It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 11:33 AM

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?

It's an excellent question....

It's not such a simple answer, but perhaps it will suffice...

1. I have a job. My time off is for getting errands done, and relaxing.
2. I have no desire to be seen publicly as some kind of freak. I've shown it to others before, no good has ever come from it. My friends are at least amused by it, but unless I know someone well, I simply don't talk about it in RL.
3. The research is being done, especially on the SLI phenomenon. I have submitted my information to the foundation doing this research. Should they be in the area, or come to me, I'll be more than happy to demonstrate for them at my convenience.
4. Despite the abilities' implications, by John Q. Public, it would still be relegated as a "stupid human trick" on some late night talk show.
5. Debbie, a waitress in England, has SLI more than any other I've ever heard of. Even she barely warranted more than a few minute blurb on CNN a few years ago.

Given all of the above, I really don't see the point of it. Do you?

posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 12:08 PM

Originally posted by Gazrok
I have a job.

Ha. I like that, good point.

My time off is for getting errands done, and relaxing.

And judiciously and fairly moderating ATS no?

"stupid human trick" on some late night talk show.

I thought they wre basically telekinetic and the like? Burnign out lightbulbs and what not?

Even she barely warranted more than a few minute blurb on CNN a few years ago.

Really? I'd be interested in any well documentated cases of this phenom. Have the researchers you mentioned earlier pubished any papers in the primary literature?

Given all of the above, I really don't see the point of it. Do you?

I think it'd be great to be able to establish that paranormal activities occur and that the human mind can, through application of thought/emotion/whatever influence the material environment around it.

posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 01:54 PM
I think all of you forgot one criteria, but I just cannot put it in goods or bads...

Seeking publicity for your account... It can be good or bad, just depends on the cases, and definitely depends on the veracity of the facts. Evaluating that can help decide if some account is credible or not...

posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 03:06 PM
Debbie, the case I mentioned, was featured on CNN. SLI stands for Street Light this is when the phenomenon was commonly noticed. In Debbie's case however, she'd even affect appliances, electronic registers, etc. You can search the archives for it on CNN's site, or do a search here for "Electric People" or "S.L.I.D.E.R." (street light interference data exchange receiver) or google of course. Type in "Debbie the Slider" and you should find the article.

Debbie's interference happened mainly when she was emotional.

Yes, you would think that proof of mind over matter would be a much bigger news item, but sadly, this showed me otherwise, so to be honest, I really didn't see the point.

I still don't know why it's only certain lights that are easy to turn off/on at will... I still don't know why sometimes I can focus on a piece of paper and have no result, and other times I can get a little smoke and some browning of it. Perhaps I simply don't have enough control yet. I guess it just doesn't seem impressive enough to me to try and "showcase" it, hehe...

No, if I ever get to the point of being able to start a full fire through this focus, then I'm hitting Leno...

Last I heard, the researchers involved had not yet published their findings.

posted on Jul, 24 2007 @ 03:01 PM
Edit for the purpose of replacement of comment

[edit on 24/7/07 by flice]

posted on Jul, 24 2007 @ 03:11 PM
I always say that I have the same criteria that someone would need to provide me for the existence of the Eiffel Tower.

1) Identification of the witnesses. If it's anonymous, it's crap.
2) Multiple witnesses who also aren't anonymous,
3) Photos and/or videos that are also multiple. The more the merrier.
4) Artifacts (proven to be alien) that follow a clear chain of evidence. Material, technology or alien bodies -- all good.
5) Confirmation of all of the above by experts and recognized authorities. All the better if they are neutral or openly skeptical.
6) Touchability. I would like to be able, if I wanted, to actually go and touch the thing with my grimy little fingers. This is a best case scenario, of course. I couldn't do it if it was 10,000 degrees, or radioactive, or on another planet. But a little silver saucer or alien? You bet. I've never touched the Eiffel Tower, either, but I could. That's the point.

I personally don't think these are ridiculously high standards, considering the extraordinary nature of the thing in question.

[edit on 24-7-2007 by SuicideVirus]

posted on Jul, 24 2007 @ 03:20 PM
edit for the purpose of replacement of comment.

[edit on 24/7/07 by flice]

posted on Jul, 24 2007 @ 03:40 PM
A pretty good list, but to start I would get rid of 4 under abductions. The science is pretty definitive that hypnosis is not a valid way to recover memories, and that it tends to cement false memories. All recovered memory abductions are tainted in my view.

I also don't think you need a sighting for an abduction. What I do think you need is pretty tough: rule out sleep paralysis, have an independent or highly credible witness, have concrete verifiable evidence that rules out, or at least reduces the likelihood of false memories (again, NO hypnosis).

I think that leaves you with 0 good abduction cases, but I'm willing to be proved wrong.

posted on Jul, 24 2007 @ 05:12 PM

Originally posted by markjaxson

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?

I think these have been quite persuasively explained as flames from offshore oil rigs. The rigs were burning, they should have been seen by that flight, and they were in the right place.

posted on Jul, 24 2007 @ 05:25 PM
I'd consider I had valid evidence to present you on non-human UFOs and/or non-human abductions IF:

1) I brought you one back field dressed (you pick the type) or at least a good-sized chunk, like an intact head.
2) I came back with a live you-name-it in tow
3) I managed to shoot off a chunk of UFO large enough to positively identify
4) I came back flying it, no matter how badly, possibly in combo with (1) or (2)
5) I got some really nifty artifacts, such as a working type 3 phaser, with at least one charged power pack
6) They write down something really convincing to take back, like the short, easy solution to Fermat's last theorem or some other classic mathematical solution like a proof of Goldbach's conjecture that isn't known to exist and that I couldn't have reasonably come up with myself

Short of that, I wouldn't expect to convince you.

<< 1   >>

log in