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.

 

Credibility....Your Criteria???

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 07:51 AM
link   
This has come up fairly often recently....

So, I'm curious. As we all have different criteria for this most likely...what is YOUR criteria for believing a sighting or abduction?

I'll start the ball rolling...

In these, I look for a sighting or abduction to have as many of these criteria as possible.

SIGHTING (for me)

1. Multiple witnesses (just more than one), or one highly credible witness (meaning someone who is used to identifying flying objects, such as a pilot, military, etc. or who has a lot to lose coming forward, such as a policeman, etc.)
2. Witnesses over an area help (i.e. corraboration from a neighboring viewpoint) as do strange radar returns, etc.
3. Ruling out the possibility of mistaken identity, in other words, confirming it ISN'T Venus, an aircraft, weather balloon, etc. This is often accomplished via the witnesses describing how the object maneuvered.
4. Excellent details (usually from highly credible witnesses) describing apparent size, altitude, speed, colors, flight behavior.
5. Documentation helps support it too...granted, this is mostly only available for sightings during the periods of governmental investigation, Blue Book and the like, but police reports, air tower reports, etc. all help to support it.
6. Photos or video (that don't look like models, or misidentification).
7. That it happened while doing an activity OTHER than looking for UFOs (i.e. it was spontaneous)
8. Observer doesn't actively seek promotion or profit out of sighting.

ABDUCTIONS

1. Accompanied by a sighting (as above criteria).
2. Documented missing time (such as through a police report, or at least other witness testimonials).
3. Scarring from possible surgical procedures, or other evidence of advanced medical procedures done on victim.
4. Recall under hypnosis.
5. Victim is just trying to understand what happened, not gathering material to write a book, etc.
6. Knowledge of things that wouldn't normally be known to them.
7. No prior dedication to anything UFO-related.
5. Discovery of the abduction only after the fact, through either missing time or dreams, etc.
6. Absence of other discrediting factors (i.e. victim hasn't previously been known to tell outlandish stories, lies, etc. or known to have mental issues).

I'm sure I'm missing some also, but these are some of the main things I look for when deciding the merits of a case (for myself)... So what are some of the things you all look for?




posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 08:28 AM
link   
I think you covered all the criteria very well.

What I would like to add (and point out) Is that you look for detail in U.F.O. sightings, but do not look for it in abductions. I do not know if this was your intention, to leave out detail as one of the criteria for abductions.
But I believe the same. You should not have great detail about an abduction. And usually I will discredit an abduction as a dream if they do have great detail. As the majority of abductions that have been documented have not had great detail.

Also, With multiple witnesses, I look for them to be unrelated/unknown to one another. As that adds to the probability that the sighting was not hoaxed or conjured up by a group of friends.

Just my thoughts.



posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 08:33 AM
link   

What I would like to add (and point out) Is that you look for detail in U.F.O. sightings, but do not look for it in abductions. I do not know if this was your intention, to leave out detail as one of the criteria for abductions.
But I believe the same.


I meant to imply that all of the criteria for sightings, I try to apply to abductions as well. Abductions are far more incredible than sightings, and thus the bar is raised for criteria in my book....



posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 08:39 AM
link   
Do you believe that they should have more detail then a u.f.o. sighting?
I still think they shouldn't as usually you are wide awake and alert in ufo sightings and with abductions you are asleep or in a dream like state.
Although there are some instances when abductees remember details to their experience, most of them have sporadic memories at best.

Just wondering what a fellow ATS member thoughts are.



posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 08:58 AM
link   


1. Multiple witnesses (just more than one), or one highly credible witness (meaning someone who is used to identifying flying objects, such as a pilot, military, etc. or who has a lot to lose coming forward, such as a policeman, etc.)
2. Witnesses over an area help (i.e. corraboration from a neighboring viewpoint) as do strange radar returns, etc.
3. Ruling out the possibility of mistaken identity, in other words, confirming it ISN'T Venus, an aircraft, weather balloon, etc. This is often accomplished via the witnesses describing how the object maneuvered.
4. Excellent details (usually from highly credible witnesses) describing apparent size, altitude, speed, colors, flight behavior.
5. Documentation helps support it too...granted, this is mostly only available for sightings during the periods of governmental investigation, Blue Book and the like, but police reports, air tower reports, etc. all help to support it.
6. Photos or video (that don't look like models, or misidentification).
7. That it happened while doing an activity OTHER than looking for UFOs (i.e. it was spontaneous)
8. Observer doesn't actively seek promotion or profit out of sighting.


I agree with all of these.

But there are 2 main points which i base all of good credible UFO sightings...

1. Alot of witnesses lets say over 10 or 20.
2. Video evidence, not photos.

I say video because although you can still fake a UFO using any standard video editing software its abit more difficult to create a good hoax, and therefore abit more difficult to debunk but still possible.

Also on the witness point the more witnesses the better, also the credibilty of the witnesses, like if someone was under the influence of drugs and they spot a ufo and tell everyone then this isnt the best witness, also being in a certain high profile profession (Military/Government official etc) will make the witness a good credible witness.

And another good witness would be from someone you can trust.

One more thing if i had a camera on me and i saw a UFO near me i would take as many photos as possible, i would even run up to the thing and get as close as possible to try and get some good images.

Other than that i find it easy following these rules of mine to disregard many many UFO pictures/sightings etc.



posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 09:01 AM
link   
Totally forgot about the abductions part.

Ok i personally think the only abductions that i would believe in would have to be from a close friend or relative, other than that whilst i am open minded i cant get myself to believe in any abductee cases.

But i do believe alot of people have been abducted but they are probably the ones no one has heard of.



posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 09:02 AM
link   

Do you believe that they should have more detail then a u.f.o. sighting?


The same, not more detail. Just more as far as the number of criteria to meet. From an abductee, I'd expect to hear what colors they saw in the room, detailed descriptions of the beings, describing the devices, smells, sounds, etc.



posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 09:58 AM
link   
With the above criteria in mind, I bring to your attention again, common mass sightings over mexico for instance. These cases are well documented often involving hundreds of witnesses! These are the most credible imo. I certainly dont beleive the "mass hysteria" theory!
I beleive there are unexplained "things" out there. weather they are physical manned craft or not is another matter. I think it more likly they would be probes, much like our mars craft and others. A possibility might be rifts in space time happening rarely, allowing glimpses of other dimensions.
Consider if you will this anology for possible explaination ofthe sudden appearance/dissappearance of ufos.
Consider a flat two dimensional world, these 2d folk see nothing but length and width, there is no up.
Now you place the tip of your finger apon the surface of their world.
what do they see? something unidentifiable (3d) appearing from nowhere.
now lift your finger, there unidentified object vanishes befor there eyes.
remember they have no concept of up.
so perhaps we are visited from time to time by things from a "fourth" dimension, as yet physically inconceivable to us.???



posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 11:59 AM
link   
I fully agree with both Gazrok and markjaxon. In my opinion, most people who have been abducted have never returned and are still missing -but that's just a thought. The human mind is quite complex and it can sometimes be hard to tell if someone THINK they have been abducted or really have.

- A guy who used to be a customer at the internetcafé I worked on, claimed he had been contacted by aliens the first time at the age of 5 or 6. He told me that an alien lifeform projected itself in 3d in front of him in the livingroom one evening, and that he felt an intense heat in the side of his face.
- He also mentioned that 4 UFOs had been hovering over the city (Trondheim, Norway) in which we both live in. He had gone outside to have a look, and suddenly got burned by a beam on his right thumb.
- A few years later he claimed that he suddenly woke up and felt the same "communication" as when he was 6, and out of nowhere got two triangular burnmarks on his feet. One on each big toe.

This is not a story of abduction, rather a story of imagination. The guy I am talking about, my former customer, later turned out to be the elder brother of a friend of mine. I had no idea of their relation and confronted my friend with the stories. It then turned out that his brother is extremely disillusioned and suffers from sever psychosis and violent behaviour. He has been in and out of mental institutions since he was a child, and lives in his own reality. Of course, I will probably never find out if there's a grain of thruth in his stories -or if his psychosis actually comes from some kind of traumatic experience with aliens, but he apparently believes it himself, thus making it more interesting. My friend says he has been this way all the time, but then again, he is quite ignorant when it comes to these kinds of things.

I'm sorry for the digression, but I just came to think of this guy when I read about the criterias of believable abductions/sightings. Had actually forgotten about this guy, but after becoming more and more active here, I'm wondering if I should try to get some more info from my friend or his brother. After all this is the "closest" I've ever been to a sighting or paranormal phenomenon. Would really appreciate some tips on what to ask this guy if I get the chance, to quickly determine whether it's all in his head or actually has roots in true events.



posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 01:01 PM
link   
We have gun camera footage from Mexican military planes. So far, seems to be very credible...

I can't recall any debunking of a certain video featuring a very clear UFO going behind buildings, etc. It seemed almost too good to be true, and there is something on the tip of my brain about it being a hoax, but I can't exactly recall anything specific. Guess I'll have to look into that one again...



posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 01:13 PM
link   
For me, anecdotes of any kind are not sufficient to serve as 'proof'. No eyewitness testimony, whether its about an event or about the existence of a paper or something like that, is suffiecient to demonstrate that the claims are 'true'. Take your sighting for example Moderator Gazrok. You saw what you saw, and what more can I or anyone else say about it? And while I can beleive that you beleive you saw what you saw, I don't think I can make the 'jump' from that to 'aliens exist'. However, if I witnessed something for myself, then that would be different, and even then perhaps not sufficient. For example, if i saw a light in the sky, what of it? Lights should be in the sky. And while i can generally tell when something is a plane or a star, I am certainly not qualifie to allways tell what it is.

For me, credible evidence is hard evidence that can convince a sufficiently large number of unbiased rational people.



posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 01:23 PM
link   
I actually first thought it was some kind of government project (when I was a kid), not aliens. It wasn't until I became more saavy as to what we could and couldn't do, let alone compared my sighting with others, that I made the conclusion it was alien in origin.

Here's a link to the Mexican UFO video...

www.ufoevidence.org...

To me, it seems that the wobble is indicative of how it'd behave if suspended from a crane or helicopter....especially when it switches from hovering to horizontal travel... Still though, the object is obviously fairly large (I'd estimate about 50' diameter) as it goes behind the building, and it has a very perceptable spin to it (of about 1 rpm). If a hoax, which it could be, it is likely one of the most involved ones I have ever seen. About the only real effort I've seen in debunking it so far was a researcher noticing some pixelation under the object that may be obscuring something...but her research was ongoing last I looked...so one can assume she either lost interest or found nothing further. Jury is still out on it for me...



posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 02:51 PM
link   
Well, if you're talking about Criteria for a UFO, then I'm pretty much willing to take anything someone says at face value, short of the ridiculous, because a UFO is simply an (U)nidentified (F)lying (O)bject. Technically, a weather balloon is a UFO until someone figures out it's a weather balloon.

However, for the sake of arguement, I'll assume you meant a credible sighting of a craft that was not man-made.

Considering the number of experiemental military aircraft, and natural phenomena out there, I would need any one of the following criteria groups to be convinced it was an alien craft.

1.) A reputable news source admitting to its existance. The more, the better. I could pretty much rest assured that if NBC or the BBC was willing to risk its reputation on the claim that a citing was, in fact, an alien presence, it would be enough proof for me. They would have done enough investigating to satisfy my "evidence" demands.

2.) I see it clearly, in detail, with my own eyes, ears, etc. Though even then, I might assume I was just seeing something.

3.) There is enough evidence that cannot be reasonably or logically debunked, be it camera, video, or sheer number of identical eye-witness reports by sober "normal" people.

4.) A plethora of electronic evidence (radar, sonar, photos, etc) that were running on independant servers, so as to rule out a possible glitch in the system. I don't presume that human eyes are the end-all, be-all to seeing things.

5.) If Lassie barks it so.

"What's that girl? Timmy's been abducted by aliens?"



posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 03:00 PM
link   

We have gun camera footage from Mexican military planes. So far, seems to be very credible...


Is this the 9 invisible sphere like objects that was caught on infra-red camera by the Mexican Airforce who was on a routine drug flight?

This is actually the best UFO video i have ever seen the only other video that i remember is the STS-80 mission where the sphere object moves foward then suddenly changes direction a couple of times.

The only problems i can think of the Mexican Airforce video is...

There is no standard video of the objects, what i mean is, it would have been good if they recorded the same area that the invisible objects were seen but without infra-red imaging, this would put away the silly questions about "Weather Balloons" or "Ball lighting".



posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 03:03 PM
link   

Is this the 9 invisible sphere like objects that was caught on infra-red camera by the Mexican Airforce who was on a routine drug flight?


Yep.

I agree with wanting the non-infra version, but c'est la vie....



posted on Nov, 24 2004 @ 07:01 AM
link   
UFO SIGHTINGS

I generally agree with your own criteria, however, I think it really depends on a case by case basis and what you have to work with. Most of it really depends on your better judgement and your intelligence.

For instance, you have seen a UFO and profess to have bizarre psychic abilities. You have presented no evidence for either claims. However, as you are fairly credible, I am inclined to believe you are telling the truth, however not entirely convinced, as it’ not proven.

Sometimes the same can be applied for certain people, who strike you as honest, credible and intelligent. Sometimes truth can be felt intuitively. E.g. Your best friend sees a UFO, you are likely, going to be inclined to believe.

Unfortunately, the methods often used by investigators and skeptics are designed for failure. They can not prove anything. In the end, the investigator or skeptic has to exercise a faith in a piece of evidence, which sometimes can be solely witness testimony. You will see this much less from skeptics who are relying on fundamental methods rather on their own intellects and better judgement.

In the case of hypnotic regression, of which the proponents are such accomplished personalities like John Mack(rest in peace) a faith is exercised that the memories being recounted, or not actually imagination, false memories or lies.

Many of us, who support the Disclosure project are exercising a faith in it. The sheer weight of credibility, intelligence and rank of the witnesses, is compelling us.

In your case, you feel Betty Hill's star map is credible proof, but one could easily debunk it by saying the astronomer's testimony is flawed, wishful thinking or hoaxed, or for a more paranormal explanation, which you used to "debunk" Meiers predictions, Hill psychically obtained the information of the star configuration. The more incredulous would just claim it is luck.

So what happens, whichever way you approach it, there is always a good element of faith involved. It's all about having good judgement. However, the very methods of analysis used, cannot prove good judgement. Hence, why there are so many who often say "there is no proof" or "there is no evidence"

Everything can be debunked. Even a UFO appearing over a super bowl match. A UFO is only proof that there are unidentified flying objects in our skies. It does not prove their origin. The origin is your own faith.

I am now going to go through each of your criteria, give you my opinion, suggest popular debunking for them, and the best cases in my opinion. I think this would speak better for my own standards on deciding credibility.

The best witness testimony cases for credibility for me personally are:

Cordell Hull(1939)

www.ufocasebook.com...

Cordell Hull’s cousin’s family are a very rich, and have not made any attempts to seek publicity or make a profit. It is also true that there was an underground basement under the white house then.

The Disclosure Project

I cannot possibly imagine what ignorance would deny more than 400-500+ witnesses from the professionals disciplines who are willing to testify in front of congress.

Phill Schneider

I think the less said Schneider the better, as I’m saying enough on him in the other topic. I can sum him up as one of the best witnesses I’ve ever come across, if not the best.

1. Multiple witnesses (just more than one), or one highly credible witness (meaning someone who is used to identifying flying objects, such as a pilot, military, etc. or who has a lot to lose coming forward, such as a policeman, etc.)

Yes, multiple witnesses is good evidence. I would also find it compelling if it was across a wide area, so they are scattered, rather than concentrated in one area.

Possible debunks: shared delusions/hallucinations, mass hoax, multiple variant descriptions

Best case: Los Angeles UFO 1942.

www.ufocasebook.com...

FEATURES:

Massive UFO
Mass sightings - by thousands of people
Causalities
Pilot interceptions
Air and ground battery
Press coverage and photographs of UFO
Air warden testimony

Here, most skeptics cannot employ any of the above debunking explanations, without bringing to attention their feeble-mindedness. So, instead they claim "it never happened" which is even more feeble minded actually.

2. Witnesses over an area help (i.e. corroboration from a neighbouring viewpoint) as do strange radar returns, etc.]

Radar or IR returns and pilots intercepting and chasing UFO cases are very good measures for myself. I find them highly credible. The most credible cases are, however, that have a combination of radar, visual and pilot, along with EME(electromagnetic effects) and it makes it unquestionable for me.

Possible debunks: Temperature inversion, atmospheric phenomena, ball lightening, equipment failure(all very weak and simple minded)

Best case: The recent Mexican airforce UFO investigation.

www.ufocasebook.com...


FEATURES:

Multiple UFOs
Airborne group sightings
Pilot chases
IR and Radar Return
Video
Air force testimony

There are no doubts at all in my mind, that they charted a physical flying object that was invisible and was performing manoeuvres that no conventional craft can execute.


Best Case: Iranian Air force UFO 1976.

www.ufocasebook.com...

FEATURES:

Multiple UFOs
Mass sightings
Pilot intercepts
Pilot chases
Radar detection’s
Air force testimony - air force generals, crews and radar operators
EME (leading to weapons system failures and other onboard system failure)
Physiological effects
Government Documentation

This one is incredible, brilliant and for me very credible, because it is happening in a country with little to no UFO culture. This was released by the DIA(defence intelligence agency) in 1977.

I have a prize for the first person who can intelligently and successfully debunk this case.



3. Ruling out the possibility of mistaken identity, in other words, confirming it ISN'T Venus, an aircraft, weather balloon, etc. This is often accomplished via the witnesses describing how the object maneuvered.


Yeah, that is reasonable. Unfortunately, this type of criteria is often abused. Where the debunker will simply go through a list of prosaic explanations, and will almost always, regardless of which case and what evidence, find one -r anging from Mother Venus to Mother Goose.

The explanation should always fit the parameters of the events and evidence. However, most “professional skeptics” would break down the case into it’s individual constituents, until it loses it’s original form, and then debunk each with a prosaic explanation. I rarely have seen any intellectually honest skeptics that will deal with a case as a whole and for it’s collective merit.

Example: In the Iran case(above)

Mass sightings: shared delusion/misidentification of fire flies, stars, moons
Pilot intercepts and chases: chasing balloons/balls of lightening/swamp gas/birds
Radar Detection: equipment failure
Air force testimony: misidentification, fraud, hoax
EME: equipment failiure
Physiological effects: Air/G sickness

If you confront them and say, the probability of everything going wrong, or being misidentified is vanishingly small or indeed ludicrous, then they tell you about winning lotteries and how the mind plays tricks on people. I personally find them very funny, but what I find sad and very telling of the populations intelligence - they actually accept their explanations. So no wonder there is no disclosure.

Note: I hope this is not surprising, but to anyone who is going to take my challenge on board to debunk the Iran case. This method of “debunking” will not qualify as successful and intelligent debunking.


4. Excellent details (usually from highly credible witnesses) describing apparent size, altitude, speed, colours, flight behavior.

I am very skeptical of USO(Unidentified Stationary Objects) then I am of UFOs. I will often discount any case of USO, unless there is excellent detail, describing it’s shape, composition, altitude and apparent size. Any UFO that displays excessive speed, abrupt changes of direction and size, are very credible in my book.

I’ve seen a lot of weird objects in the sky, and I may have missed many potential UFO’s. However, as long as the object does not show me any anomalous behaviour, I am likely to ignore it.


5. Documentation helps support it too...granted, this is mostly only available for sightings during the periods of governmental investigation, Blue Book and the like, but police reports, air tower reports, etc. all help to support it.

Yes, professional documentation is a good bonus. However, not always applicable. Further, if it is government documentation, always take it with a grain of salt, unless it is favouring the UFO hypothesis and is not obscuring it with misinformation(gauge it with the current standards for UFO/ET phenomena) This is not double standards. As the government gains nothing by releasing UFO information, but has everything to lose by it.

Most of the time, UFO’s cases are only declassified because of efforts of investigators or due to leaking of information. I sincerely doubt the shadow government would release UFO information, unless it was deliberate misinformation.

Best case: Rendelsham Forest UFO

www.ufocasebook.com...

FEATURES:

Multiple UFO’s(?)
Multiple witness testimony
Airforce/Army testimony
Abnormal Radiation detection
Claimed ET contact

These were documents declassified by the UK Ministry of defence under the freedom of information act. They clearly describe that British government found UFO’s.

6. Photos or video (that don't look like models, or misidentification).

I think photographic evidence is the least most credible for me. This is because:

1) They are blurry and ambiguous, and perhaps this is just the nature of anomalous effects caused by UFO’s
2) The clear ones could easily be hoaxes or models, especially in the current age of computer graphics and advanced photo editing software.

I would need the photographs to be analysed in labs by credible scientists, and even then, I would only use it to supplement other evidence, not stand alone. I do make exceptions in photographs prior to commercial photo imaging age, and photographs that cannot be reproduced. I find video evidence a bit more credible than photographs, as it involves motion photography, and would be much more difficult and time consuming to hoax successfully and factor all possible errors.

The most convincing singular graphical evidence for me yet, are ancient paintings, especially those of Mary and Jesus, who explicitly, and I cannot emphasise enough how explicit it is, depict UFOs and this is an age prior to flight.

Best Case: Billy Meier’s photographs

Irreproducible photographs and motion film, even though the images are 20-30 years old. They have also stood scientific scrutiny from the likes of JPL and oscar-winning special effects supervisors.

Best Case: NASA STS space shutte videos.

www.ufocasebook.com...
www.ufoevidence.org...

This is very credible and features many UFO’s in space, sometimes performing the same gravity defying feats they are renowned for. The most amazing one I’ve seen is the one where the UFO suddenly accelerates to mach 200+ and escapes an incoming projectile from the surface of the Earth.

7. That it happened while doing an activity OTHER than looking for UFOs (i.e. it was spontaneous)

No, I disagree. There are many who want to see UFO’s, and some of them even go UFO spotting(not me, don’t have the time) if they happen to strike it gold, that does not make their case anymore less credible than a spontaneous one.

8. Observer doesn't actively seek promotion or profit out of sighting.

I absolutely disagree. I think this is beyond unreasonable. Simply because the observer has witnessed a UFO, does not make them any less human than anyone else. This is a capitalist society run by materialists, and where happiness is obtained by acquisition of material, and materials are acquired through capital - money -- greenbacks -- you get the picture? There are many people sell their stories, because there are people who are paying them BIG for their stories.

If someone has seen a UFO’s and has good evidence, then I say go for it, let them promote themselves and if they make a buck out of it, good for them. Who here would really turn down $10,000 for telling someone you saw a UFO?


ABDUCTIONS

This time I am not going to analyse each of your criteria, rather give you an overall impression:

In most cases of abductions, there is little to no objective evidence, it’s really a question of trust. Hypnotic regression is very inconclusive for me, as it is difficult to discriminate between memories, false memories, imagination and lies.

I find multiple lie detectors tests a much more better means of evidence than hypnosis. However, this only can prove that the witness believes in what they are saying, or they are very good at lying.

The likeness of lying reduces inversely proportional to the amount of the tests, and further reduces with multiple abductee collaboration and/or abductee witness testimony

In general multiple abductee cases is very credible and increase in credibility with the following. All would rule absolutely conclusive for me.

1. Number of abductes
2. Whether the abductees know each other or not
3. Age of abductee; young children(5-10) are more credible
4. Similarity of accounts

Evidence of scarring, surgical procedures, implants and especially disappearing fetus in women is compelling evidence, as well as signs of post-trauma, mentally and physically.

The perfect abduction case, and as far as I am concerned, that would be proof beyond a doubt and I would expect any intelligent person to think the same. Would be the following:

1. Muliple/group abductees(preferably involving younger children)
2. Positive lie detector results
3. Physical and mental trauma
4. Any of the following: evidence of unknown and recent scarring/surgical incisions/missing fetus in women
5. Abductee witness testimonies(preferably unrelated to the victims)


Best Abduction cases:

The Betty Andreasson Encounter

www.ufocasebook.com...

FEAUTRES:

Multiple abductees(2-10)
Multiple abductee witnesses(10)
Positive lie detector results

The Manhattan Abduction (Linda Cortile Napolitano)

www.ufocasebook.com...

FEATURES:
Multiple abductee witnesses
Multiple UFO and ET witnesses
Very credible witnesses: Javier Perez de Cuellar, the former Secretary General of the United Nations. Including his body guards

In my opinion this is the best and most convincing case I’ve ever encountered. A woman is floated outside of her high rise apartment window into a hovering ship, by alien entities, and it is seen by so many witnesses, causes a traffic jam, and is witnessed by a former UN secretary general of the United Nations. Really, this should have been the end-all of all skeptical inquiry into UFO's.

The Pascagoula, Mississippi Abduction (Hickson/Parker)

www.ufocasebook.com...

FEATURES:

Multiple abductees(2)
Multiple UFO testimony(15 people, including two police officers)
Positive lie detector results

P.S: This is an excellent topic you started


[edit on 24-11-2004 by Indigo_Child]



posted on Nov, 24 2004 @ 08:42 AM
link   
Excellent expansion on the criteria there....IC....



For instance, you have seen a UFO and profess to have bizarre psychic abilities. You have presented no evidence for either claims. However, as you are fairly credible, I am inclined to believe you are telling the truth, however not entirely convinced, as it’ not proven.


Yep...and as I said, using my own criteria, had I not been the witness, I likely wouldn't have believed it either...

As for the minor psychic abilities, most revolve around a phenomenon only just being studied (SLI) and recognized in MANY individuals. In any case, for me, the fact that it can be done at will was a huge eye opener for me, and certainly showed me there is a connection between mind and matter.... As for others believing me, I could care less...that isn't my aim, though it is fun to show them, hehe....(as long as they don't get too weirded out...) Nor do I try and make a book about it, or do lecture circuits, etc. I wouldn't even want that kind of exposure... There are plenty of people out there (and on this board) who have had similar experiences... If sharing my experiences in any way helps them and others, then I'm a happy guy. If others scoff at anything I say, hey, no problem...that's their perogative...no skin off my teeth...


I will agree that almost anything can be debunked if you try hard enough...but when a particular case raises too many red flags...for me, that's when it just goes over the top. My own weirdness would even fall into this category though, so I suppose I'm being hypocritical.... I'm a freak and a half, hehe.... I wouldn't even believe my own circumstances from a third party perspective...(likely blood chimera, SLIder, minor psychic abilities, one spectacular UFO sighting, hit (indirectly) by lightning 3 times, etc.)...but nonetheless, what is, is what is...
Still, some of these guys (Meier, Adamski, Schneider, etc.) make ME look normal....



posted on Dec, 7 2004 @ 08:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok

As for the minor psychic abilities, most revolve around a phenomenon only just being studied (SLI) and recognized in MANY individuals. In any case, for me, the fact that it can be done at will was a huge eye opener for me, and certainly showed me there is a connection between mind and matter[./quote]

I just don't understand why you or others with this characteristic don't have it tested under controlled scientific circumstances. Or have you or are you aware of anyone that has? I understand 'not trying to convince people', but if its real, surely its worth establishing as a phenomenon for society at large, rather than just yourself no?



posted on Dec, 7 2004 @ 09:36 PM
link   
I think beleif comes down to the individual, regardless of preconceived critera. I would have meet or know the person to make a personal judgement. Im sure any of us would, if told of being abducted by say, a relative, or long time freind, Either beleive or disbeleive almost immediatly, even if you kept such thoughts to yourself and suspended disbeif outwardly so as not offend the claimant.



posted on Dec, 7 2004 @ 09:43 PM
link   
I don't really have "criteria" I believe what I believe from what I know....which I really do not talk about too much...being Wiccan, I get enough BS without talking about extraterrestrials too much.....sightings and other things have been in most of my family, my mother, grandmother, one sister, myself, two of my sons, and now one of my grandchildren, for a long time. I know what "I" know to be true as I have experienced it. As to other types of things......I have always found it odd that so many people have a religion, which has no solid proof at all, but will disbelieve in life forms from other areas of the universe...there is much more evidence of UFOs than there are any gods...



new topics




 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join