physical, the process appears to seriously mess with the state-of-mind. I feel like this is so obvious and yet, maybe nobody is SAYING it, because it's surely got to be the primary reason why there isn't a ton more 'details' and at least attempts at evidence.

I strongly suspect that the only reason I had the lucidity skills I did, I would have been completely oblivious to nearly all of this.

One assumes I still would have wondered where all that missing time went. But I am not certain I can attribute that to aliens either. I think there may be more than one thing going on for many people, which may be creating some seriously confounding factors.


How is that hiding the fact that you were abducted?

Well if it suppresses all physical evidence and memory for "the vast majority" it doesn't matter much. And I consider it kind of less a one-time abduction thing and more an ongoing ranching thing, like we might do with cows or sheep we were breeding. And likely present with a ton of the population who are oblivious to it. So given that, the number of reports are incredibly few, and have no evidence, so are not too big a worry I imagine.



posted on Sep, 13 2013 @ 01:37 AM
link   
Response to Ectoplasm8


For the sake of needing physical evidence, that explanation works great. But it doesn't show much intelligence otherwise. People say hours go by in what seems to be 15 minutes.

Do they? I've got to find and read all these famous studies so I don't sound like such a clueless idiot.

I did have some odd things related to time, now and then. I said in describing one very odd and linear experience:

Silence was what I noticed first. It was a long, long silence. Eternal silence. A silence that seemed like it had gone on (and on) for eons. I was comfortable. White surrounded me. I knew that I had been there for years, or maybe millennia, or as if time had ceased to have meaning and it was all the same. [...] I went to the door to our room which was open and I went out, passing the man, whom I absolutely loathed. I just hated him. I remembered having tried to wake him up for years. He never spoke, he never awoke. I had been scared and lonely and desperate and he wouldn't wake up. I cried, I beat up on him, nothing helped. I had begged him to talk with me, to make love with me, to fight with me, anything... but he wouldn't wake up. I had run out of tears for my solitude, and I despised him completely as a result.

That stupid guy did finally wake up, at the worst possible time, and got so hysterical he got both our asses kicked. Sigh. Anyway...


Apparently, "they" can somehow erase a reference for time. Not for what they did though?

Well, I think you are making assumptions about technology and consciousness that we really don't know enough about to assume on, like to think one is unlikely, or that if it's possible the other would be unlikely -- we don't know.

I suspect they do "erase a reference for what they do" in the vast majority of our population. Those claiming abduction may be the 'rare anomalies.'


Betty and Barney Hill said it took 3 more hours to get home than usual. In those 3 hours, no one saw their car on the street in the area they said they were abducted? Too late? Nothing came by in 3 hours?

I've met a lot of people who had major missing time episodes including with many of them together in the same car, including many people who have zero interest in the alien topic.

I had 'missing time' constantly. Though as I noted, I suspect that least in some cases this was definitely not aliens.

Who would I ask? Who would know? I mean if these experiences had some kind of forewarning, like, "Tuesday at 7pm you will seem to lose 2 hours of time" then we could plan for trying to keep track of things during that period.


c- There's been a connection between UFO's and aliens for many years.

Yes, I wrote in a previous post that we could not completely disassociate them as the abduction experiences clearly have reference to UFOs.


Travis Walton for example said something similar. He's then inside this UFO and sees the stereotypical grey alien. He will see a star map as well. Same with Betty and Barney Hill. I'm not making a "wild assumption", this is what abductees actually say. Would you say both Travis Walton and Betty/Barney Hill were lying? You would have to if you're stating there's no correlation between aliens and UFO's.

My wording may have been poor, but if you reread hopefully it's clearer now that what I was saying is, the 'technology' for a flying UFO and whatever it does (including beaming people up) may not be the same technology that's being used to seemingly partial-port the energy of a mass population out of bed, and it is possible that different technologies have different degrees of effectiveness (particularly in mucking with memory).



It did give us something. Not just in decades, but in Millennia. It gave us individual unrelated testimonial accounts even from otherwise believable people with rather clear correlations that are overlapping extended eras and a variety of cultures. The data it provides is sociological and empirical, not physical, but it is still data.

If that's all you need.. more power to you. I need something a little different and more than that when discussing an alien civilization visiting Earth.

I don't think an alien civilization is visiting earth. I think these guys who live one-shift-over on the sine wave of frequency are ranching our people like cows, except instead of eating us they're just using us for breeding genetically designed end-products they sell commercially (god only knows where). And I'd like to have more objective and physical evidence of that. But I guess I've come to accept it vastly more than I did 20 years ago. I was pretty well a freak about it at the time, I found it profoundly upsetting and world-sized-important. Now I have a bit of a shrug about it. I think I gave up on proving it is all.

For people who have these experiences, it is "psychologically impacting" to understate it greatly. It also has a lot of physiological impact. And the "implications" for society, for reality, are profoundly upsetting. But the more you question, the less you get, and I'm talking about me, now: I feel like every thing that I gradually got a degree of answer to, only (a) led me to more questions than I began with, and (b) at best, was an answer that felt fine in my head but was completely without any basis to anybody else in the world. Eventually it is more than just frustrating. I think it actually creates a degree of cognitive dissonance. This is probably why many of the people I know who have had such experiences don't talk about them publicly at all; they just move on with their lives, they don't want to focus on it, because it's upsetting.


More than assuming religious stories or ancient gods are connected to UFOs or alien beings. [...] I won't even comment on Veric and the 'golden flying chariots' type of stories as I'm sure you know where I would stand on that.

Have you READ the book I mentioned? Have you seen how much incredible parallel there is between stuff documented a gazillion years ago vs. what is going on in our world today? We're not talking about nothing more than a stone carving or something. I'm not talking about chariots of the gods. I'm talking about a lot of detail that is frankly mind boggling when considered en toto and then compared to today.



posted on Sep, 13 2013 @ 01:38 AM
link   
Response to Ectoplasm8



I think if there is any burden of proof -- and I don't think there is one, but if there were -- it should be on the debunkers to explain why these empirical overlaps have occured around the world and throughout time if there is nothing to it.

Why should the burden of proof fall unto the debunkers/skeptics/non-believers? It's the responsibility of the person(s) making the extraordinary claim

It is the responsibility of an entire culture if it's anyone's, since the people reporting the experiences are neither objective researchers of data, nor scientists for building hypothesis based on that data and controlled studies based on that hypothesis. But what I'm saying is: before people (not you) start insisting people are lying and/or morons for reporting a personal experience, given that we have the "empirical evidence" of such experiences having been reported throughout time and around the world, it seems like there is no fair basis for that kind of attitude toward so-called contactees. Which is the OP's thread here.


It's a backward methodology in regards to this field.

I do agree that debaters should not have to prove the very aliens they're insisting don't exist... obviously.

I simply don't agree that people making a report on a spontaneous personal experience should be singlehandedly responsible for proof of one of the most ephemeral things in our planetary experience for the last many millennia. As noted, these experiences do not come with warning, they do not usually have the full focus-capacity present (at least for me), they only rarely (e.g. Walton-style stuff) appear to happen in the frequency beat-pattern WE call 'reality,' and the combination of these things makes documenting them in any way except "recording the experience afterward" ridiculously unlikely.

Which makes it only a report. I get that. Sorry. Can't fix it.


You may have proven to yourself that theres enough "evidence" to show aliens are here. That doesn't mean anyone outside of your bubble believes the same.

I have experience which makes me believe that someone who is probably (but I can't be sure) not our own people is interacting with us, using technology we probably (but I can't be sure) don't have. Whether that's aliens, and whether they're from outer space, I'm pretty iffy on those points.

I would feel immensely better if I realized tomorrow that it was all "us" all along. Thank freaking god if so. Because there is a huge bunch of trauma psychology related to the questioning of everything from reality to culture that this stuff brings on. Sadly I don't think this is the case, but I think it would make me (and a whole lot of others) feel better if it were.


You and g2v12 seem to travel on the same parallel path. Both have abduction experiences, both study and share the abduction phenomenon.

Actually I don't study it. I talked to some people in the 94-95 era. I have read (in the '97-2002 era I think) 2-3 Vallee books, Mack's eventually, one by Richard Thompson (in 1996), one by Turner (in 2011) and one by Jacobs (during the 94-95 period, can't recall exactly when but my case study talks about it in date order). I've seen about two TV specials on it, a couple fiction movies, and the movie about Walton's experience. Occasionally over the last 20 years I have seen something on a forum like ATS but I don't tend to read on abduction stuff much because as I think should be clear by now, I don't really consider it 'alien abduction,' and that tends to come with a mindset and social crew I don't have much in common with, and I don't like invalidating myself which I fear I will if I read something and only then have a similar experience, plus I have a little cognitive dissonance on this topic and most the time ignore it.

I occasionally share about it. Most everything I've shared is in my case study or here at ATS, and most stuff at ATS is in this thread. Since we're talking about 20 years of time since those experiences, that's probably not so much study or outgoing communication on my part.

We probably do have some overlaps in experience but I don't know him (her?) or what his are so I can't say. I haven't had these experiences in a long time.



they don't seem to have any choice in the matter. The only data appears to be sociological and empirical and of course things like implants; that data is not nearly as objective, logical and measurable as we would like, nor is it always even strongly indicative of -- let alone proof of -- any relationship to the flying Chevy NORAD was tracking.

Key word is "settle". I can't just settle for less than when it comes to this topic.

It is what it is; misery is optional, as a friend of mine's mom says. ;-)


Again, you're taking on the defensive while I've said nothing personally about anyone's abduction story.

To a degree yes, I think I did, and I apologize for that. It is easy for anyone to fall into stereotypes.


It's the belief in other abduction stories I question. Are you giving the benefit of the doubt that other stories are truthful because of your own experience?

Hmmn. Perhaps I am under-critical because of my own experience.

But I guess I do feel like mine has no evidence for anybody else, and is pretty far-out, so if someone has something similar, I don't really feel like I have any right to cast stones you might say.


Do you have a barometer as to what's acceptable and what's not? Let's face facts, everyone has been lied to in one way or another throughout life. When it comes to these stories, how do you discern the truth from lies? Do you leave the possibility open for anything goes, within reason?

Well as noted I don't really 'study' the field so this is not really an issue I am faced with very often. Usually when I hear of an account it's because someone is directly telling me, and a degree of "gut sense" is usually part of how I interpret that.

I tend to be a little biased against hypnotically retrieved memories, but I've previously posted on my confusion on that -- given they reported experiences I did not influence, nor did they influence me, yet our experiences had parallels, which makes me feel like perhaps there is at least a core of truth to it, no matter how they retrieved it.

I tend to be a little biased by people who are 'loud claimants' because I suspect them of seeking attention rather than simply 'sharing.' Which I think tends to be for reasons more related to psychology or intell, than aliens or whatever.

I tend to be a little biased by people who communicate in a way that indicates psychological instability, but as a caveat to this I will note that the experiences themselves are horribly destabilizing, and even intelligent, logical, rational, grounded people are often a bit wingnut DURING the experiences as a side effect of them, so I try to make an allowance for that.

(I associate this with less-esoteric things. For example my job sometimes requires literally 20/7 work schedule and after



posted on Sep, 13 2013 @ 01:58 AM
link   
PS: and while we are unlikely to accomplish anything on this thread in terms of agreement or evidence, managing to bring people of opposite perspectives together who can have a decent ongoing conversation about it without a flamewar is something of a miracle all its own. Thanks for that.

PPS: Because the new forum design is not limiting chars in the input box, but does in the edit box, I can't fix the typos/word-phrase issues that my typing fast on the fly sometimes creates without ending up deleting the end of my previous posts. Oops sorry.



posted on Sep, 13 2013 @ 02:18 AM
link   
reply to post by GENERAL EYES
 

Well said.Me too,i cannot understand why people seem to feel that anything They have not also experienced,is nonsense,indicative of mental disorder or a misconception.I have never done conscious astral projection-but there are many who have,and do so on an ongoing basis.I would never even think for a moment that they are crazy,lying,or "misinterpreting" just because i have not experienced such.Closed minds are a sad thing.



posted on Sep, 13 2013 @ 07:33 AM
link   
You don't really need to go over the old abduction stories ... it is all in front of your nose!!!

They are experimenting with us via our hospitals. The reality is not about the cash starved NHS. Of course there are 'normal' Doctors. If you can look beyond that, you will see so much more than what is presented as 'normal'.
I remember a Doctor who was the spitting image of James Robinson Justice, who was an actor who was in the carry on films. This Doctor had the kindest Father xmasy face you could imagine. Now in them days when you could still smoke in public places, I used to go off for a crafty ciggie on the landing at this hospital I was in. Heavily pregnant i'm ashamed to say, but I was quite young and didn't know much different at the time.
Now I had major heart surgery as a child and the last thing I should have been doing was smoking. Anyway this Doctor ... not going to drop names, was huge. You knew he was there. Big portly fellow, who looked and sounded like JRJ. He used to pass me on the landing and always polite and friendly, not ONCE, did he ever criticise me for smoking. He was lovely, but I always tried to avoid him just in case. The other Doctors and Nurses were terrified of him and as soon as they heard his big booming voice coming down the corridor they literally stood to attention. It was a bit of a standing joke, but it wasn't funny. One time I went to by a newspaper and this Doctor, rather than wait for the lift, made his posse of Japanese Doctors walk up the stairs!
There was something not quite right. I picked up on it then, but I didn't know why. I KNOW, there is a clue in the names too. This particular Doctor had a moniker taken from a very popular programme tv programme on at the time. Of course the joke was that he was the spitting image of JRJ! It is all orchestrated, can you not see it?
He always had a twinkle in his eye for me, but I wouldn't like to have been on the wrong side of him, that's for sure.
I think we are tagged, like pigeons! I have a little metal like bit of shrapnel in my leg. Well that's what I call it. Truth is it is just like a so called implant. I can move it up and down under my skin ( when I can find it ) It is usually there, but every Doctor I have told about it have changed the subject ... don't want to know! It is the size of a grain of rice and hard. Thought about nicking the skin and trying to get it out myself, but I am too scared!!


... sorry if I have bored anyone, but I thought I would share that with you. It is all very well looking at all these high profile cases of alien abduction from years ago, but the truth is right here, right now!!


hx



posted on Sep, 13 2013 @ 09:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Ectoplasm8
 


If they believe their experiences are lucid then it isn't a fantasy explanation from their perspective. The accounts typically involve them allegedly interacting with very alien looking creatures who often explicitly say they are from another planet.

It sounds like fantasy to us and we therefore assume that they are either hoaxing or their mind was impaired in some manner. However, they are the best judge of their own lucidity. Your statement about fantasy essentially boils down to their awareness. The improbability of their claims has no correlation to their lucidity. And if it does then it would need to be established through research.

With regards to the evidence...

You have made this point several times. I assume this is a key stone in your thinking. I find it interesting because even though I understand your point it doesn't have much impact for me. I believe it is conceivable, for various reasons, that no evidence would exist after all this time. I don't think we will make much progress down this path. So, let me say that I recognize your point and it certainly has merit.



posted on Sep, 14 2013 @ 07:19 AM
link   
It does seem like the question on validation begs detail. Like:

Is the question that they interacted with an 'autonomous' identity vs. their own head?

Is the question that the autonomous identity was an 'alien' versus someone or something else?

Is the question that they are intentionally lying about having had an experience of whatever kind?

Is the question that they are not stable psychologically and invented it via memory distortion?

What I mean is, if we're going to assume that individuals 'claiming alien contact' are... well, let's say inaccurate about their own experience, what part of their report is the 'untrustworthy' part -- all of those?

In the first two examples, they still had 'an experience.' In the second example, it was still 'an objective reality' experience. The first and especially third and fourth rather malign the individual; the second doesn't.

It seems like even if all of these were in place with various accounts, that a more reasonable, categorized overview of such reports might make a more clear assignment of 'which' issue is the case clearer. Maybe that would eventually lead to at least a few examples that don't seem to belong in any of those.

Unfortunately I don't think anyone has incentive to create this kind of categorization system, free on the internet for people to share in that format, and if they did it would probably be intentionally messed with by anti abduction evangelists and manipulative intell to make it pretty useless. That does kind of leave us in the sadly chaotic and confusing situation it seems to be at present (and seemed to be 20 years ago when I was briefly looking into it).

Not much seems to get better in this field. There's just this dead end, like all the questions only lead us to standing at the edge of a cliff where there is nowhere further to go.

I suppose for most people, this being merely an "armchair interest," that's just a bummer, oh well: "Move on, nothing to see here."

For people who have had these experiences, who would like to understand them for reasons far more important to them personally I suspect, it's pretty demoralizing. It doesn't require skeptics or pseudo-skeptics to see that there is no physical evidence and no explanation (beyond hypothesized technology) for it. Yeah... no kidding, even the people reporting this stuff can see that. How embarrassing and how exasperating.



posted on Sep, 14 2013 @ 07:20 PM
link   

RedCairo


For people who have had these experiences, who would like to understand them for reasons far more important to them personally I suspect, it's pretty demoralizing. It doesn't require skeptics or pseudo-skeptics to see that there is no physical evidence and no explanation (beyond hypothesized technology) for it. Yeah... no kidding, even the people reporting this stuff can see that. How embarrassing and how exasperating.



Have you ever actually studied this subject for the data or are you just a debunker pretending to be an experiencer?



posted on Sep, 16 2013 @ 12:01 AM
link   

g2v12Have you ever actually studied this subject for the data or are you just a debunker pretending to be an experiencer?

Are those the only two options?

I had a lot of experience at one time. Talked to a lot of people about it for about a year or so. Wrote a big case study for a therapist friend, and then tried to focus on resuming my life with a minimum of interruption from such things, which is what anybody healthy would probably try to do. A lot of what I was experiencing stopped when I left the region I'd been living in, not all but a lot of it (possibly the part which was not aliens... not sure), which actually did help.

I suppose it's possible that between then and now, which has been nearly 20 years, that some mass of "objective evidence" has come forth from the abduction field -- aside from some reported implants which were mentioned on this thread or another -- and I am just unaware of it. In which case I apologize and I'd be delighted to hear about it if you're willing to share.

Once in a rare while over the years I read part of a thread on ATS about some related topic and walk away... I admit it hasn't seem to me like the situation improved much since my days immersed in it, but then again I haven't been neck-deep in it during this time so I could certainly have missed something. I assume that is what you are implying: that by my saying there isn't hard evidence that ought to sway skeptics, that I'm maligning the field. I've said repeatedly there's plenty of empirical-sociological data, and that the critique of the implants seems rather injust, so I've certainly defended both of those points. Are there points of other evidence that I am missing?

One of the things I did note in my case study was that running into 'abductees' who disagreed with one's experience set tended to get one labeled 'a debunker' or something. And that was way back then. This field won't really need enemies to do it harm if anyone who doesn't hold an identical perspective is accused of being a debunker. (Kind of one of those 'with abductees like these, who needs debunkers' things I suppose...)

Peace.
edit on 16-9-2013 by RedCairo because: typo



posted on Sep, 16 2013 @ 12:27 AM
link   
Yeah alien abduction exists...it is just that there is no evidence (not one single piece ) to back up claims..:lol
Only the gullible would believe anything an abductee would have to say. Despite studies proving that these experiences can be duplicated and there are reasonable and logical explanations for their so called experiences....they still want to believe so much that an alien species flew millions upon millions of miles and chose them.


I find it absolutely hard to believe that an alien race with great tech needs to constantly take different people for their DNA or whatever it is they are supposedly doing. Why not just take a few and duplicate the DNA. Why would they not take the exceptional of our people instead of some random every day Joe. I am sure if they want their splice babies to have every chance to live and survive they would take the most intelligent, strongest..etc to ensure they have this happens.

I also believe they would have figured a way for a baby to be born without the need for a uterus. Why are these babies not allowed to live on Earth..I mean a earth based mother carried them...so they would have survived since she breathed our oxygen and our gases, ate our food..etc. Yet you hear stupid stories of these same babies not being allowed to stay because they cannot survive our environment...really...I mean really..it was OK for the mother to eat our food, breathe our air..etc..yet now they can't survive..



If it is a message...why not broadcast it over TV and radio airways..or at least take someone who has some kind of pull in this world.


Why are religious based individuals the only to have some type of religious experience in their abductions, while the non religious do not? Why are all abductions stories based on the type of individual you are? Why do these creatures taking people differ from country to country?

So many illogical holes in the abduction scenario that one cannot take any of this seriously. Well the gullible and deluded take everything seriously..
Well except for scientists, astronauts, military men who refute what their scientists, astronauts, military men say.



posted on Sep, 16 2013 @ 01:58 PM
link   
I was not religious and I had religious elements in my experiences. I was also a major skeptic about alien-related topics and I had those anyway. I also had no interest in several other things that were part of my experiences. I think you are including a great deal of assumptions in your sweeping generalizations.



posted on Sep, 16 2013 @ 10:49 PM
link   
reply to post by RedCairo
 


Those seem like very reasonable categories for classifying research in the field.

On a personal level, I'm willing to give people the benefit of the doubt. If somebody appears sincere and they seem to be in control of their mental faculties then I'm willing to listen. It is a bit like the turing test.

We all have the capacity to distinguish between dreams and when we are awake. Even the confusion generated from a false awakening only lasts the night. I believe it would be apparent if somebody were unable to distinguish between dreams and reality. Through all of your experiences were you ever unclear when you were fully conscious during the day and dreaming?



by Red Cairo
For people who have had these experiences...how exasperating.


I'm befuddled as to why many of the more abrasive and vocal skeptics feel compelled to establish belief. It doesn't require belief it only requires being polite and having a bit of compassion. I can understand prudence in cases like JAL 1628 where it affects other people, but otherwise I don't get it.

In fact, it seems backwards to me. It would be better to evaluate the story agnostically which doesn't require evidence or belief. I think you hit the nail on the head when you said


by RedCairo
It is the responsibility of an entire culture if it's anyone's, since the people reporting the experiences are neither objective researchers of data, nor scientists for building hypothesis based on that data and controlled studies based on that hypothesis.


Thank you for all your wonderful comments
.
edit on 16-9-2013 by compressedFusion because: Made my follow up question bold




top topics



 
24
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in

join