John Mack and Alien Disclosure

originally posted by: ChaoticOrder
many people come out of the experience feeling as though there was something religious about it, but that is simply a charade to hide the fact that they're just physical intelligent life forms conducting some sort of experiment.

And that statement seems to me to be a leap of faith in and of itself.

They may not be physical flying around in nuts and bolts crafts. Intelligent as we understand it, also might be up for debate.

imo...man is completely incapable of understanding this phenomenon due to his arrogant primitive reliance on physics and science; that is in a complete, constant state of flux. What man experiences with his limited sense organs is only a tiny minuscule piece of the actual cosmos and what we can't experience we shouldn't even try and describe. Dr. Mack included.

I opened the doors of perception just a crack and what I saw inside was completely outside the realm of human understanding. My only analogy is "that you can explain the rules of poker to a pig but why bother."

originally posted by: LogicalRazor

originally posted by: AlienView

originally posted by: LogicalRazor
He was ridiculed and ignored because this guy never had any direct or credible evidence, yet made bold claims that aliens had/have visited earth & he based it solely on hearsay and stories that other people told. Very unscientific & deserving of mocking.

THAT IS NOT TRUE - That is your statement devoid of the truth!

Kindly point me to where I can review direct factual evidence that can be tested, observed or analyzed. Other than the third person stories, dreams and fuzzy memories of alleged abductions, I mean.

Again you spin it your way and are distorting the facts. Fact is Mack, who at first was very-skeptical, began to analyze these so-called abductees and then started to believe that the stories were not 'dreams and fuzzy memories of alleged abductions' and that the experiencers of the abductions were neither delusional or suffering from any form of mental illness. Originally there were 200 cases and the details can probably be found in his books.

Like the famous author William James from way back when to modern writers such as Jacques Vallee [a computer scientist before he became a ufologist] - the spiritual dimension of existence is accepted as fact - If your science and your logic says no to this then I would suggest you accept your own paradigm of reality and dismiss Mack, James, Vallee, and even Carl Jung as delusional spiritualists not worth of your time. Others, such as yours truly, while agreeing that not much is being 'proven' as to the nature of external or alternate dimensions of reality, still find the subject interesting, if not fascinating, so we will continue our studies of these dimensions of mind and/or reality.
And then again modern day physics gives us quantum mechanics and its implications may yet open the gates to the reaity which your current observation and logic says is illogical and unreal.

originally posted by: St Udio
a reply to: AlienView


here is a link where Prof. Mack was quite sure that Aliens, their manifestation to our intellectual consciousness... had a Spiritual framework...

I will eventually find the very clear writings where Prof Mack put both the Spirit Molecule visions And Alien Encounters experiences on par with each other... (i.e. were one in the same cause)


experiencers.com...

Thanks for the link St Udio, excellent article - and I agree with the concepts - apparently so did Mack. It comes down to paradgms of reality and what they mean and imply - And in the new age where quantum physics stands as provable the observer is an essential part of any paradigm of reality - and almost anything is possible.

a reply to: LogicalRazor

DR JOHN MACK THREAD ATS MAY 2014

a reply to: LogicalRazor

It appears that your perspective has been seduced by the fallacy

that

REALITY is vulnerable to discovery

ONLY

by rigid, linear, tangible, repetitiously "provable" phenomena which can be measured with gauges, scales, meters . . .

That's certainly a perspective which the RELIGION OF SCIENTISM exalts in and propagandizes about ad nauseam.

NEVERTHELESS . . .

some of us have lived long enough to realize that

LIFE is SO COMPLEX that it simply REFUSES to be packaged into such tidy little boxes playing such tidy little games apprehendable only by those of tidy little categories filling tidy little high priest roles for the RELIGION OF SCIENTISM . . . and

SHOUTING DOWN all who fail to KOWTOW sufficiently obediently to the dogmas of the RELIGION OF SCIENTISM and the POLITICAL edicts flowing therefrom.

Dr Mack et al have done a great service to collect together a ton of personal narratives. They've been incredibly professional, objective, fair-minded and respectful of the personal stories and persons involved.

Human history is LARGELY a vast repository OF JUST SUCH NARRATIVES added to over the centuries.

The arrogance of our RELIGION OF SCIENTISM ERA is that ONLY OUR perspective and ONLY OUR methodologies bounded by the RELIGION OF SCIENTISM DOGMA AND METHODS

can fittingly be allowed to be called anything like TRUTH.

Balderdash.

Truth did quite admirably well before the RELIGION OF SCIENTISM reared its arrogant head. That cult is, after all, a rather Johnny-come-lately-to-the-party INTERLOPER. Useful on occasion . . . but far from sufficient to bet everything on.

Go ahead and continue to convince yourself that ONLY the RELIGION OF SCIENTISM VETTED AND APPROVED analysis has anything to offer of a useful nature.

Trouble is . . . that perspective,

THAT BELIEF

is a very flawed PORTION only . . . of reality.

Many things are not apprehendable by the slicing and dicing method of discovery.

Phenomenological methodologies have produced a LOT of progress and insights over the centuries, too.

You might ask your spouse/partner whether they'd PREFER to be

KNOWN by the dissecting, slicing and dicing methodology

vs

the PHENOMENOLOGICALLY KNOWN BY EXPERIENCING ONE'S DEPTH e.g. ADAM KNEW EVE in sexual intercourse.

BOTH methodologies have short comings . . . particularly with some sphere's of reality.

The RELIGION OF SCIENTISM cultivates a kind of arrogance that convinces its acolytes that WHEN they have complied sufficiently with the dogma . . . that TRUTH MUST come out the other end.

Nonsense. Often, all that comes out is cud chewed 12 times over and vetted 144 times by all the politically correct Bishops and Popes of the cult.

WHEN reality is offering up extremely complex, confusing, mixed message 'realities,' THE RELIGION OF SCIENTISM may be AWASH in confusing results for a very long time.

SOMETIMES, FAR TOO LONG for safety or effective decision making.

originally posted by: St Udio
a reply to: AlienView


here is a link where Prof. Mack was quite sure that Aliens, their manifestation to our intellectual consciousness... had a Spiritual framework...

I will eventually find the very clear writings where Prof Mack put both the Spirit Molecule visions And Alien Encounters experiences on par with each other... (i.e. were one in the same cause)


experiencers.com...

Unfortunately, none of his ideas or theories were based on sound science. They weren't even based on either indirect or observable phenomenon. It was just ideas he thought up to help support his theories. That isn't science, nor is it the path to discovery.

a reply to: BO XIAN


The major (And important) difference is that science has no problem accepting error or change. So long as evidence can be presented to be analyzed and scrutinized to support any claims. Where our senses fail us, technology has helped us understand and prove correct/incorrect. Metaphysics, spiritualism & religion on the other hand, is based purely on faith and fantasy with no evidence to support the claims.

a reply to: LogicalRazor

. . . religion on the other hand, is based purely on faith and fantasy with no evidence to support the claims.

WRONG.

I don't think that the prophets of Baal found the prophet of God devoid of

"evidence to support" his claims.

I don't think that Pharoah as he died in the Red Sea waters with his army thought that Moses was devoid of

"evidence to support" his claims.

I don't think that the 500 plus witnesses to Jesus' Resurrected body eating and fellow-shipping with the believers to be devoid of

"evidence to support" His claims.

When it rained on 4 sides of our drying hay but not on our hay after Mother's prayer, we didn't think that our Faith in God was devoid of

"evidence to support" God's claims on our lives as our Heavenly Father.

etc. etc.

It is folly to think that ONLY the RELIGION OF SCIENTISM cult has a monopoly on

PROOF OF TRUTH.

Dr Mack et al have provided a LOT of evidence that can be affirmed, refined, verified, whatever . . . by additional similar data.

Just because it doesn't fit precisely inside one's own personal micrometer . . . probably doesn't concern THE TRUTH, at all.

a reply to: LogicalRazor

Actually, "SCIENCE" has throughout its short history

DEMONSTRATED A TON of problems admitting error, at all.

Usually, the political winds had to change

BEFORE "SCIENCE" could admit in mixed company . . . a new discovery or "truth."

originally posted by: MarrsAttax
a reply to: Ectoplasm8


That's not quite fair. It was more the fact that as a psychologist he was unable to explain the accounts prosaically i.e the patients were not insane but they displayed symptoms that were indicative of actual trauma. When he had ruled out conventional explanations he had to consider the possibility that what the patients were telling him actually happened as they said it had.

Don't you see it doesn't matter? If he was a Harvard professor with a personal opinion of these cases, or he was Joe Blow off the street claiming he was abducted. It's either true, or it's not. The degree of an opinion or belief doesn't make a case anymore of a fact. Eliminating the crazy from the sane, doesn't make the case anymore of a fact. Factual evidence makes a case a fact. Factual evidence should be demanded from a branch of a phenomenon that not only is claimed to be a physical alien-to-human one, but one that is claimed to go on for hours inside of a spaceship, and one that happens hundreds of times. Sometimes multiple times to the same person!

This type of weak-leveled eyewitness testimony only means something to believers. They think piling this on to all of the other weak evidence cases makes for a strong case. No, it doesn't. It's still a conglomeration of weak cases. All it would take is a single case, with a single piece of physical evidence in order to prove we're being visited by aliens. That's it. That's it from a claimed physical encounter that has happened to hundreds of people for decades. Not an unreasonable request.

a reply to: Ectoplasm8

NONSENSE.

There are MORE THAN 4,000 trace landing cases verified via a scientifically trained team in a scientific sort of methodology.

I've not read of any of y'all's perspective to be

THE LEAST BIT INFLUENCED

FROM YOUR

BELIEFS

about such

BY THE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE.

So, PLEASE, spare me the haughty wails about the quality of evidence.

Even quality scientific evidence is NOT ACCEPTED as valid by the prissy naysayers . . . nor will it likely be . . . until an orb lands in their laps and castrates them.

ufoevidence.org...

ARBITRARY

DISBELIEF . . . is also a BELIEF issue.

a reply to: BO XIAN
You're joking, correct? You claim scientific (in all caps no less) evidence and link a UFO biased website for that scientific evidence. Funny.

Excitable double spacing and all caps... Boy, I guess you really believe these UFOs are landing and abducting people, huh?

a reply to: BO XIAN

Can you please explain what all the pretty colours in your posts mean? I thought blue meant 'acid indigestion' but I could be wrong...

Since Ectoplasm8 is an 'orthodox debunker' we must use some 'orthodox science' to make a point he 'may' accept.

For example this quote from an article on Wikipedia titled "Quantum mechanics":

"The Everett many-worlds interpretation, formulated in 1956, holds that all the possibilities described by quantum theory simultaneously occur in a multiverse composed of mostly independent parallel universes. This is not accomplished by introducing some "new axiom" to quantum mechanics, but on the contrary, by removing the axiom of the collapse of the wave packet. All of the possible consistent states of the measured system and the measuring apparatus (including the observer) are present in a real physical - not just formally mathematical, as in other interpretations - quantum superposition. Such a superposition of consistent state combinations of different systems is called an entangled state. While the multiverse is deterministic, we perceive non-deterministic behavior governed by probabilities, because we can observe only the universe (i.e., the consistent state contribution to the aforementioned superposition) that we, as observers, inhabit. Everett's interpretation is perfectly consistent with John Bell's experiments and makes them intuitively understandable. However, according to the theory of quantum decoherence, these "parallel universes" will never be accessible to us. The inaccessibility can be understood as follows: once a measurement is done, the measured system becomes entangled with both the physicist who measured it and a huge number of other particles, some of which are photons flying away at the speed of light towards the other end of the universe. In order to prove that the wave function did not collapse, one would have to bring all these particles back and measure them again, together with the system that was originally measured. Not only is this completely impractical, but even if one could theoretically do this, it would have to destroy any evidence that the original measurement took place (to include the physicist's memory!); in light of these Bell tests, Cramer (1986) formulated his transactional interpretation. Relational quantum mechanics appeared in the late 1990s as the modern derivative of the Copenhagen Interpretation."
See whole article here:
en.wikipedia.org...

You will notice that it says "according to the theory of quantum decoherence, these "parallel universes" will never be accessible to us" - that is the current thinking - but the fact that these parallell universes [or paradigms of reality] exist might lead someone with an open mind to speculate that others from the already accepted other parallel dimensions have figured out how to do it and are in fact visiting - Yes I know this is still speculation but it is a speculation built on 'living science' not on the inquisitional mind of the none-believer/debunker.

a reply to: BO XIAN

All ectoplasm8 did was ask you for verifiable, non-anecdotal evidence.

You didn't need to make such a hysterical drama out of admitting you don't have any.

a reply to: AlienView

I'm not trying to hijack your thread but I'm curious as to what happened to the following thread:
JOHN MACK - A major motion picture., page 1 - Above Top Secret
Such experiences leave amazed. John E. Mack A respected psychiatrist, Pulitzer Prize Winner and Harvard Professor undermines his entire ...
www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread1014014/pg1

It diasappeared and when one searches it is found but when you click on it the page that comes up is a:
404 PAGE NOT FOUND!

Anyone have a clue?

originally posted by: St Udio
I had previously replied to a John Mack thread... which sought dialogue on the Alien Abduction phenomena

which is very close to the theme of "Alien Disclosure" of this thread...

in both cases, John Mack made a not unrealistic linkage between Alien Encounters (contact or abduction) with the fundamental reaction of our Human brain/mind...

i.e. our individual & collective mind create the 'Spirit Molecule' (produced by human brains) and have created these 'otherworldly' manifestations which are as-real-as the-day-is-long to the one who experiences these 'Aliens'/'Abduction' events

I think this kind of thinking can be taken too far. Eventually it is posited that there is no universe at all - no objective reality - only our minds. But even at this rate are there not other minds besides our own? Yes, the abduction experience is subjective but I am convinced there is an objective reality to it and our experience of it is close enough to what is there.

a reply to: BO XIAN
You speak with such disdain and mockery while supporting someone who believes people have been abducted by alien beings based on the stories they have told. Somehow, Macks personal belief magically translates into facts for you, to which you feel you can argue and speak with conviction that abductions are actually happening. Sorry, that sounds slightly delusional.

Mack mentions in the appendix of a revised published paperback:

From my perspective, the physical evidence is important to corroborate the experiencers reports. But if taken out of this context, the physical phenomena are rarely sufficiently robust to stand in their own right. If, for example, I were to publish photographs of skin lesions, even from several experiencers who obtained them in the same night during reported abductions (as occurred in one case in Florida), I would, as a physician, be leaving myself open to the legitimate criticism by dermatologists that I could not prove that they were directly related to the abduction experiences and not caused by other factors.

So, providing any physical evidence to these cases is removed by Mack himself (and rightly so) because even in conjunction with these stories, it could be explained away by other Earthly causes. So again, you're left with believing a story and the degree that someone believes that story.

Providing "evidence" from biased sources of other unrelated branches of this phenomenon has nothing to do with the point of this thread- John Macks view on alien abductions. What you're showing is something I already pointed out in my previous post. An attempt by believers to glom this case and that case and the other case to try and show as a group, it's strong evidence. No... it's only evidence that this claimed physical phenomenon cannot provide a single piece of substantial physical evidence even after many decades and many many reports.

You think you can post a coherent thought and response, rather than nonsensical ramblings?

Again I quote:

The Everett many-worlds interpretation, formulated in 1956, holds that all the possibilities described by quantum theory simultaneously occur in a multiverse composed of mostly independent parallel universes. This is not accomplished by introducing some "new axiom" to quantum mechanics, but on the contrary, by removing the axiom of the collapse of the wave packet. All of the possible consistent states of the measured system and the measuring apparatus (including the observer) are present in a real physical - not just formally mathematical, as in other interpretations - quantum superposition. Such a superposition of consistent state combinations of different systems is called an entangled state. While the multiverse is deterministic, we perceive non-deterministic behavior governed by probabilities, because we can observe only the universe (i.e., the consistent state contribution to the aforementioned superposition) that we, as observers, inhabit. Everett's interpretation is perfectly consistent with John Bell's experiments and makes them intuitively understandable.

So Ectoplasm8 you as usual demand solid physical evidence as proof - OK it is not yet available. BUT if one accepts the concepts of Quantum Mechanics and what it tells us the existence of parallel universes is not speculative but is fact and only a fool would rule out other intelligences in such a universe - And the importance of the observer still must be part of the observation. In this world observations of alien life when received from people who are judged to be sane and not delusional is significant. The fact that you can not disprove observations judged to be valid by external analysis is all that is necessary for us for now to debunk the debunker.