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

Originally posted by signalfire
Jim Oberg was a technical advisor to NASA during a lot of the moon flights, and on tv a lot. He's a member here and posts regularly, usually to debunk UFOs, etc. You can search for his posts by going to 'search' and putting his name in.

OP, your English is perfect, congratulations. I know I couldn't write in Hindi so well

This site below may be a gold mine of good reading for you; it's the old NICAP (a UFO group) site and this is a link to their free on line books; I would especially recommend the two Donald Keyhoe books, written in the early 1950s; they're the ones with the rather cartoon-ish, art deco covers. He had direct contact with the Air Force and the books detail their attitudes at the time towards the constant stream of UFO reports. They were very frightened and thought perhaps Earth was being invaded. Here's the link:

www.nicap.org...

so someone at NASA or somewhere told Jim Oberg "Get down there to ATS, join up, and run all of them into the ground. If you say enough negative stuff some of it will stick" Spread the word, J.O. is a mole...

Thanks for the link.

Originally posted by EnPassant

so someone at NASA or somewhere told Jim Oberg "Get down there to ATS, join up, and run all of them into the ground. If you say enough negative stuff some of it will stick" Spread the word, J.O. is a mole...
.

I seem to have lost my charge number and the address for my debunking invoices. Tell you what -- if you can get them for me, there's a 15% commission in it for you.

So AGAIN concentrating on those credible quotes from prominent individuals that have been checked as true renditions of what they quoted where does that leave those who still refute any POSSIBILITY of the ET hypothesis.

And what of those credible individuals who openly went on camera who were recorded in that famous out pouring of credible military witnesses in 2001 ,2009 and 2010 ie the national press club. Is it just all,about negativity and constantly highlighting those quotes that are bunk or are out of context, is this any justification to condemn ALL quotes...

Many of the statements have been substantiated in books, interviews, articles, letters, magazines, scientific reviews or open congressional hearings:

"According to worthy information of faith, in our atmosphere objects arrive at high speed. No aircraft, neither in the United States, either in the Soviet Union is currently able to achieve the speed attributed to these objects from the radars and from the observatories. These objects appear to be driven by an intelligence the way in which they fly. According to reports from scientists and technical personnel, these objects fly in formation and finish maneuvers that seem to point out that are not completely driven from an automatic equipment. These objects are in incontestable mode the result of long investigations and highly technological and exceptional knowledge."

-Admiral S. Fahrney,head of missile testing for the American Navy ;


"It is impossible for any man-made machine to make a sudden appearance in front of a jumbo jet that is flying 910 kilometers per hour and to remain in steady formation paralleling our aircraft. ... Honestly, we were simply breathtaken."

-Japan Airlines pilot Kenju Terauchi in 1986



"This is the first sighting in Zimbabwe where airborne pilots have tried to intercept a UFO. As far as my Air Staff is concerned, we believe implicitly that the unexplained UFOs are from civilizations beyond our planet."

-Air Commodore David Thorne, Director of General Operations for the Zimbabwe Air Force in 1985.


"It is time for the truth to be brought out in open Congressional hearings. Behind the scenes high ranking Air Force officers are soberly concerned about the UFOs. But through official secrecy and ridicule, many citizens are led to believe the unknown flying objects are nonsense."

-Admiral Hillenkoetter-the first Director of the CIA, 1947-50.
February 27, 1960.


My favorite one below..

"Something is going on in the skies that we do not understand. If all the airline pilots and Air Force pilots who have seen UFOs and sometimes chased them have been the victims of hallucinations, then an awful lot of pilots should be taken off and forbidden to fly."

-Captain Kervendal, French Gendarmerie.

"It appears to be a metallic object...tremendous in size, directly ahead and slightly above.I am trying to close for a better look."

-Captain Thomas Mantell, USAF. These were his last words as he closed in on a UFO in 1948. Minutes later his plane was to crash and he was to lose his life.


"More than 10,000 sightings have been reported, the majority of which cannot be accounted for by any scientific explanation, eg that they are hallucinations, the effects of light refraction, meteors, wheels falling from aeroplanes, and the like. They have been tracked on radar screens and the observed speeds have been as great as 9,000 mph. I am convinced that these objects do exist and they are not manufactured by any nation on earth. I can therefore see no alternative to accepting the theory that they come from an extraterrestrial source."

-Air Chief Marshall Lord Dowding, Commanding Officer of the RAF during WWII.


"My own present opinion, based on two years of careful study, is that UFOs are probably extraterrestrial devices engaged in something that might very tentatively be termed 'surveillance'."

-Dr James McDonald before Congress, 1968.


This one below i feel is an outstanding admittance of "Blues Books" failure in coming to any real definite conclusions to those reports they deemed unknowns, not through lack of data but through the volume of high strangeness they contained..

"Every time I get skeptical, I think of the other reports made by experienced pilots and radar operators, scientists, and other people who know what they are looking at. These reports were thoroughly investigated and they are still unknowns.
We have no aircraft on this earth that can at will so handily outdistance our latest jets... The pilots, radar specialists, generals, industrialists, scientists, and the man on the street who have told me, I wouldn't have believed it either if I hadn't seen it myself, knew what they were talking about. Maybe the Earth is being visited by interplanetary space ships."
Captain Edward J. Ruppelt
Chief of Project Blue Book, from his book, The Report on Unidentified Flying Objects, 1956.

reply to post by K-PAX-PROT

So AGAIN concentrating on those credible quotes from prominent individuals that have been checked as true renditions of what they quoted where does that leave those who still refute any POSSIBILITY of the ET hypothesis.

The above is a quote. It's a feature here that's pretty easy to use. Who is "refuting possibility"? "Possibility" doesn't mean very much. If we are talking probability, then here is how that works.

You have a deck of 52 cards with 4 aces. In Texas Holdem, the odds are 220:1 of being dealt pocket aces. We can figure this out because we know exactly what's in the deck. That's probability.

Now take away that you know what's in the deck of cards. There is only now a possibility of there being aces in the deck. We know that because we have seen aces before and they are cards but we don't have exact numbers to calculate a probability.

Now take away that we know of any actual aces existing anywhere. Sure it's still possible right? Why? Because it sure seems like it could be true because we can imagine them and there are stories of them. The only thing is, we don't have one to really no for sure.

You have zero confirmed alien encounters. Sure it's possible, because we can imagine that it's true and it sure seems like it could be.

On the other hand, I know for a fact that people, including pilots mispercieve things. And there a number of actual psychological phenomenon that can account for just about any, if not all sightings. Can I actually "prove" that this has occurred in any encounter? No. Is it possible? Yep. Is there a probability? Yep. Why? Because there are documented cases where this has occurred And there are "known" things that we can draw from. Can I extrapolate that up to "All". No. I can say "most likely".

So you can list all the fantastic pilot perceptions you want and doesn't matter how cool the stories are, it still is only "maybe yeah, way cool" but it doesn't bring it any closer to reality.

James McDonald would have agreed since he really couldn't get much more than that after interviewing 500 witnesses.

Originally posted by ZetaRediculian
reply to post by K-PAX-PROT

 

So AGAIN concentrating on those credible quotes from prominent individuals that have been checked as true renditions of what they quoted where does that leave those who still refute any POSSIBILITY of the ET hypothesis.

The above is a quote. It's a feature here that's pretty easy to use. Who is "refuting possibility"? "Possibility" doesn't mean very much. If we are talking probability, then here is how that works.

You have a deck of 52 cards with 4 aces. In Texas Holdem, the odds are 220:1 of being dealt pocket aces. We can figure this out because we know exactly what's in the deck. That's probability.

Now take away that you know what's in the deck of cards. There is only now a possibility of there being aces in the deck. We know that because we have seen aces before and they are cards but we don't have exact numbers to calculate a probability.

Now take away that we know of any actual aces existing anywhere. Sure it's still possible right? Why? Because it sure seems like it could be true because we can imagine them and there are stories of them. The only thing is, we don't have one to really no for sure.

You have zero confirmed alien encounters. Sure it's possible, because we can imagine that it's true and it sure seems like it could be.

On the other hand, I know for a fact that people, including pilots mispercieve things. And there a number of actual psychological phenomenon that can account for just about any, if not all sightings. Can I actually "prove" that this has occurred in any encounter? No. Is it possible? Yep. Is there a probability? Yep. Why? Because there are documented cases where this has occurred And there are "known" things that we can draw from. Can I extrapolate that up to "All". No. I can say "most likely".

So you can list all the fantastic pilot perceptions you want and doesn't matter how cool the stories are, it still is only "maybe yeah, way cool" but it doesn't bring it any closer to reality.

James McDonald would have agreed since he really couldn't get much more than that after interviewing 500 witnesses.

Yip you make no sense at all , instead you use straw man tactics, i am STILL waiting on your scientific evidence that proves without doubt that there is no POSSIBILITY that there are ET intelligence's out there who HAVE the technological means to observe us, were is it???

You really do a lot of surmising and also have no credible scientific back up to rebut the investigation conclusions of Dr McDonald, you are now coming across as very embarrassing in trying to present your self in any better or credible position than McDonald..

The real reality that you continue to AVOID and never address with any credible scientific rebuttals is the actual "high strangeness data" contained in hundreds of reports and witness testimonies involving McDonald and blue books unknowns, why is that because you know deep down that you are in fact in NO credible position to offer any were near the levels of investigatory insight's, methods and protocols that McDonald and people like Hynek used, you come no were near the levels of acceptable scientific credibility and qualification needed to come to the conclusions that a report is deemed "unknown" , would you even be able to write or produce a scientific thesis based on what deems "high strangeness" in any case McDonald investigate??

Are you seriously expecting to be taken seriously in your ET hypothesis rebuttals when you are in no position to be in any way better qualified than sources like McDonald??

Are you seriously putting forward an argument that is based on the foundations of PERSONAL SPECULATIONS rather than those presented by McDonald or those more qualified in their chosen fields???


I will again remind you of what McDonald was quoted as saying, yes a verified quote from a man who spent a number of his years at very bottom of the UFO rabbit hole;

"My own present opinion, based on two years of careful study, is that UFOs are probably extraterrestrial devices engaged in something that might very tentatively be termed 'surveillance'."

-Dr James McDonald before Congress, 1968.

Now could you provide a working thesis based on your 2 year careful study , could you provide a credible scientific rebuttal showing that the high strangeness data contained in those reports and witness testimonies investigated by McDonald are nothing more than your "pack of cards" analogy and that its you i should be listening to ..

You have skillfully made out that its not the actual content contained in "high strangeness data" that should be considered factual and plausible or the credibility of those investigating and showing that "high strangeness data" rather its the personal speculations of you that matter

reply to post by K-PAX-PROT

Yip you make no sense at all , instead you use straw man tactics,

What straw man? Point it out please. Here is your straw man:

i am STILL waiting on your scientific evidence that proves without doubt that there is no POSSIBILITY that there are ET intelligence's out there who HAVE the technological means to observe us, were is it???

THAT is a straw man since I never said that and you know it. you have it backwards anyway. YOU need to provide the evidence that ET is actually here.

Please explain what doesn't make sense. Those are some pretty basic concepts. Feel free to correct me if you think I am in error. I would love to see you explain your made up "law of reasonable averages".

And you have been playing the straw man game the whole time and you know it. Not one person here has said anything like what you are implying. Not one person. Please feel free to quote anyone. I'm starting to think this is a joke or something.

Seriously, what is your deal?

You really do a lot of surmising and also have no credible scientific back up to rebut the investigation conclusions of Dr McDonald, you are now coming across as very embarrassing in trying to present your self in any better or credible position than McDonald..

Seriously? I already said I agree with most of what he said but I think you are twisting it. Where did I present myself as better? Point it out. Oh, you can't. Right, I get it.

The real reality that you continue to AVOID and never address with any credible scientific rebuttals is the actual "high strangeness data" contained in hundreds of reports and witness testimonies involving McDonald and blue books unknowns, why is that because you know deep down that you are in fact in NO credible position to offer any were near the levels of investigatory insight's, methods and protocols that McDonald and people like Hynek used, you come no were near the levels of acceptable scientific credibility and qualification needed to come to the conclusions that a report is deemed "unknown" , would you even be able to write or produce a scientific thesis based on what deems "high strangeness" in any case McDonald investigate??

The only thing I see that is "highly strange" are your comments like this. I'm not going to give any scientific rebuttals here. Im not trying to either. do you understand? You wouldn't get it anyway. You cant even get basic concepts. Get over it. Why don't YOU explain how hynek and mcdonald were anywhere near qualified to come to any conclusions on a phenomenon based entirely on PERCEPTION. What qualified them to come to the conclusions that they did? The quotes I saw from Hynek regarding hallucination were an absolute joke. Where are the current credentialed people speaking on this topic?

Are you seriously expecting to be taken seriously in your ET hypothesis rebuttals when you are in no position to be in any way better qualified than sources like McDonald??

The question is are you expecting to be taken seriously after misinterpreting McDonald and confusing misperception and misconception and using terms like the law of reasonable averages. This is a joke. Has to be.

Are you seriously putting forward an argument that is based on the foundations of PERSONAL SPECULATIONS rather than those presented by McDonald or those more qualified in their chosen fields???

what speculation did I put forward. Please quote. Please. People misperceive. There are no confirmed aliens. It's not speculation. What don't you get?

I will again remind you of what McDonald was quoted as saying, yes a verified quote from a man who spent a number of his years at very bottom of the UFO rabbit hole;

And? What does it prove? Nothing. He interviewed 500 people and he couldn't prove that ET was actually here nor did he claim that. why? because he could not just from witness testimony. This was 45 years ago. It is mind boggling that you don't get this.

Please explain why McDonald couldn't conclude that ET was actually here after 500 witness interviews. Why do you disagree with McDonald on this? What are your credentials?

Now could you provide a working thesis based on your 2 year careful study , could you provide a credible scientific rebuttal showing that the high strangeness data contained in those reports and witness testimonies investigated by McDonald are nothing more than your "pack of cards" analogy and that its you i should be listening to ..

I don't want you to listen to me. Go figure it out on your own. Why do you need to listen to a specific person? Why do you need to hide behind what someone said 45 years ago? Can't you think for yourself? Geez. I'm just telling you how I figured it out.

It doesn't matter how strange the story is. It really doesn't. If you play me in poker, you might want to pay attention to what I'm saying. The people that play by the law of averages are what are known as fish. Just sayn.

You have skillfully made out that its not the actual content contained in "high strangeness data" that should be considered factual and plausible or the credibility of those investigating and showing that "high strangeness data" rather its the personal speculations of you that matter

What exactly are you talking about? And what personal speculations? I made no speculations in this discussion that I am aware of. Please point it out. Why don't you quote what I say ever? Please tell me what you think a "speculation" is.

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by EnPassant

so someone at NASA or somewhere told Jim Oberg "Get down there to ATS, join up, and run all of them into the ground. If you say enough negative stuff some of it will stick" Spread the word, J.O. is a mole...
.

I seem to have lost my charge number and the address for my debunking invoices. Tell you what -- if you can get them for me, there's a 15% commission in it for you.

Ok, please take my comments with a grain of humour; I am only half serious but in the following I am dead serious-

I have read this-

debunker.com...

and like many arguments against ufology/religion it relies heavily on rhetoric; calling ufologists 'crackpots' etc. It also relies on the absurd idea that if a thing cannot be proved scientifically it is not worthy of research. This is a fallacy and one that scientifically-minded people retreat into as a kind of last ditch bunker when confronted with evidence.

Evidence is a body of facts and how that body of facts is interpreted is subjective. In the end the scientist's interpretation of the body of facts pertaining to all things ufological, is as subjective as anybody else's. There are things in this world that simply will not lend themselves to scientific proof. The analogy of the judicial system is often cited; we determine the defendant's fate not in terms of rigid scientific proof but in terms of the weight of evidence 'beyond reasonable doubt'. In this respect, the evidence can have such a weight of persuasion that it does become scientific in terms of statistical force and in the sense that the likelihood of any other explanation is almost zero. The alternative explanation for ufos and even abductions, is most unlikely to be true. The sheer weight of evidence in favor of the objective reality of these things is overwhelming, what ever one understands that objective source to be. The alternative is that witnesses are all crackpots or deluded is not convincing when the evidence is properly examined.

Richard Dawkins, in his refutation of religious experience, has retreated into this 'deluded' salvo because he cannot provide any other argument but even he has said that he has distanced himself from this accusation of delusion and prefers not to use the word anymore. In the absence then, of the 'deluded' defense, what else is there? There is the sober and virtually scientific (in the statistical sense) appraisal of the evidence and any impartial assessment of same must lead to the inescapable conclusion that there is an objective source behind these things. So, please, less rhetoric and less retreating into rigid scientistic defenses and more common sense assessment of the evidence as it is presented.

reply to post by EnPassant

In this respect, the evidence can have such a weight of persuasion that it does become scientific in terms of statistical force and in the sense that the likelihood of any other explanation is almost zero.

How so? It's impossible to rule out false perception when we know that this does occur. We have zero known alien encounters. Can you explain the math behind your statement?

The alternative explanation for ufos and even abductions, is most unlikely to be true. The sheer weight of evidence in favor of the objective reality of these things is overwhelming, what ever one understands that objective source to be. The alternative is that witnesses are all crackpots or deluded is not convincing when the evidence is properly examined.

I have to disagree with your points here. How can "The sheer weight of evidence in favor of the objective reality of these things is overwhelming" be true? When you have the thing that is observing the phenomenon capable of reproducing any of it entirely on its own?. It's like having a recording device that can produce false noises and change the sound of actual recordings where you can't tell which is the actual sound or which is one is completely false. Who would want that type of recording device?

The alternative is that witnesses are all crackpots or deluded is not convincing when the evidence is properly examined.

"deluded crackpots" is essentially 50 year old terminology. It is not a requirement to be mentally ill to have a misperception or even hallucinate. In fact, it's quite normal.

In the absence then, of the 'deluded' defense, what else is there

Normal functioning brains. It's actually quite simple.

reply to post by ZetaRediculian


The mathematical argument comes from common sense statistics. Many of the early reports of encounters have common factors such as poltergeist activity after an encounter, migrane headaches, esp, skin rashes, even 'sunburn' from the electromagnetic radiation from ufos, the same description of the grays, etc etc. The people who independently reported these things often knew little or nothing about ufos or other people's experiences and yet there are all kinds of congruences, cross references, and similarities between cases that could not have cross contaminated each other. It is most unlikely that housewives, ordinary people, could be having the same delusions. The reports are almost tediously similar - not something that delusions would explain because delusions tend to be highly personal and vary greatly from person to person. Statistical analysis is one of the factors that convinced Alan Hynek to take ufos seriously.

As for hallucinations - the medical profession, in its wisdom, has deemed that there is nothing real in an hallucination and most people absorb this notion but who is to say there is not an objective source behind an hallucination? The experience can be subjectively interpreted but the source of the hallucination can be external and objective.

"Normal functioning brains" would not provide the consistency and congruences between cases. See the book Abductions by Jenny Randles where she goes into this analysis in detail.

reply to post by EnPassant

The mathematical argument comes from common sense statistics

Sorry, that's not going to fly.

As for hallucinations - the medical profession, in its wisdom, has deemed that there is nothing real in an hallucination and most people absorb this notion but who is to say there is not an objective source behind an hallucination? The experience can be subjectively interpreted but the source of the hallucination can be external and objective.

Most hallucinations would have an objective source but what medical professionals are saying they wouldn't? The common misconception is that people would hallucinate "flying pink elephants" as Hynek said. That is a ridiculous notion. Illusory contours could be considered a type of hallucination and are very consistent between observers. Rashes and other "physical" ailments have no need for an external source. Flying saucers and odd humanoid beings are common themes among people that hallucinate.

"Normal functioning brains" would not provide the consistency and congruences between cases. See the book Abductions by Jenny Randles where she goes into this analysis in detail.

I am confused. Now we are talking about abductions?

Can you find an actual neurologist or psychiatrist to reference? In all my searches and discussions, I never come across a reference from someone that is qualified.

Randles specializes in writing books on UFOs and paranormal phenomena. To date 50 of these have been published, ranging from her first UFOs: A British Viewpoint (1979) to Breaking the Time Barrier: The race to build the first time machine (2005). Subjects covered include crop circles, ESP, life after death, time anomalies and spontaneous human combustion.

Yeah, ah...no.

Originally posted by K-PAX-PROT

Yes i see your point but again every single quote ever made is either out of context, never said or down to lies, what are the chances of that,

Pretty good if the quotes were all hand selected by a true believer from sources with a pro-UFO bias.

Originally posted by ZetaRediculian
reply to post by EnPassant

 

The mathematical argument comes from common sense statistics

Sorry, that's not going to fly.

As for hallucinations - the medical profession, in its wisdom, has deemed that there is nothing real in an hallucination and most people absorb this notion but who is to say there is not an objective source behind an hallucination? The experience can be subjectively interpreted but the source of the hallucination can be external and objective.

Most hallucinations would have an objective source but what medical professionals are saying they wouldn't? The common misconception is that people would hallucinate "flying pink elephants" as Hynek said. That is a ridiculous notion. Illusory contours could be considered a type of hallucination and are very consistent between observers. Rashes and other "physical" ailments have no need for an external source. Flying saucers and odd humanoid beings are common themes among people that hallucinate.

"Normal functioning brains" would not provide the consistency and congruences between cases. See the book Abductions by Jenny Randles where she goes into this analysis in detail.

I am confused. Now we are talking about abductions?

Can you find an actual neurologist or psychiatrist to reference? In all my searches and discussions, I never come across a reference from someone that is qualified.

Randles specializes in writing books on UFOs and paranormal phenomena. To date 50 of these have been published, ranging from her first UFOs: A British Viewpoint (1979) to Breaking the Time Barrier: The race to build the first time machine (2005). Subjects covered include crop circles, ESP, life after death, time anomalies and spontaneous human combustion.

Yeah, ah...no.

It does fly. The mind, by way of common sense, estimates probabilities naturally. Also the probability that 'delusions' could be so self similar are next to zero. Consistency across the board strongly suggests a common objective source.

The consistency of abduction reports and ufo reports suggests that they are not delusional. Delusions vary and normally do not exhibit such strict cross references across countries and across time. Researchers have found, in old archives, much of the material that is now being reported such as missing time etc. These things were catalogued long before they became part of popular knowledge.

Originally posted by K-PAX-PROT
i am STILL waiting on your scientific evidence that proves without doubt that there is no POSSIBILITY that there are ET intelligence's out there who HAVE the technological means to observe us, were is it???

You employ the same straw man arguments and distorted interpretation of burden of proof in "defense" of your beliefs as do many others here who are unable or unwilling to support their claims by conventional means [in this case simple source qualification and quote verification].

reply to post by EnPassant

It does fly. The mind, by way of common sense, estimates probabilities naturally.

Do you have a source for that? It is possible but I don't think it flies. My common sense estimates for natuaral explanations are closer to 100%

Also the probability that 'delusions' could be so self similar are next to zero. Consistency across the board strongly suggests a common objective source.

Again, source for that. And what if there is a common earthly source? It is rare for people to just outright hallucinate but that's not the issue and it's not needed for an explanation.

Originally posted by ZetaRediculian
reply to post by EnPassant

 

It does fly. The mind, by way of common sense, estimates probabilities naturally.

Do you have a source for that? It is possible but I don't think it flies. My common sense estimates for natuaral explanations are closer to 100%

Also the probability that 'delusions' could be so self similar are next to zero. Consistency across the board strongly suggests a common objective source.

Again, source for that. And what if there is a common earthly source? It is rare for people to just outright hallucinate but that's not the issue and it's not needed for an explanation.

Here's a whole bunch of delusional categories-

www.psychologytoday.com...

Where did 'delusions' pop up? Another 'straw man' that's irrelevant to the overwhelming majority of UFO reports, which involve misinterpretation and misperception.

And that process is not random, it's cultural based, as conjurers and other entertainers who elicit such perceptual malfunctions for a living, have always known. They can get MOST of an audience to misinterpret cues in unison.

You see, when visual stimuli are partial, that which you expect to see, with your brain filling in details from your own past experience. The process is automatic and subconscious, unless one is specifically trained to avoid it -- and few people ever are.

But 'delusions'? Forgive me for yawning.

Originally posted by EnPassant

Originally posted by ZetaRediculian
reply to post by EnPassant

 

It does fly. The mind, by way of common sense, estimates probabilities naturally.

Do you have a source for that? It is possible but I don't think it flies. My common sense estimates for natuaral explanations are closer to 100%

Also the probability that 'delusions' could be so self similar are next to zero. Consistency across the board strongly suggests a common objective source.

Again, source for that. And what if there is a common earthly source? It is rare for people to just outright hallucinate but that's not the issue and it's not needed for an explanation.

Here's a whole bunch of delusional categories-

www.psychologytoday.com...

The power of the media to alter public perception and belief is well known.



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.

So we have "the law of reasonable averages","statistical common sense estimates" ,"misconception" and "delusion" instead of "misperception" to name a few of the roadblocks here. Some pretty basic concepts really. It would be nice to have an actual discussion instead of having to point out basic concepts constantly.

EnPassant

Here's a whole bunch of delusional categories-

www.psychologytoday.com...

You lost me. Are we talking about the beliefs of people based on the misunderstanding of basic concepts and their inventions of new statistical maths?

ZetaRediculian

EnPassant

Here's a whole bunch of delusional categories-

www.psychologytoday.com...

You lost me. Are we talking about the beliefs of people based on the misunderstanding of basic concepts and their inventions of new statistical maths?

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?

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?