There's no evidence that extraterrestrial visitation has occurred

olemanonthemoon

neoholographic

EnPassant

draknoir2

EnPassant

draknoir2It's also very natural to switch from "scene" to "scene" while dreaming. Doesn't mean the dreamer is a liar or delusional... that's just how they are experiencing it.

If scene switching was so prevalent why is the sequence always the same first the examination then dialogue with the aliens then return never the other way around. Why don't they talk with the aliens first then have the examination?

Or so Ms. Randles asserts.
Beware of the "always".

Arguments that persistently hinge on accusations of delusion are suspect. Dawkins, when presented with evidence of personal knowledge of God can only go "You're deluded. Deluded deluded deluded. Deluded. Deluded deluded deluded." It is a last card defense. I have studied the evidence and I am convinced there is something in it. If people are so easily influenced by the media why are people not imagining they are encountering Godzilla, vampires, werewolves, or any of the strange creatures from the Star Trek menagerie? The mind is not as fickle or as at the mercy of media influence as is being suggested. If it was, people would be imagining they met Spock on a UFO and were attacked by a werewolf on their way to the supermarket. Normal people's minds don't disintegrate into phantasmagoria in the way that is being argued. Normally people are able to report what they see. Our justice system, in terms of witness testimony, is based on this fact.

Back in the day when people reported ufos they were laughed at and the accusations of delusion came. But the ufos did not go away. Now the same pattern is being repeated with abductions.

edit on 6-3-2014 by EnPassant because: (no reason given)

Great points and this is the BIG LIE that comes from skeptics. In this area they try to belittle eyewitness testimony as meaningless and it's just silly. Eyewitness testimony is very important and some testimony is much stronger than others.

When a Police Officer comes onto the scene of an accident, he talks to EYEWITNESSES.

When they have a police sketch done or they do a line up, the Police are depending on EYEWITNESSES.

I just saw a true crime case where Police were at a dead end and then they found an EYEWITNESS who described a man she bumped into that seemed strange and this EYEWITNESS talk to a sketch artist, the sketch was put on TV and it lead to the criminals capture.

In Court, Juries listen to EYEWITNESSES and they weigh the credibility of the witness. This is why Defense Attorney's and Prosecutors spend so much time trying to damage the credibility of the WITNESS just like skeptics tried to damage the credibility of Edgar Mitchell when he all of a sudden became a senile old man after he talked about U.F.O.'s and Aliens.

So Eyewitness accounts are very important and some accounts are stronger than others. This is also why the skeptic is simply burying their heads in the sand and lying in this area. We know that eyewitness accounts are important. We also know that all eyewitness accounts aren't monolithic. Some will be very strong and some will be very weak.

So all eyewitness accounts in these areas can't just be the case of delusions and people who are mistaken. This says more about the belief of the skeptic than the actual eyewitness accounts. Anybody using reason and logic knows that you can't throw every eyewitness account into a monolithic box because you want to bury your head in the sand because of your belief.

Here's a list of Abduction Cases

www.ufocasebook.com...

These are just a small portion of the cases and I would say some of these cases will be weak and some will be very strong. You have to also look at the credibility of the witness. Has there story changed over the years? Have they taken a polygraph? How do the people around them describe them?

At the end of the day, some of these people saw and experienced exactly what they said they saw and experienced. Every EYEWITNESS isn't delusional or mistaken. That's just a BIG LIE.

The same goes for these Close Encounters of the 3rd kind.

www.ufoevidence.org...

Again, basic common sense tells us that all of these EYEWITNESS accounts aren't faulty.

I remember a case a few years ago where people robbed a Bank and they were wearing masks but they made the mistake of not wearing gloves. One of the EYEWITNESSES saw a tattoo on one of the robbers hand and described it to the Police which eventually lead to his capture.

Anyone being honest and really seeking the truth knows this. Eyewitness accounts are very important because all eyewitness accounts aren't the same. When Police questioned the people in the Bank, I'm sure some eyewitnesses didn't even see the tattoo on his hand but the Police didn't just ask one eyewitness what they saw, they asked them all.

You have to look at the all the abduction cases, close encounters and trace evidence cases because some eyewitness accounts will be very strong and some will be weak. The skeptic tries to throw all eyewitness accounts when it comes to these areas into a monolithic box and this makes ZERO sense.

edit on 6-3-2014 by neoholographic because: (no reason given)

I tend to agree with you. I mean, isn't there such a thing as CORROBORATING evidence, in which more than one eyewitness sees virtually the same thing? Don't we typically believe there is more truth involved when several eyewitnesses see the approximately the same thing? One of the reason I am convinced that Roswell involved a crash of 'alien'--define that as extraterrestial, extradimensional, however you like--beings is the amount of corroborating evidence involved in the case. Simply overwhelming, IMHO.

Good points!

Yes, it's something called corroborating evidence. We typically give weight to corroborating evidence and credible eyewitnesses. The problem here is the silly logic of the UFO skeptic. In the case of ufology, we're supposed to throw common sense and reason out.

So we can't weigh these cases and and the eyewitnesses in these cases like we do all of the time. ALL EYEWITNESSES have to be either mistaken, lying or delusional. The reason they try to put all of these accounts into one box is because they don't want to deal with individual cases. Logic tells us that if we look at individual cases, some will have strong, credible witnesses. So the goal is to put all accounts into a box labeled unreliable. It's a way to lie to yourself so you don't have to face and try to explain the strong cases with credible witnesses.

reply to post by EnPassant

I have no idea why, but I am going to try again.

When I say g-loc does not apply it is because there are cases where commercial pilot sightings back up what the military pilots report so the military pilot's reports are not likely to be a result of g-loc.

when I say my point about g-loc has nothing to to do with any UFO sighting probably ever, I mean it probably doesn't account for any sighting ever. And when I say I am not implying in any way shape or form that it has anything to do with UFO sightings, that's what I mean. The point is that when g-loc happens, the pilots loose conscious and hallucinate. In other words they are seeing things that aren't there but nothing resembling UFOs. It is part of the job.

YOU made the point that the the airforce would not employ people that mistakenly see things like UFOs because that would make them "delusional".

Would you consider someone "delusional" if they did misidentify something?

I am suggesting that other explanations are not only possible but likely because there is an abundance of cases where what someone thought was a alien space ship turned out to be something else. Not a single one of these people would be considered "delusional" as you insist they should be. Misidentifications have happened throughout history as neoholoassic has pointed out with his comet example. Absolutely brilliant BTW.

Having worked in the mental health field for a number of years and actually having an education In psychology, I know first hand what delusions are and your blatant misuse of the word and your insistence that I am labeling people that misidentify something as delusional is quite insulting to me.

It is just plain ignorant. No other way to put it sorry.

You are free to disagree and believe that these are all aliens. I really don't care. But I am completely offended by you blatant misuse of the word DELUSIONAL.

You say witnesses see just fine and it interpretations that are wrong. Witnesses see greys. How should we interpret this?

We should interpret witnesses seeing grays as witnesses seeing grays? I am really at a loss as to what you are looking for. For one, it's impossible to keep track of what group you are talking about. I don't know of any military pilot cases where they encountered grays, so I am assuming that you are now talking about abduction cases.

As I have said repeatedly, people's personal experiences are peoples personal experiences and they are free to interpret them as the wish. I have my own personal experiences that I am also free to interpret. Many of my experiences are similar and I believe related to the types of experiences you are referring to. In other words, when I hear some of these accounts, I know exactly what they are talking about. Because of this, I do not consider peoples personal experiences evidence of aliens any more than I consider my personal experiences evidence of aliens or any other "cosmic" phenomenon that it resemble.

reply to post by ZetaRediculian

I disagree. I see this MORE on the "believer" side. And it is so much more pronounced. I cant even speculate or even mention that even one case might be due to a "hallucination". I cant even begin a discussion about it or even mention it in the most innocuous way possible without going through the most exhausting discussion and never ending bombardment of straw man arguments and endlessly fending of accusations of being a psedo-skeptic.

Experiments concerning perception and the difference between hallucination and other experiences are notoriously hard to interpret. you may have heard of Rick Strassman and his experiments with the spirit molecule. Basically, he came to the conclusion that even drug induced experiences have a real external source.

This brings me to hallucinations - the medical concensus says that hallucinations are all in the mind: there is nothing there. this is almost completely taken for granted in the profession; It is "just" a hallucination...

But who is to say that a hallucination - or a dream - does not have an external source? perhaps the strangness of a hallucination is an artifact of the mind but has a real source?

The way we look at these questions will heavily influence how we interpret medical experiments an how we interpret witness testimony. Maybe a witness can hallucinate something that is really there...

Is there any such thing as an hallucination about something that is not there?

Only last night I read the sentence "all experience is in the brain" Is it? Are the mind and brain separate things?

How we answer these questions will affect our thinking about what is going on.

Personally I believe that hallucinations have a real source - even when medically induced. The brain only processes consciousness, like a tv processing images. the images do not originate in the tv, nor do ufo experiences originate in the brain.

So, before examining these witnesses we need to be clear in our own minds about how we see the mind, the brain and experience. Different biases lead to very different conclusions. Here is a link-

Rick Strassman

reply to post by ZetaRediculian


I appreciate your point, but, as I explained to Draknoir, I bring up debunker's accusations of delusion, in a general way. I need to do this to avoid having to go over the whole thing again. I need to get these things out of the way to make my point. that I do this within the context of a post to you does not mean I am addressing you in particular. I am just setting the stage for what I have to say and trying to prempt the usual objections that follow - although the g loc thing was a misunderstanding on my behalf, sorry.

reply to post by EnPassant

But who is to say that a hallucination - or a dream - does not have an external source? perhaps the strangness of a hallucination is an artifact of the mind but has a real source?

I actually don't disagree. It would probably surprise you and a lot of other people who consider me a "pseudo-skeptic" if I did share my personal beliefs on this. Still it is my personal belief which is in the realm of subjective experience. So who is to say what I experience is real or not? Me. That's my business. When someone else has an experience it is up them to decide for themselves what that means. When they, you and others want to shove "their" personal subjective experiences into the collective reality, that's an issue.

If you want to read books about people's subjective personal experiences and believe what that it means real alien encounters, I am all for it and find it interesting as well. But what you are reading and believing does not constitute evidence of aliens, it constitutes a collection of subjective experiences that is interpreted one way.

reply to post by EnPassant

I appreciate your point, but, as I explained to Draknoir, I bring up debunker's accusations of delusion, in a general way. I need to do this to avoid having to go over the whole thing again. I need to get these things out of the way to make my point. that I do this within the context of a post to you does not mean I am addressing you in particular. I am just setting the stage for what I have to say and trying to prempt the usual objections that follow - although the g loc thing was a misunderstanding on my behalf, sorry.
edit on 9-3-2014 by EnPassant because: (no reason given)

All you have to do is find me this "debunker" that says my space brothers are "delusional" and I will give them a lashing. You have my word. Until then...

reply to post by neoholographic


Waste of time to hear you completely contradict yourself. I understand you want to do that to stand out, but in truth it's obnoxious.

ZetaRediculian
It would probably surprise you and a lot of other people who consider me a "pseudo-skeptic" if I did share my personal beliefs on this. Still it is my personal belief which is in the realm of subjective experience.

Same here, but the NeoBrights of the world will
never know - they are too busy ranting and raging against their evil skeptic strawman to listen.

EnPassant
Can you refer me to the Jimmy Durante article?

Any of these will likely serve.

EnPassant

HarteGrays entered the human psyche with the edited description by Betty Hill (originally, they looked like Jimmy Durante until she changed her story.)

I would not put too much emphasis on the J. Durante bit. This came to her in a dream, I believe, and dreams can be very distorted. I would not blame her for not being able to dream with perfect visual precision. The grey emerged during Barney Hill's hypnosis.

Note:

Much of the Hill story is said to be based on these separate hypnosis sessions. In fact, that turns out not to be the case at all. It's important to note that it was more than two years after the incident that the Hills underwent hypnosis. During those two years, Betty was writing and rewriting her accounts of her dreams. All of the significant details you may have heard about the Hills' medical experiments came from Betty's two years of writings: A long needle inserted into her navel; the star map; the aliens' fascination with Barney's dentures; the examination of both Betty and Barney's genitals; and the overall chronology of the episode, including being met on the ground by the aliens, a leader coming forward and escorting them to exam rooms, the aliens' general demeanor and individual personalities, and the way they spoke to Betty in English but to Barney via telepathy. Betty wrote all of this based only on what she claims were her dreams, and probably told the story to Barney over and over again until his ears fell off over a period of two years, before they ever had any hypnosis.

During those two years, Barney's own recollection was somewhat less dramatic. When they first saw the light in the sky, Betty said she thought it was a spacecraft, but Barney always said he thought it was an airplane.

Betty's written description of the characters in her nightmare depicted short guys with black hair and "Jimmy Durante" noses. It was only in Barney Hill's hypnosis sessions that we got the first description of skinny figures with gray skin, large bald heads, and huge black eyes. After Betty Hill heard these sessions, suddenly her own hypnosis accounts began to describe the same type of character, and from that moment on, she never again mentioned her original Jimmy Durante guys. Many modern accounts wrongly state that her original nightmares also described grays.

Although the popular version of events is that Barney Hill's hypnosis description is the first appearance of a so-called gray alien in modern culture, that first appearance actually came twelve days earlier, on national television, in an episode of The Outer Limits called The Bellero Shield. The alien in that episode shared most of the significant physical characteristics with the alien in Barney's story: Bald head, gray skin, big wraparound eyes. The Hills stated they did not watch it and didn't know about it.

Source

KingIcarus
You make a perfectly good point, tbf, but it's also true to say that some evidence is simply undeniable based on science as we currently understand it.

Whilst there is certainly evidence for UFO (or whatever) activity on Earth, none of it is evidence that would pass a test of 'reasonable doubt'. Of course, that doesn't mean that evidence is useless, it just weakens the argument it presents or supports.

Until we have something that can be properly examined by relevant experts from various countries/institutions who come to comparable conclusions, I would suggest our evidence is weak at best.

Of course, it's essential that we continue to seek this evidence.

Evidence for ufos is quite strong, in fact. We should consider the "u" part of "ufo" here.

If thousands of these things were seen daily by the majority of Earth's population, it still doesn't cover the leap to extraterrestrial.

As for abductions, etc., the fact that people have delusions and hallucinations while sleeping has been established for quite some time, hence my earlier reference to the "Old Hag" and incubi and succubi (some info on these).

Harte

reply to post by Harte


Thanks for the piece on the Hill case. But it leaves the case in Valensole, France where Masse described the aliens with pumpkin heads and small mouths (quoted earlier). If the argument is that this case was contaminated with respect to Barney Hill's description of the greys, there is a time gap of only 2 years '63 to '65. But there is also the question of how the description of the greys came into existence in the first place.

Some would say "Well, the media invented the grey that's how the rest of them got it." Fine but where did the media get it??? Did they make it up out of nothing? To address this question we need to examine two words; imagine and myth.

In modern times when people say 'It is just imagination' they usually mean it is not real. But the original meaning of the word 'imagine' means to image-in. To take something from reality and to make an image of it. In other words, in earlier times, it was understood that imagination was to give images to real things, perceived psychically.

Myth comes from the Greek word 'Mythos' which means a story about what are perceived to be real things. About spiritual reality.

Again, in modern times a myth is understood to be untrue. A fable about nothing. The original meaning of the word meant a story about something real.

In these older usages of the words mythology is created through the imagination - through imaging-in. Beings and forces that operate on the world are presented in terms of myth and story telling.

Every culture has its myths, its stories from the 'Astral plane' if you will. Musicians and script writers often take mind expanding drugs to create their art. Hollywood creates myths about vampires, aliens virtuous heroes and so on.

The ufonauts have created the ufo myth. Vallee said that they may be getting here by travelling on the astral plane. At any rate the myth comes to us from them.

Writers and artists are of particular interest here - especially writers of science fiction. They too are looking at the astral plane and getting inspiration from it (in theology inspiration means "a divine influence directly and immediately exerted upon the mind or soul.")

Basically what I'm saying here is that when writers and artists describe things they are looking - perhaps unconsciously - at real spiritual things. This is how our mythology is created. So, if it could be shown that the grey alien originated in science fiction what would that mean?

That it is not real? Far from it. It may just be that the grey entered the imagination of a writer (it was imaged-in) and there you have it. A writer's imagination may be as real as any physical abduction.

We are aware, on an unconscious level, of many things. But we do not have the language or imagery to make sense of them so they may remain dormant in our minds until a catalyst awakens them. This is what a ufo encounter is. Many abductees are aware of these ufonauts but don't know it until an encounter awakens their awareness. Then they begin to remember all the hints of strange things in their past before the encounter happened.

It may be that we know many things about ufos, unconsciously, but this awareness does not have form. But it is getting form all the time because ufos are appearing in the skies. This, in fact, is why ufos appear; they are here to image themselves into our minds and give form to what we already are dimly aware of. They are creating ufo consciousness

This may be one way to answer the question that started this thread; we simply know they are ET.

ZetaRediculian
It would probably surprise you and a lot of other people who consider me a "pseudo-skeptic" if I did share my personal beliefs on this.

So, who are these ufonauts? Where are they from?

EnPassant

So, who are these ufonauts? Where are they from?

Nebula M78

draknoir2

Same here, but the NeoBrights of the world will
never know - they are too busy ranting and raging against their evil skeptic strawman to listen.

I am pretty sure its this guy
"Aliens? how can you have any pudding if you don't eat your meat?"

ZetaRediculian

EnPassant

So, who are these ufonauts? Where are they from?

Nebula M78

Very impressive.

draknoir2

ZetaRediculian
It would probably surprise you and a lot of other people who consider me a "pseudo-skeptic" if I did share my personal beliefs on this. Still it is my personal belief which is in the realm of subjective experience.

Same here, but the NeoBrights of the world will
never know - they are too busy ranting and raging against their evil skeptic strawman to listen.

LISTEN, did you say LISTEN?
Well then give a listen to this!
www.youtube.com...

waltwillis

draknoir2

ZetaRediculian
It would probably surprise you and a lot of other people who consider me a "pseudo-skeptic" if I did share my personal beliefs on this. Still it is my personal belief which is in the realm of subjective experience.

Same here, but the NeoBrights of the world will
never know - they are too busy ranting and raging against their evil skeptic strawman to listen.

LISTEN, did you say LISTEN?
Well then give a listen to this!
www.youtube.com...

SPAM, can you say SPAM?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Is this your video or a friend's that you are spamming?

draknoir2

neoholographic


Debunker's love isolating things like Dr. Lier and basically ignoring everything else when Dr. Lier is mentioned. Again, you prove my point.

Blow-hard believers love using unqualified, fringe sources like the esteemed foot doctor and then loudly cry "foul!" when the not as blind as they would like debunkers directly respond.

Logic and reason would indicate that your ranting is no substitute for logic and reason.

The Skeptic…An Open Mind, or An Empty Head?

Most skeptics do not know what they do not know.

Good science will always keep an open mind and not
Pre judge the observations of others.

This web site has many folks that may never see a being from
outside our world that is far advanced on the evolutionary scale.

The main problem as I can tell is that there are people on this forum that question the assertions made by others of seeing aliens and flying saucers.

If the people making such claims are crazy to the people that question them it means the skeptics are to be deemed sane and smart for their assessment.

The so-called skeptic is home safe as long as they are correct.

The skeptic can never accept the alternative of the alien witnesses because it would indicate the skeptic is stupid and/or crazy!

So to all the skeptics out there I do understand your passion to stand fast in you position.

The only problem I have with you is the fact of why are you on this forum?

That was a rhetorical question, as I do know why!

reply to post by waltwillis

So to all the skeptics out there I do understand your passion to stand fast in you position.

The only problem I have with you is the fact of why are you on this forum?

That was a rhetorical question, as I do know why!

Then why did you ask the question? That was rhetorical. I know exactly why you asked the question. why did you even post this? Don't bother answering because I know. I would tell you but my post would get deleted and it wouldn't matter anyway. I just want you to know that I know why. I am totally on to you.

waltwillis


The main problem as I can tell is that there are people on this forum that question the assertions made by others of seeing aliens and flying saucers.

The main problem as I can tell is that there are people on this forum that think this is the main problem on this forum.

draknoir2

waltwillis


The main problem as I can tell is that there are people on this forum that question the assertions made by others of seeing aliens and flying saucers.

The main problem as I can tell is that there are people on this forum that think this is the main problem on this forum.

There are none so blind as those that WILL not see!
Two eyes, two ears, and only one mouth!
There may be a good reason for that combo?