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.

 

There's no evidence that extraterrestrial visitation has occurred

page: 9
30
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 5 2014 @ 01:16 PM
link   

EnPassant

ZetaRediculianIt may seem like "belittling" eyewitnesses but to me its not. In most cases witnesses are describing what they saw to the best of their ability. People misidentify things. We know that. We also know that something that is ambiguous can be described differently by different people. I don't know of any "evidence" for ET that is not ambiguous. Why should I Assume that what any witness describes is not their own personal interpretation? I don't envy the task of trying to convey this type of information.

I also know of no court cases where the goal would be to identify something that is not known to exist. How would this work? If there are 10 police officers saying they saw a ufo and all of them "believe" it to be ET, does that make it so or does that only make what they saw "unidentified"?

I agree that it shouldn't be treated like its meaningless but a clear distinction needs to be made between what is subjective belief and what isn't.


You can only take questioning the witness's ability to see what he is looking at so far. For one case, maybe. Maybe they made a mistake. For two cases - well, maybe. But for three or three thousand...it wears a bit thin. People keep describing the same things over and over. They can't all be having the same delusion.


Great point!!

The skeptics expect you to throw reason and logic out of the window when it comes to eyewitness accounts. We use eyewitness accounts all the time when gathering information. Police do it when investigating a case and Jury's do it when they're weighing the evidence and weighing the credibility of the witness.

In the case of U.F.O.'s skeptics want to render all eyewitness accounts meaningless and we're supposed to believe Police, Pilots Astronauts and more become blathering idiots and are useless when it comes to being an eyewitness.

It makes ZERO sense. The reason you throw out logic and reason in these areas is because people are guided by their belief and the truth doesn't matter.

When you look at the MOUNTAIN of evidence in these areas, it strains credulity to throw out reason and logic when it comes to eyewitness accounts.




posted on Mar, 5 2014 @ 01:38 PM
link   

EnPassant


You can only take questioning the witness's ability to see what he is looking at so far. For one case, maybe. Maybe they made a mistake. For two cases - well, maybe. But for three or three thousand...it wears a bit thin. People keep describing the same things over and over. They can't all be having the same delusion.


Actually they do not describe exactly the same things. There is, however, the tendency to interpret what they saw the same way as others.



posted on Mar, 5 2014 @ 02:34 PM
link   
reply to post by EnPassant
 



You can only take questioning the witness's ability to see what he is looking at so far. For one case, maybe. Maybe they made a mistake. For two cases - well, maybe. But for three or three thousand...it wears a bit thin. People keep describing the same things over and over. They can't all be having the same delusion.

Maybe, maybe not. Granted it does make you think and it really takes us to the point of speculation. But people do generally share "delusions". I wouldn't use that word because its associated with mental illnesses and NOT what I want to imply. So peoples brains are wired the the same way. In general we are all bound by the same mental phenomenon like pareiodelia, illusory contours, dreams, etc. We tend to follow a pattern of how we interpret the same ambiguous perceptions. The Rorschach or ink blot test is a good example. en.m.wikipedia.org... If we didn't follow the same patterns of perceptions, psychology would be a lot different.
we seem to share the same beliefs as well which would seem to influence what we perceive.

of course none of that is an explanation for all or any particular case. You may be correct in your assessment, who knows. Personally, I believe there is a lot we don't understand about how we perceive and come to believe things.
edit on 5-3-2014 by ZetaRediculian because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 5 2014 @ 03:12 PM
link   

NavyDoc

EnPassant

ZetaRediculianIt may seem like "belittling" eyewitnesses but to me its not. In most cases witnesses are describing what they saw to the best of their ability. People misidentify things. We know that. We also know that something that is ambiguous can be described differently by different people. I don't know of any "evidence" for ET that is not ambiguous. Why should I Assume that what any witness describes is not their own personal interpretation? I don't envy the task of trying to convey this type of information.

I also know of no court cases where the goal would be to identify something that is not known to exist. How would this work? If there are 10 police officers saying they saw a ufo and all of them "believe" it to be ET, does that make it so or does that only make what they saw "unidentified"?

I agree that it shouldn't be treated like its meaningless but a clear distinction needs to be made between what is subjective belief and what isn't.


You can only take questioning the witness's ability to see what he is looking at so far. For one case, maybe. Maybe they made a mistake. For two cases - well, maybe. But for three or three thousand...it wears a bit thin. People keep describing the same things over and over. They can't all be having the same delusion.


Actually yes, considering how ingrained the abduction myth is in our society and how prevalent it and accounts of it are in the media, it is not surprising that people come up with similar stories at all.


The essential themes of abduction - car engines stalling, the appearance of the greys, the 'examination' etc. - were established before the abduction scenario became common knowledge. Hopkins by himself established the apparent cross breeding program from abductees who did not know each other or each others' stories.



posted on Mar, 5 2014 @ 03:16 PM
link   

NavyDoc

EnPassant

NavyDoc

EnPassant

AliceBleachWhite

Pladuim
reply to post by AliceBleachWhite
 



" made a personal subjective judgement in favor bias for something you want to believe in."

I'll have to say "Ditto" and leave it at that. Your reply was as expected, thank you.

Pladuim


Um, no, unless by 'bias' you mean basing my position on actual independently verifiable replicable valid and legitimate evidence.

A bit from another of our members detailed in the thread I linked previous:

OccamsRazor04

Here are some facts.

DNA testing done in 1999 by BOLD found 100% human X and 100% human Y chromosomes. Meaning the mother and father were both 100% human.

DNA testing done in 2003 found the mtDNA was 100% human. This is consistent with the testing done in 1999.

Steven Novella, an assistant professor at Yale University Medical School determined the skull was of a child that had congenital hydrocephalus, and the cranial deformations were from the accumulat of cerebrospinal fluid within the skull.

Now the FOXP2 gene testing is evidence of fraud. There are about about 3 billion base pairs in the human genome. One of Pye's tests consisted of a sample of only 400 base pairs. He tested 400 pairs out of 3 billion and then concluded the DNA couldn't be human. Pye also concluded it's impossible for an abnormality like this of the FOXP2 gene to exist in humans. Here is proof that is a complete lie.
onlinelibrary.wiley.com...


From THIS POST

Additionally, from another member in that same thread:


raymundoko

the Starchild’s mitochondrial DNA was relatively easy to recover and showed it had a human mother

Dr Matthew Brown, a Dentist in London, made close-up x-rays images of the maxilla in September 2004. He states that the roots of unerupted teeth are consistent with those of a child who was about 4½ yrs old.

Dr David Hodges, a radiologist, stated that the suture lines were open and growing at the time of death. Dr.David Sweet, an internationally renowned forensic pathologist at the University of British Columbia, was of the opinion that the skull was that of a 5-6 year old, based upon the dentition in the right maxillary fragment

Their DNA research from 2003 shows that it was a human that was part of en.wikipedia.org...

DNA testing in 1999 at BOLD (Bureau of Legal Dentistry), a forensic DNA lab in Vancouver, British Columbia found standard X and Y chromosomes in two samples taken from the skull, "conclusive evidence that the child was not only human (and male), but both of his parents must have been human as well, for each must have contributed one of the human sex chromosomes."
Further DNA testing in 2003 at Trace Genetics, which specializes in extracting DNA from ancient samples, isolated mitochondrial DNA from both recovered skulls. The child belongs to haplogroup C. Since mitochondrial DNA is inherited exclusively from the mother, it makes it possible to trace the offspring's maternal lineage. The DNA test therefore confirmed that the child's mother was a Haplogroup C human female. However, the adult female found with the child belonged to haplogroup A. Both haplotypes are characteristic Native American haplogroups, but the different haplogroup for each skull indicates that the adult female was not the child's mother.

from THIS POST
Some of the material quoted above came from
THIS SOURCE, which contains links to other sources and Citations as well.

In short, testing conducted by the Bureau Of Legal Dentistry of the "Starchild" skull conclusively found the skull belonged to a HUMAN Male child, and that the parents of the child were both Human as well.
Further, the child belonged to Haplogroup C

Despite any and all of this, Pye continued his desecration of these human remains in exploiting them to promote his sensationalist sideshow spectacle of the "Starchild", which due the never ending supply of ready willing dupes continued to turn him a profit.

Of course, let's not allow something like Science get in the way of allowing anyone to believe what they want to believe.






edit on 2/24/2014 by AliceBleachWhite because: (no reason given)


You are working under the assumption that the difference must leave a genetic trace, but the changes need not be in terms of genes at all. Apparently people's minds or brains can be altered to reflect alien characteristics. This would not show up in the genes. One abductee was told that a child was altered during gestation. Also, many abductees acquire psychic abilities as a result of their experiences. This does not require genetic changes per se. In other words, the hybridisation or star child phenomena, may be operative on a psychic rather than genetic level.
edit on 24-2-2014 by EnPassant because: (no reason given)


However, we don't have evidence that any of that is possible nor is from anywhere but science fiction. The "starchild" could have been miracled into being, but we don't have evidence that this is possible. +
edit on 5-3-2014 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)


Yes, but you could start doing genetic tests on China's psychic children and see if they are genetically different. If they are not it is on a purely psychic level.


Chinese are have genetic differences, albeit not much when compared to other species, as are all races of humans, but they will all map out as human.

What "psychic level?" Can you measure it? Prove that the "psychic" even exists in the first place. You can't use a mythological or unproven or unmeasurable yardstick to measure or prove anything.

Science has determined that these "starchildren" were human--deformed but human. "Psychic" difference is not science.


What I am saying is that the Chinese phenomena are well established. If it was found that these Chinese children are not genetically different from other Chinese children then that would prove that their abilities are outside the genetic realm in the sense that genetic changes are not necessary to induce these abilities.



posted on Mar, 5 2014 @ 03:22 PM
link   

conundrummer

Yes, but you could start doing genetic tests on China's psychic children and see if they are genetically different. If they are not it is on a purely psychic level.

So if you test them and the genes are different, then they've been genetically altered by aliens, but if you test them and the genes are normal, then they've been altered in a non-genetic way by aliens? Seems to me you're proposing a test that assumes aliens either way.


If you test them and they have psychic abilities - and there is strong evidence for this - but don't have genetic differences then that proves psychic abilities are not dependent on genetic changes. Having done these tests you can then return to the alien hypothesis regardless of where the Chinese got their abilities.



posted on Mar, 5 2014 @ 03:23 PM
link   

EnPassant

NavyDoc

EnPassant

NavyDoc

EnPassant

AliceBleachWhite

Pladuim
reply to post by AliceBleachWhite
 



" made a personal subjective judgement in favor bias for something you want to believe in."

I'll have to say "Ditto" and leave it at that. Your reply was as expected, thank you.

Pladuim


Um, no, unless by 'bias' you mean basing my position on actual independently verifiable replicable valid and legitimate evidence.

A bit from another of our members detailed in the thread I linked previous:

OccamsRazor04

Here are some facts.

DNA testing done in 1999 by BOLD found 100% human X and 100% human Y chromosomes. Meaning the mother and father were both 100% human.

DNA testing done in 2003 found the mtDNA was 100% human. This is consistent with the testing done in 1999.

Steven Novella, an assistant professor at Yale University Medical School determined the skull was of a child that had congenital hydrocephalus, and the cranial deformations were from the accumulat of cerebrospinal fluid within the skull.

Now the FOXP2 gene testing is evidence of fraud. There are about about 3 billion base pairs in the human genome. One of Pye's tests consisted of a sample of only 400 base pairs. He tested 400 pairs out of 3 billion and then concluded the DNA couldn't be human. Pye also concluded it's impossible for an abnormality like this of the FOXP2 gene to exist in humans. Here is proof that is a complete lie.
onlinelibrary.wiley.com...


From THIS POST

Additionally, from another member in that same thread:


raymundoko

the Starchild’s mitochondrial DNA was relatively easy to recover and showed it had a human mother

Dr Matthew Brown, a Dentist in London, made close-up x-rays images of the maxilla in September 2004. He states that the roots of unerupted teeth are consistent with those of a child who was about 4½ yrs old.

Dr David Hodges, a radiologist, stated that the suture lines were open and growing at the time of death. Dr.David Sweet, an internationally renowned forensic pathologist at the University of British Columbia, was of the opinion that the skull was that of a 5-6 year old, based upon the dentition in the right maxillary fragment

Their DNA research from 2003 shows that it was a human that was part of en.wikipedia.org...

DNA testing in 1999 at BOLD (Bureau of Legal Dentistry), a forensic DNA lab in Vancouver, British Columbia found standard X and Y chromosomes in two samples taken from the skull, "conclusive evidence that the child was not only human (and male), but both of his parents must have been human as well, for each must have contributed one of the human sex chromosomes."
Further DNA testing in 2003 at Trace Genetics, which specializes in extracting DNA from ancient samples, isolated mitochondrial DNA from both recovered skulls. The child belongs to haplogroup C. Since mitochondrial DNA is inherited exclusively from the mother, it makes it possible to trace the offspring's maternal lineage. The DNA test therefore confirmed that the child's mother was a Haplogroup C human female. However, the adult female found with the child belonged to haplogroup A. Both haplotypes are characteristic Native American haplogroups, but the different haplogroup for each skull indicates that the adult female was not the child's mother.

from THIS POST
Some of the material quoted above came from
THIS SOURCE, which contains links to other sources and Citations as well.

In short, testing conducted by the Bureau Of Legal Dentistry of the "Starchild" skull conclusively found the skull belonged to a HUMAN Male child, and that the parents of the child were both Human as well.
Further, the child belonged to Haplogroup C

Despite any and all of this, Pye continued his desecration of these human remains in exploiting them to promote his sensationalist sideshow spectacle of the "Starchild", which due the never ending supply of ready willing dupes continued to turn him a profit.

Of course, let's not allow something like Science get in the way of allowing anyone to believe what they want to believe.






edit on 2/24/2014 by AliceBleachWhite because: (no reason given)


You are working under the assumption that the difference must leave a genetic trace, but the changes need not be in terms of genes at all. Apparently people's minds or brains can be altered to reflect alien characteristics. This would not show up in the genes. One abductee was told that a child was altered during gestation. Also, many abductees acquire psychic abilities as a result of their experiences. This does not require genetic changes per se. In other words, the hybridisation or star child phenomena, may be operative on a psychic rather than genetic level.
edit on 24-2-2014 by EnPassant because: (no reason given)


However, we don't have evidence that any of that is possible nor is from anywhere but science fiction. The "starchild" could have been miracled into being, but we don't have evidence that this is possible. +
edit on 5-3-2014 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)


Yes, but you could start doing genetic tests on China's psychic children and see if they are genetically different. If they are not it is on a purely psychic level.


Chinese are have genetic differences, albeit not much when compared to other species, as are all races of humans, but they will all map out as human.

What "psychic level?" Can you measure it? Prove that the "psychic" even exists in the first place. You can't use a mythological or unproven or unmeasurable yardstick to measure or prove anything.

Science has determined that these "starchildren" were human--deformed but human. "Psychic" difference is not science.


What I am saying is that the Chinese phenomena are well established. If it was found that these Chinese children are not genetically different from other Chinese children then that would prove that their abilities are outside the genetic realm in the sense that genetic changes are not necessary to induce these abilities.


The first assumption is that these abilities actually exist and that they are independently verifiable.

Secondly, if genetic changes are not necessary to induce abilities then how are they induced? Since we can measure genetics, but cannot measure "psychic powers" one cannot just assume there are psychic powers in play.



posted on Mar, 5 2014 @ 03:26 PM
link   

EnPassant

conundrummer

Yes, but you could start doing genetic tests on China's psychic children and see if they are genetically different. If they are not it is on a purely psychic level.

So if you test them and the genes are different, then they've been genetically altered by aliens, but if you test them and the genes are normal, then they've been altered in a non-genetic way by aliens? Seems to me you're proposing a test that assumes aliens either way.


If you test them and they have psychic abilities - and there is strong evidence for this - but don't have genetic differences then that proves psychic abilities are not dependent on genetic changes. Having done these tests you can then return to the alien hypothesis regardless of where the Chinese got their abilities.


That's not logical. You can say "we don't know what causes this" and that's a fair and logical answer. To jump to "aliens did it" is not logical. Where there is something unusual--even EXTREMELY unusual--is not make "aliens" a logical hypothesis at all. That is a huge leap without connecting evidence.

"I don't know how or why this was done so it must be aliens" is not a logical thought progression.



posted on Mar, 5 2014 @ 03:27 PM
link   
reply to post by ZetaRediculian
 


Jenny Randles speaks about a thing called 'doorway amnesia'. Apparently abductees never remember how they get into the ufo. They see it from the outside and then they are inside it without remembering passing through a door. If these were delusions or hoaxes you would expect a lot of people to enter by a door 'with rounded edges', 'oval in shape' 'sliding', 'transparent' etc. etc. etc. This doesn't happen. This is just one piece of evidence that suggests these cases are not hoaxes or delusions.



posted on Mar, 5 2014 @ 03:30 PM
link   

EnPassant

NavyDoc

EnPassant

ZetaRediculianIt may seem like "belittling" eyewitnesses but to me its not. In most cases witnesses are describing what they saw to the best of their ability. People misidentify things. We know that. We also know that something that is ambiguous can be described differently by different people. I don't know of any "evidence" for ET that is not ambiguous. Why should I Assume that what any witness describes is not their own personal interpretation? I don't envy the task of trying to convey this type of information.

I also know of no court cases where the goal would be to identify something that is not known to exist. How would this work? If there are 10 police officers saying they saw a ufo and all of them "believe" it to be ET, does that make it so or does that only make what they saw "unidentified"?

I agree that it shouldn't be treated like its meaningless but a clear distinction needs to be made between what is subjective belief and what isn't.


You can only take questioning the witness's ability to see what he is looking at so far. For one case, maybe. Maybe they made a mistake. For two cases - well, maybe. But for three or three thousand...it wears a bit thin. People keep describing the same things over and over. They can't all be having the same delusion.


Actually yes, considering how ingrained the abduction myth is in our society and how prevalent it and accounts of it are in the media, it is not surprising that people come up with similar stories at all.


The essential themes of abduction - car engines stalling, the appearance of the greys, the 'examination' etc. - were established before the abduction scenario became common knowledge. Hopkins by himself established the apparent cross breeding program from abductees who did not know each other or each others' stories.


What? That's been the entire story since Betty and Barney Hill and has replicated over and over again. It's been the story since the 1940's. Find me an original, first hand account, of exactly that before all of that, say 1935 and we can talk about it being "before it was common knowledge".



posted on Mar, 5 2014 @ 03:30 PM
link   

NavyDoc

EnPassant

conundrummer

Yes, but you could start doing genetic tests on China's psychic children and see if they are genetically different. If they are not it is on a purely psychic level.

So if you test them and the genes are different, then they've been genetically altered by aliens, but if you test them and the genes are normal, then they've been altered in a non-genetic way by aliens? Seems to me you're proposing a test that assumes aliens either way.


If you test them and they have psychic abilities - and there is strong evidence for this - but don't have genetic differences then that proves psychic abilities are not dependent on genetic changes. Having done these tests you can then return to the alien hypothesis regardless of where the Chinese got their abilities.


That's not logical. You can say "we don't know what causes this" and that's a fair and logical answer. To jump to "aliens did it" is not logical. Where there is something unusual--even EXTREMELY unusual--is not make "aliens" a logical hypothesis at all. That is a huge leap without connecting evidence.

"I don't know how or why this was done so it must be aliens" is not a logical thought progression.


I'm not saying the Chinese children's abilities are (or are not) from alien contact. This is what I am saying



posted on Mar, 5 2014 @ 03:31 PM
link   

EnPassant
reply to post by ZetaRediculian
 


Jenny Randles speaks about a thing called 'doorway amnesia'. Apparently abductees never remember how they get into the ufo. They see it from the outside and then they are inside it without remembering passing through a door. If these were delusions or hoaxes you would expect a lot of people to enter by a door 'with rounded edges', 'oval in shape' 'sliding', 'transparent' etc. etc. etc. This doesn't happen. This is just one piece of evidence that suggests these cases are not hoaxes or delusions.



That does not suggest anything. It could be that they don't have the imagination to make up how they got in there or it is part of the storyline from previous encounters. Claimed encounters does not hard evidence make.



posted on Mar, 5 2014 @ 03:33 PM
link   

EnPassant
reply to post by ZetaRediculian
 


Jenny Randles speaks about a thing called 'doorway amnesia'. Apparently abductees never remember how they get into the ufo. They see it from the outside and then they are inside it without remembering passing through a door. If these were delusions or hoaxes you would expect a lot of people to enter by a door 'with rounded edges', 'oval in shape' 'sliding', 'transparent' etc. etc. etc. This doesn't happen. This is just one piece of evidence that suggests these cases are not hoaxes or delusions.



How is a complete lack of information evidence of anything?



posted on Mar, 5 2014 @ 03:35 PM
link   

NavyDoc

EnPassant

NavyDoc

EnPassant

ZetaRediculianIt may seem like "belittling" eyewitnesses but to me its not. In most cases witnesses are describing what they saw to the best of their ability. People misidentify things. We know that. We also know that something that is ambiguous can be described differently by different people. I don't know of any "evidence" for ET that is not ambiguous. Why should I Assume that what any witness describes is not their own personal interpretation? I don't envy the task of trying to convey this type of information.

I also know of no court cases where the goal would be to identify something that is not known to exist. How would this work? If there are 10 police officers saying they saw a ufo and all of them "believe" it to be ET, does that make it so or does that only make what they saw "unidentified"?

I agree that it shouldn't be treated like its meaningless but a clear distinction needs to be made between what is subjective belief and what isn't.


You can only take questioning the witness's ability to see what he is looking at so far. For one case, maybe. Maybe they made a mistake. For two cases - well, maybe. But for three or three thousand...it wears a bit thin. People keep describing the same things over and over. They can't all be having the same delusion.


Actually yes, considering how ingrained the abduction myth is in our society and how prevalent it and accounts of it are in the media, it is not surprising that people come up with similar stories at all.


The essential themes of abduction - car engines stalling, the appearance of the greys, the 'examination' etc. - were established before the abduction scenario became common knowledge. Hopkins by himself established the apparent cross breeding program from abductees who did not know each other or each others' stories.


What? That's been the entire story since Betty and Barney Hill and has replicated over and over again. It's been the story since the 1940's. Find me an original, first hand account, of exactly that before all of that, say 1935 and we can talk about it being "before it was common knowledge".


These things have been found in the ufo accounts buried away in the archives long before they were common knowledge. People who never read a ufo magazine had these experiences. B. and B. Hill were not the first to see the 'grey' alien. They did not indicate anything about the hybrid project - that was established by Hopkins from abductees who did not know each other. Much of this is discussed in Jenny Randle's book Abduction.



posted on Mar, 5 2014 @ 03:37 PM
link   

NavyDoc

EnPassant
reply to post by ZetaRediculian
 


Jenny Randles speaks about a thing called 'doorway amnesia'. Apparently abductees never remember how they get into the ufo. They see it from the outside and then they are inside it without remembering passing through a door. If these were delusions or hoaxes you would expect a lot of people to enter by a door 'with rounded edges', 'oval in shape' 'sliding', 'transparent' etc. etc. etc. This doesn't happen. This is just one piece of evidence that suggests these cases are not hoaxes or delusions.



That does not suggest anything. It could be that they don't have the imagination to make up how they got in there or it is part of the storyline from previous encounters. Claimed encounters does not hard evidence make.


They have the imagination to imagine a ufo abduction but none of them - none of them - can imagine going through a simple door? The lack of a doorway goes back to the beginning of abductions.



posted on Mar, 5 2014 @ 03:39 PM
link   

draknoir2

EnPassant
reply to post by ZetaRediculian
 


Jenny Randles speaks about a thing called 'doorway amnesia'. Apparently abductees never remember how they get into the ufo. They see it from the outside and then they are inside it without remembering passing through a door. If these were delusions or hoaxes you would expect a lot of people to enter by a door 'with rounded edges', 'oval in shape' 'sliding', 'transparent' etc. etc. etc. This doesn't happen. This is just one piece of evidence that suggests these cases are not hoaxes or delusions.



How is a complete lack of information evidence of anything?



Very simply. It is evidence that the are not making this up because if they were it would be very natural for at least some of them to enter by a door.



posted on Mar, 5 2014 @ 03:44 PM
link   

EnPassant

draknoir2

EnPassant
reply to post by ZetaRediculian
 


Jenny Randles speaks about a thing called 'doorway amnesia'. Apparently abductees never remember how they get into the ufo. They see it from the outside and then they are inside it without remembering passing through a door. If these were delusions or hoaxes you would expect a lot of people to enter by a door 'with rounded edges', 'oval in shape' 'sliding', 'transparent' etc. etc. etc. This doesn't happen. This is just one piece of evidence that suggests these cases are not hoaxes or delusions.



How is a complete lack of information evidence of anything?



Very simply. It is evidence that the are not making this up because if they were it would be very natural for at least some of them to enter by a door.


It'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.



posted on Mar, 5 2014 @ 03:46 PM
link   

EnPassant

NavyDoc

EnPassant

NavyDoc

EnPassant

ZetaRediculianIt may seem like "belittling" eyewitnesses but to me its not. In most cases witnesses are describing what they saw to the best of their ability. People misidentify things. We know that. We also know that something that is ambiguous can be described differently by different people. I don't know of any "evidence" for ET that is not ambiguous. Why should I Assume that what any witness describes is not their own personal interpretation? I don't envy the task of trying to convey this type of information.

I also know of no court cases where the goal would be to identify something that is not known to exist. How would this work? If there are 10 police officers saying they saw a ufo and all of them "believe" it to be ET, does that make it so or does that only make what they saw "unidentified"?

I agree that it shouldn't be treated like its meaningless but a clear distinction needs to be made between what is subjective belief and what isn't.


You can only take questioning the witness's ability to see what he is looking at so far. For one case, maybe. Maybe they made a mistake. For two cases - well, maybe. But for three or three thousand...it wears a bit thin. People keep describing the same things over and over. They can't all be having the same delusion.


Actually yes, considering how ingrained the abduction myth is in our society and how prevalent it and accounts of it are in the media, it is not surprising that people come up with similar stories at all.


The essential themes of abduction - car engines stalling, the appearance of the greys, the 'examination' etc. - were established before the abduction scenario became common knowledge. Hopkins by himself established the apparent cross breeding program from abductees who did not know each other or each others' stories.


What? That's been the entire story since Betty and Barney Hill and has replicated over and over again. It's been the story since the 1940's. Find me an original, first hand account, of exactly that before all of that, say 1935 and we can talk about it being "before it was common knowledge".


These things have been found in the ufo accounts buried away in the archives long before they were common knowledge. People who never read a ufo magazine had these experiences. B. and B. Hill were not the first to see the 'grey' alien. They did not indicate anything about the hybrid project - that was established by Hopkins from abductees who did not know each other. Much of this is discussed in Jenny Randle's book Abduction.


That's a bit of an assumption on the part of the author that it was "before commonly known." In addition, there is something known as "selection bias" where the researcher puts his or own notions into the research and patients can be influenced patient during interrogation and/or hypnosis.



posted on Mar, 5 2014 @ 03:48 PM
link   

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?
edit on 5-3-2014 by EnPassant because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 5 2014 @ 03:50 PM
link   

EnPassant

draknoir2

EnPassant
reply to post by ZetaRediculian
 


Jenny Randles speaks about a thing called 'doorway amnesia'. Apparently abductees never remember how they get into the ufo. They see it from the outside and then they are inside it without remembering passing through a door. If these were delusions or hoaxes you would expect a lot of people to enter by a door 'with rounded edges', 'oval in shape' 'sliding', 'transparent' etc. etc. etc. This doesn't happen. This is just one piece of evidence that suggests these cases are not hoaxes or delusions.



How is a complete lack of information evidence of anything?



Very simply. It is evidence that the are not making this up because if they were it would be very natural for at least some of them to enter by a door.


But its not evidence that they are not making it up. As stated above, dreams and dream states often switch from "scene to scene" and traumatic and exciting events are often patch worked as well. They could be liars, they could be delusional, they could be telling the truth and it happened exactly as they said, or they could be telling the truth of what they perceived happened but it didn't really happen that way. Trauma can do some odd things to memory.

Evidence that they are telling the truth has nothing to do with the flow of there story--one could say that makes their story convincing or consistent, but not proven. Something other than a story, like matching physical evidence, is more corroborative.




top topics



 
30
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join