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.

 

UFO Testimonies By Cosmonauts and Astronauts and U.S. Presidents

page: 10
18
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 11 2013 @ 09:07 AM
link   

draknoir2

EnPassant

draknoir2

EnPassant


You are complicating a very very simple thing. What are the chances that delusions could be so consistent across time, geographic borders and, most importantly, barriers that prevent people knowing about other's experiences?


You are over simplifying a very complicated thing and posing a loaded question. Reports are by nature diverse and inconsistent, and geographic borders are in no way impermeable to information... not now, not ever.

This is what's known as a complex question fallacy.

As is this:

EnPassant
"Even more simply: how could a person have a similar delusion, within very limited parameters, that mirrors another's when there is no cross contamination?"

You assert the constraints you deem necessary to produce the desired answer.


I don't think so. These constraints are real. Randles has unearthed cases that were buried in the archives that nobody knew about. For example, the Greys were described long before Striber's descriptions. Many of these cases were not published...


Let's see what Ms. Randles has to say about it:



Certainly in my study of British cases there are no obvious greys at all until well into the l980's. Most - even hypnotically pursued - CE 4 s until about l985 had more human like or Nordic beings. The classic Telford encounter (pursued in l982/l983 with hypnosis on all three witnesses) produced different entity types with each witness and one of these was somewhat grey like. It is all the more apparent when you see how - after the massive import of greys into British culture circa l987 (via the books of Strieber and Hopkins) the previous pattern of British aliens virtually disappeared overnight and >>now you are hard pressed NOT to find greys." - Jenny Randles


ufoupdateslist.com...

Your asserted "consistency" across time is artificial and media-driven, as conceded by your own source. Common human experiences are subject to popular interpretation. Example: Incubus attack, Old Hag Syndrome, Alien Abuction, Hallucinatory Sleep Paralysis.

See my post about the power of the media.


edit on 11-9-2013 by draknoir2 because: (no reason given)


This was a general statement about the explosion of Grey sightings. She is more specific concerning this case:

7 October - Nebraska USA - "That is the sort of case which typifies American abductions, although it is not famous and has not even been published to my knowledge. Whilst the entities are clearly identical with those in most of Hopkin's cases and are precisely what Whitley Strieber says he saw, none of those things has affected Jennie. This session was recorded in 1984, long before Strieber came on the scene" - Abduction page 145


"Again these are things Whitley Strieber reports in his book. But Peter Hough and I again recorded this interview weeks before Strieber's book was published. There is so much food for thought here." - Abduction Page 119

"There are a number of comparisons between Sandra's description and Whitley Strieber's 'visitors', but the dreams predated the publication of Strieber's book by several years and, consciously at least, the Taylors appeared not to know about the American writer's story." - Abduction Page 109

4th January 1979 - Rowley Regis, West Midlands "They were only 3.5 feet tall and had waxy white faces and coal-black eyes with no eyebrows and very thin mouths...This is remarkably like the aliens Whitley Strieber claims he saw some years later" - Abductions Page 73

So, while she does say there was an explosion of 'Grey reports' after Strieber she also qualifies this by saying there are obscure cases that came years before his descriptions.
edit on 11-9-2013 by EnPassant because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 11 2013 @ 09:30 AM
link   

EnPassant

4th January 1979 - Rowley Regis, West Midlands "They were only 3.5 feet tall and had waxy white faces and coal-black eyes with no eyebrows and very thin mouths...This is remarkably like the aliens Whitley Strieber claims he saw some years later" - Abductions Page 73

So, while she does say there was an explosion of 'Grey reports' after Strieber she also qualifies this by saying there are obscure cases that came years before his descriptions.
edit on 11-9-2013 by EnPassant because: (no reason given)


And yet the widely-publicized Barney and Betty Hill abduction case involved "Greys" of a very similar description... 18 years prior to that.

And Close Encounters of the Third Kind was released two years prior.

So much for your other artificial constraint of "no cross contamination".
edit on 11-9-2013 by draknoir2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 11 2013 @ 09:45 AM
link   

EnPassant

This was a general statement about the explosion of Grey sightings.


Exactly my point [and Ms. Randles'] - false consistency driven by the media.



posted on Sep, 11 2013 @ 10:00 AM
link   

draknoir2

EnPassant

4th January 1979 - Rowley Regis, West Midlands "They were only 3.5 feet tall and had waxy white faces and coal-black eyes with no eyebrows and very thin mouths...This is remarkably like the aliens Whitley Strieber claims he saw some years later" - Abductions Page 73

So, while she does say there was an explosion of 'Grey reports' after Strieber she also qualifies this by saying there are obscure cases that came years before his descriptions.
edit on 11-9-2013 by EnPassant because: (no reason given)


And yet the widely-publicized Barney and Betty Hill abduction case involved "Greys" of a very similar description... 18 years prior to that.

And Close Encounters of the Third Kind was released two years prior.

So much for your other artificial constraint of "no cross contamination".
edit on 11-9-2013 by draknoir2 because: (no reason given)


But this brings it to the next step. The argument is now that people might have 'unconsciously' picked up images of greys from obscure journals and imagined they saw them. But if the human mind is so susceptible to the influence of imagery in the media and what not why don't people see 3-eyed monsters with scaly skin? Why don't they see Godzilla or any of the many weird creatures that are the staple of science fiction movies? Why these most obscure (at least at the time) greys? This is another strong argument Randles goes into. One must conclude that the mind is not so susceptible and that the imagery does not, in general, inspire these accounts.



posted on Sep, 11 2013 @ 11:05 AM
link   
reply to post by EnPassant
 


I have to tell you that is a good point but it still not the end point of the discussion. The obvious answer would be that 2 eyed humanoid beings are inherently wired in our brains. This is evidenced by the common pareidolia of the smiley face
that is recognized by all cultures by all people at very early ages. Is this what is happening here? No clue. So stop with your "debunking" rhetoric.



posted on Sep, 11 2013 @ 11:06 AM
link   

EnPassant
... One must conclude that the mind is not so susceptible and that the imagery does not, in general, inspire these accounts.


OR...

... that such reports do not get registered in 'UFO' collection sites.

There is a 'pre-selection' filter here that even collectors of UFO reports have noticed. Depending on what people think it may be, a flaming object in the sky might be called in to a planetarium, an airport, or -- a UFO data base.

That's why the 1963 Kiev fireball report, linked from my ufo home page, is so important to understanding perception. The investigators carefully surveyed ALL potential witnesses and collected reports and drawings from as many as they could.

About half described a swarm of fireballs crossing the sky. The other half, watching the SAME stimulus, reported and drew complex LARGE mechanical craft with lights and jets.

But if you're only interested, at the start, in 'UFO reports', you collect only the latter half.

ADD: Here's the link. It's in Russian, but go through it to see the RANGE of perceptions from watching the SAME stimulus.
www.jamesoberg.com...


edit on 11-9-2013 by JimOberg because: add link



posted on Sep, 11 2013 @ 11:28 AM
link   

EnPassant

draknoir2

EnPassant

4th January 1979 - Rowley Regis, West Midlands "They were only 3.5 feet tall and had waxy white faces and coal-black eyes with no eyebrows and very thin mouths...This is remarkably like the aliens Whitley Strieber claims he saw some years later" - Abductions Page 73

So, while she does say there was an explosion of 'Grey reports' after Strieber she also qualifies this by saying there are obscure cases that came years before his descriptions.
edit on 11-9-2013 by EnPassant because: (no reason given)


And yet the widely-publicized Barney and Betty Hill abduction case involved "Greys" of a very similar description... 18 years prior to that.

And Close Encounters of the Third Kind was released two years prior.

So much for your other artificial constraint of "no cross contamination".
edit on 11-9-2013 by draknoir2 because: (no reason given)


But this brings it to the next step. The argument is now that people might have 'unconsciously' picked up images of greys from obscure journals and imagined they saw them. But if the human mind is so susceptible to the influence of imagery in the media and what not why don't people see 3-eyed monsters with scaly skin? Why don't they see Godzilla or any of the many weird creatures that are the staple of science fiction movies? Why these most obscure (at least at the time) greys? This is another strong argument Randles goes into. One must conclude that the mind is not so susceptible and that the imagery does not, in general, inspire these accounts.


They do.

Chupacabra.

Sasquatch.

Champ.

Nessie.

Mothman.

Jersey Devil.

Ghosts.

Reptilians.


However, in the context of UFO's, the go-to imagery is that of Alien craft and their occupants which in no way can be considered limited to "obscure journals"... another of your false constraints, BTW.

So one mustn't or needn't conclude anything of the sort.



posted on Sep, 11 2013 @ 11:39 AM
link   

JimOberg

EnPassant
... One must conclude that the mind is not so susceptible and that the imagery does not, in general, inspire these accounts.


OR...

... that such reports do not get registered in 'UFO' collection sites.

There is a 'pre-selection' filter here that even collectors of UFO reports have noticed. Depending on what people think it may be, a flaming object in the sky might be called in to a planetarium, an airport, or -- a UFO data base.

That's why the 1963 Kiev fireball report, linked from my ufo home page, is so important to understanding perception. The investigators carefully surveyed ALL potential witnesses and collected reports and drawings from as many as they could.

About half described a swarm of fireballs crossing the sky. The other half, watching the SAME stimulus, reported and drew complex LARGE mechanical craft with lights and jets.

But if you're only interested, at the start, in 'UFO reports', you collect only the latter half.

ADD: Here's the link. It's in Russian, but go through it to see the RANGE of perceptions from watching the SAME stimulus.
www.jamesoberg.com...


edit on 11-9-2013 by JimOberg because: add link


I get your point but there are some details to note in this analysis. Firstly, ufos are said to be surrounded by an electromagnetic field and as the ufo enters the atmosphere this field changes as the ufo slows down or enters different layers of the atmosphere. Then the fireball 'quenches' revealing a machine-like ufo. So there can be a whole range of appearances associated with a sighting. Also, there is a strong argument that ufos are not only perceived on a physical level with our physical eyes. There is also, apparently, a kind of psychic perception where the mind perceives the psychic 'body' of the ufo. NOTE: Kenneth Arnold had many more sightings after his famous one and he said something very interesting - he said that he often felt that these craft are aware of him. As if the craft are some kind of fusion of mind and matter. This shows that they may be more complex than ordinary physical machines. If this is the case they would be perceived on many levels.

When it comes to the perception of alien appearances, researchers don't pick and choose. The grays or nordics predominate and this has been noted by researchers. They even go so far as to point out that greys are typical of American accounts and Nordics are typical in European accounts. These limits are well defined in the archived material. Randles goes on to say that South American sightings are more varied and the fact that she does implies that sightings elsewhere are more limited to the types described. She would not note this if she was cherry picking.



posted on Sep, 11 2013 @ 11:43 AM
link   

draknoir2

EnPassant

draknoir2

EnPassant

4th January 1979 - Rowley Regis, West Midlands "They were only 3.5 feet tall and had waxy white faces and coal-black eyes with no eyebrows and very thin mouths...This is remarkably like the aliens Whitley Strieber claims he saw some years later" - Abductions Page 73

So, while she does say there was an explosion of 'Grey reports' after Strieber she also qualifies this by saying there are obscure cases that came years before his descriptions.
edit on 11-9-2013 by EnPassant because: (no reason given)


And yet the widely-publicized Barney and Betty Hill abduction case involved "Greys" of a very similar description... 18 years prior to that.

And Close Encounters of the Third Kind was released two years prior.

So much for your other artificial constraint of "no cross contamination".
edit on 11-9-2013 by draknoir2 because: (no reason given)


But this brings it to the next step. The argument is now that people might have 'unconsciously' picked up images of greys from obscure journals and imagined they saw them. But if the human mind is so susceptible to the influence of imagery in the media and what not why don't people see 3-eyed monsters with scaly skin? Why don't they see Godzilla or any of the many weird creatures that are the staple of science fiction movies? Why these most obscure (at least at the time) greys? This is another strong argument Randles goes into. One must conclude that the mind is not so susceptible and that the imagery does not, in general, inspire these accounts.


They do.

Chupacabra.

Sasquatch.

Champ.

Nessie.

Mothman.

Jersey Devil.

Ghosts.

Reptilians.


However, in the context of UFO's, the go-to imagery is that of Alien craft and their occupants which in no way can be considered limited to "obscure journals"... another of your false constraints, BTW.

So one mustn't or needn't conclude anything of the sort.


Most, if not all, on your list did not originate in science fiction or the media. The point being discussed was whether the media would have such a strong influence on sightings and it doesn't because people don't see Godzilla etc. etc.



posted on Sep, 11 2013 @ 11:50 AM
link   

ZetaRediculian
reply to post by EnPassant
 


I have to tell you that is a good point but it still not the end point of the discussion. The obvious answer would be that 2 eyed humanoid beings are inherently wired in our brains. This is evidenced by the common pareidolia of the smiley face
that is recognized by all cultures by all people at very early ages. Is this what is happening here? No clue. So stop with your "debunking" rhetoric.


But lots of science fiction creatures have two eyes - the robot in The day the Earth Stood Still, Godzilla, etc. etc. etc. They are not seen, at least in any great numbers. On the other hand, people see non humanoid robots - at least they don't have two eyes - and these robots cannot be linked to any specific sci-fi movies. What about the women with almond eyes and pointed chins? That started with Villas Boas...The argument for media influenced sightings is very weak.

But there is another point to make here. As I was reading Randles' book, Abduction, I was hoping she would get to it and eventually she did but she only stayed with it very briefly. And the point is this:-

This world has a great history of mythology and I am of the opinion that this mythology is inspired by real things, by the spiritual world (or extra dimensions). Mythological imagery is imagery of deeper realities.

On a more everyday level artists, musicians, poets, film makers, writers and people in the media can also be aware of real things and, even unconsciously, incorporate them into their work. Often works of fiction have a sense of the real to them as if they were inspired. Artists also often speak of the muse inspiring them.

Given this it is possible that not only could the media, in theory at least, influence our perception of aliens but the media itself can be 'unconsciously' aware of aliens. People in the media and the arts can pick up alien reality and can incorporate it into their work, even unconsciously. I am firmly convinced that this is how the human mind actually works and this complicates our discussion immensely because if the media influences our awareness of aliens and the media is itself influenced by awareness of aliens you have a feedback loop where one thing is reinforcing another. Alien reality finds its way into the media and the media, in turn, awakens our awareness of aliens and this in turn makes us more receptive to alien reality. I may not be explaining it properly here but I am convinced that this is what is actually happening.(I wrote a much better version of this post but the damn thing vanished - must revert to using notepad)

Addition: When I first saw Whitley Strieber on tv they faded in a picture of the grey depicted on the cover of Communion. It was a neat effect and one woman rang the station and said the image frightened her out of her wits. Could it be that the image awakened a memory in her mind and this was all it took to tell her something she already effectively knew? In this way the media can indeed influence us - by awakening what is lightly buried in our consciousness. Strieber was not surprised that the women was frightened. He said that reaction is common. So do we have a feedback loop here? - Aliens influence media -> media awakens consciousness -> consciousness imports more alien information -> information goes into media -> media awakens consciousness even more -> ...
edit on 11-9-2013 by EnPassant because: (no reason given)

edit on 11-9-2013 by EnPassant because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 11 2013 @ 01:15 PM
link   

draknoir2

EnPassant

draknoir2

EnPassant

4th January 1979 - Rowley Regis, West Midlands "They were only 3.5 feet tall and had waxy white faces and coal-black eyes with no eyebrows and very thin mouths...This is remarkably like the aliens Whitley Strieber claims he saw some years later" - Abductions Page 73

So, while she does say there was an explosion of 'Grey reports' after Strieber she also qualifies this by saying there are obscure cases that came years before his descriptions.
edit on 11-9-2013 by EnPassant because: (no reason given)


And yet the widely-publicized Barney and Betty Hill abduction case involved "Greys" of a very similar description... 18 years prior to that.

And Close Encounters of the Third Kind was released two years prior.

So much for your other artificial constraint of "no cross contamination".
edit on 11-9-2013 by draknoir2 because: (no reason given)


But this brings it to the next step. The argument is now that people might have 'unconsciously' picked up images of greys from obscure journals and imagined they saw them. But if the human mind is so susceptible to the influence of imagery in the media and what not why don't people see 3-eyed monsters with scaly skin? Why don't they see Godzilla or any of the many weird creatures that are the staple of science fiction movies? Why these most obscure (at least at the time) greys? This is another strong argument Randles goes into. One must conclude that the mind is not so susceptible and that the imagery does not, in general, inspire these accounts.


They do.

Chupacabra.

Sasquatch.

Champ.

Nessie.

Mothman.

Jersey Devil.

Ghosts.

Reptilians.


However, in the context of UFO's, the go-to imagery is that of Alien craft and their occupants which in no way can be considered limited to "obscure journals"... another of your false constraints, BTW.

So one mustn't or needn't conclude anything of the sort.


Sasquatch is real



posted on Sep, 11 2013 @ 01:28 PM
link   

ZetaRediculian


Sasquatch is real



Obviously. it's in the Jack Links commercials.



posted on Sep, 11 2013 @ 01:34 PM
link   
reply to post by EnPassant
 


So what is your take on people who see all manner of insectoid, machine elves, full blown cities including metallic UFO objects while under the influence of D M T? This a well documented thing. Most people who have experienced this will tell you these perceptions were absolutely 100% real. This phenomenon is nearly indistinguishable from alien and UFO encounters. Are these people hallucinating or seeing real entities?

If you dismiss this as drug induced hallucination, that would be hypocritical since the evidence is identical.

If you believe they are seeing real entities then we have a match to something that can be produced by our bodies naturally or by simply ingesting a substance.

The other option is that it's related to alien and UFO emcounters and they can both be considered hallucinations.

There is no correct answer but it does make you think.



posted on Sep, 11 2013 @ 02:13 PM
link   

ZetaRediculian
reply to post by EnPassant
 


So what is your take on people who see all manner of insectoid, machine elves, full blown cities including metallic UFO objects while under the influence of D M T? This a well documented thing. Most people who have experienced this will tell you these perceptions were absolutely 100% real. This phenomenon is nearly indistinguishable from alien and UFO encounters. Are these people hallucinating or seeing real entities?

If you dismiss this as drug induced hallucination, that would be hypocritical since the evidence is identical.

If you believe they are seeing real entities then we have a match to something that can be produced by our bodies naturally or by simply ingesting a substance.

The other option is that it's related to alien and UFO emcounters and they can both be considered hallucinations.

There is no correct answer but it does make you think.


My understanding is that we are spirits attached to human bodies. When a person takes D M T or L S D or psilocybin or some 'hallucination' inducing drug they are circumventing the brain and releasing their consciousness to experience reality. What they see may not be there in the terms the see it because these are often disjointed perceptions, like dreams, but there is a reality behind them. An L S D experience is not in the L S D or in the brain, it is an altered state of consciousness.

I also believe that hallucinations are not purely imaginary - they often have an objective external source.

Here's a long piece but it is worth race reading
edit on 11-9-2013 by EnPassant because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 11 2013 @ 02:33 PM
link   

JimOberg
There is a 'pre-selection' filter here that even collectors of UFO reports have noticed. Depending on what people think it may be, a flaming object in the sky might be called in to a planetarium, an airport, or -- a UFO data base.


Mmmmmm...this is a very slim argument. You'd have to give me detailed research into this. I suspect it is real enough but not prevalent enough to have much effect.



posted on Sep, 11 2013 @ 02:57 PM
link   
reply to post by EnPassant
 


Draknoir2, your quote in the post says-

"Case in point - Kenneth Arnold's coining of the term "saucer" to describe the flight characteristics of what to him appeared to be flying crescents and the subsequent wave of "flying saucer" sightings. This is an example of public perception altered by a misquotation perpetuated by the media."

This is a whole area in itself. Originally the stuff in the sky appeared to people as dirigibles, airships. Then, flying saucers, flying hat shapes and so on and so on. There is a theory that the phenomenon molds itself to our expectations. These things appear in terms of the cultural stock imagery in people's minds. If this is the case it is not the media that is influencing people's minds per se, it is that the media are providing the stock imagery and the phenomena itself is responding by appearing in a guise that corresponds to our expectations. There is much evidence that this phenomena manifests itself in terms of what is in our cultural consciousness. That's one take on it but I am not satisfied with this. There do appear to be old flying saucer type photos that predate Arnold's sighting. I may get back to you on this...

(It may also be that what is there is not really deliberately altering its appearance at all, it may be that the brain fills in with its own stock imagery as it seems to do in dreams - dreams manifest in terms of metaphors that already exist in our mental stock imagery.)
edit on 11-9-2013 by EnPassant because: (no reason given)

edit on 11-9-2013 by EnPassant because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 11 2013 @ 03:17 PM
link   
reply to post by EnPassant
 


Fair enough. Cant argue with someone's beliefs. Do read the Oliver Sacks article I posted earlier, t's along the same line.



posted on Sep, 11 2013 @ 03:38 PM
link   
reply to post by EnPassant
 



Aliens influence media -> media awakens consciousness -> consciousness imports more alien information -> information goes into media -> media awakens consciousness even more -> ...

I would say there is a feedback loop but the aliens would not necessarily be at the start. it is a common theme but it's impossible to say what would put this in motion. Why don't people hallucinate Godzilla no matter what they take? No clue. Maybe it's the same reason we are all human and not different godizillas.

There is some definite hard wiring and inherent programming, I'm pretty sure of that.



posted on Sep, 11 2013 @ 03:52 PM
link   

ZetaRediculian
reply to post by EnPassant
 



Aliens influence media -> media awakens consciousness -> consciousness imports more alien information -> information goes into media -> media awakens consciousness even more -> ...

I would say there is a feedback loop but the aliens would not necessarily be at the start. it is a common theme but it's impossible to say what would put this in motion. Why don't people hallucinate Godzilla no matter what they take? No clue. Maybe it's the same reason we are all human and not different godizillas.

There is some definite hard wiring and inherent programming, I'm pretty sure of that.


I used to realistically dream about Godzilla, but I'm pretty sure it was media inspired as opposed to channeling a subconscious revelation from Monster Island.



posted on Sep, 11 2013 @ 04:18 PM
link   

ZetaRediculian
reply to post by EnPassant
 


Fair enough. Cant argue with someone's beliefs. Do read the Oliver Sacks article I posted earlier, t's along the same line.


Read it. Very interesting. But can such effects be used to refute every abduction memory? How could the original (early cases) abduction memories be imprinted when there was no precedent? If the early precedents are true we can safely assume that most of the memories of later cases are true - 90%? 70%? After all, this aberration only affects the memory in part. It is a complex issue...
edit on 11-9-2013 by EnPassant because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
18
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join