Dan Aykroyd tells HuffPost Show hosts he has seen four UFOs

originally posted by: CirqueDeTruth
a reply to: Scdfa

It's true. ATS is not a safe place to talk about contact or abduction of a paranormal kind. Truth is though, Scdfa, I've yet to find any online community - that is right and safe, for that venue of support and conversation.

CdT

Thank you, CirqueDe Truth. You're absolutely right, I'm sorry to say.

if it weren't for the few enlightened, intelligent people like you, I'd be long gone. Thanks for giving me a reason to keep pushing for the truth. I paid an enormous price to learn what I know, and the truth needs to be told.

Keep up the good work, Cirque!

Looking at the Aykroyd stories, has anyone seen any other versions of his midnight alien summons account that has more details to help assess its relation to the actual mid-1986 mass sighting event?

a reply to: Scdfa

Maybe you should start a thread on telling people to start other threads? You whine about it incessantly.

Thank you for your suggestion. maybe that would be a good rant topic? I wouldn't consider that a "whine" though. I just thought it would make a good topic and that it was detracting from the discussion. I am just not seeing the connection to Aykroyd. That's all.

If I'm incorrect about anything I've said regarding CSICOP, let me know.

Like I said, I have no idea about CSICOP or where to find any of the information you are talking about and it doesn't look like I will be any more informed about this matter, but thanks for your feedback. It is something I shall consider. Be well my friend.

originally posted by: CirqueDeTruth
a reply to: Scdfa

It's true. ATS is not a safe place to talk about contact or abduction of a paranormal kind. Truth is though, Scdfa, I've yet to find any online community - that is right and safe, for that venue of support and conversation.

CdT

I am sorry you feel that way. You recently participated in a thread where you shared a lot of personal stories and I thought it went well. I didn't notice anyone making the discussion "unsafe". Actually much of the discussion caused me to reevaluate how I approach and think about the topic, so I was grateful for what you were able to share.

Off topic, but for those wondering whether there was any merit to the complaint about a fuss over astrology that occurred before CSICOP was even founded forty years ago, here's an even-handed summary. As you will note, the claim of 'falsified data' is itself false.

www.notaghost.com...

a reply to: ZetaRediculian

Like I said, I have no idea about CSICOP or where to find any of the information you are talking about and it doesn't look like I will be any more informed about this matter

Poor guy, just nowhere to find information. Have you heard of the internet?

And I'm afraid your posts are off-topic. Oh wait, I forgot, I am your topic.

originally posted by: JimOberg
Off topic, but for those wondering whether there was any merit to the complaint about a fuss over astrology that occurred before CSICOP was even founded forty years ago, here's an even-handed summary. As you will note, the claim of 'falsified data' is itself false.

www.notaghost.com...

Jim,
is it true that in 2004 your organization CSICOP was accused of scientific misconduct for your biased findings in a Discovery Channel examination of a woman's psychic abilities?

Do I have that right?

And these charges come from a Cambridge University physics professor?

Actually he was a Nobel prize winning Physicist, Brian Josephson. This is a quote from him:

"On the face of it, it looks as if there was some kind of plot to discredit the teenage claimed psychic by setting up the conditions to make it likely that they could pass her off as a failure."

And the great Carl Sagan himself said that the "criticism of CSICOP is to some degree justified". Is that correct?
"

a reply to: Scdfa

Actually, it is You who do the opposite. If you're honestly searching for facts of UFOs and aliens, you should be asking me.

Ugh-
That's cute psychology Scdfa. Just reverse what someone says to you back onto them, very clever. Never seen you do that one before. :/

I'm apparently one of a very few on this site who does not have to rely on information from others or even the historical record to know for certain that alien contact and alien abductions are a matter of fact. Not a matter of idle speculation, and not a matter of fantasy or wishful thinking. An absolute fact.

My question was about Dan Aykroyd and what you based your "resounding NO" on after reading Jim Obergs article. Remember, the topic of the thread? I guess you're refusing to address it?

And I'll tell you why I'm one of the few on here who knows. It's because you people chased them out. The anger, the insults, the attacks by haughty illiterates, it's absurd and offensive. No one who knows would put up with the small minded, venomous attacks.

You can always sign up with a different username >wink< and start anew. Can the mocking, spelling and grammar corrections, chauvanism, defensive behavior, obsessive "gotcha" (in your mind) moments dragged into other threads, off topic Scdfa-centric responses, and overall negative attitude. You'll be better received.

If you want to effectively argue a point with someone, talk to the point, not around it.

------------------------------------------

originally posted by: JimOberg
Looking at the Aykroyd stories, has anyone seen any other versions of his midnight alien summons account that has more details to help assess its relation to the actual mid-1986 mass sighting event?

Every story I've seen or heard him tell in regard to the spiral, carries the same basic details:

- Mid 80's.
- Upstate New York, Ontario, etc. - Northeastern U.S.
- Thousands of witnesses.
- "Pink" Spiral.
- Chinese rocket explanation.
- Reported in the media- TV, radio, newspapers, etc.

It's obviously the August 12, 1986 Chinese rocket launch you mention in your article.
I don't think anyone can successfully challenge the story and that date. Scdfa?

a reply to: Scdfa

Poor guy, just nowhere to find information. Have you heard of the internet?

Ha! Yes, that was silly on my part. I did do a quick search but I came up empty. The link Jim provided answered my questions though.

And I'm afraid your posts are off-topic. Oh wait, I forgot, I am your topic.

They ARE slightly off topic but there was a link to a CSICOP sight with information relevant to the topic. I am not sure who "you" are but yes, your posts are intriguing and have left me somewhat baffled. Their tone "seems" somewhat sarcastic and angry but that could just be me reading more into it than is there. Thank you for your continued responses.

a reply to: bluemooone2

I think Dan is great. He is inquisitive and pragmatic with what he has seen and heard. Can any of the doubters here prove what they did just yesterday? How? Witnesses? Bah, hearsay. Video? Eh, not likely. Memory? Faulty of course. Definitive proof is hard to come by for so many things! Sightings over centuries, long before anything mechanical flew or went under the sea.... mass sightings mentioned in historical writings..... picture, video, multiple eyewitness accounts from respected military personnel, pilots, police.... all fake? I've seen stuff in the sky I can't explain and I do have scientific studies in my background and how to analyze "clues" in order to theorize and a great deal of curiosity in many fields. There Is (are) Something(s) Out There!

originally posted by: jaxnmarko
a reply to: bluemooone2
..... all fake? ..... There Is (are) Something(s) Out There!

This is a common argument that often precedes the call to turn away from the stories under discussion and 'move on' to other cases. Doesn't it boil down to admitting, "Don't look at any single case TOO closely, you might find out unhelpful stuff, especially about celebrity cases that are good propaganda, so treat all evidence superficially." Hmm? And by the way, I know there are some people like this, but have you ever actually found anyone posting seriously here who claims they are 'all fake'? Name them, please, or modify your assertion if needed.

Do you think Aykroyd's description of his midnight UFO message is related to the 1986 event, or not? And if not, is there any other documented event remotely similar that could be a candidate?

Do you agree that the 1986 event as described is satisfactorilly explained as the Chinese rocket fuel dump? If not, please, why not?

a reply to: bluemooone2

So, he's seen four aerial 'constructs'? In the age of RPV, hobby-craft copters and even holograms that can be projected, why is there a picture of a green EBE next to him.

Irrelevant.

I don't see where he's said he's seen them land and the pilot step out for a smoke.

originally posted by: Scdfa
a reply to: Ectoplasm8

I'm apparently one of a very few on this site who does not have to rely on information

Apparently.

originally posted by: draknoir2

originally posted by: Scdfa
a reply to: Ectoplasm8

I'm apparently one of a very few on this site who does not have to rely on information

Apparently.

You cut my sentence in half to fraudulently alter its content and meaning.
That isn't quoting me, Draknoir, it is lying about me.

Thank you for showing us how low debunkers will sink to twist the truth to suit their agenda. And I see you have a star for your lie, good job, "truth seekers"!

It's almost funny, the debunkers claim they have science and reality on their side, yet they always have to twist the truth and rely on deception. It makes you wonder how weak their position actually is.

Do they have a case at all if they have to resort to pathetic tricks like deliberate misquoting?.

They are showing us the answer.

a reply to: Maverick7

Now you are totally misquoting and you may need to watch that again. I will admit that they are often mistaken (especially in pics and videos these days) however, you are jumping to too many conclusions here with next to no facts to do so.

originally posted by: Scdfa
You cut my sentence in half to fraudulently alter its content and meaning.

That isn't quoting me, Draknoir, it is lying about me.

Thank you for showing us how low debunkers will sink to twist the truth to suit their agenda. And I see you have a star for your lie, good job, "truth seekers"!

It's almost funny, the debunkers claim they have science and reality on their side, yet they always have to twist the truth and rely on deception. It makes you wonder how weak their position actually is.

Do they have a case at all if they have to resort to pathetic tricks like deliberate misquoting?.

They are showing us the answer.

Uh, time for a "tu quoque" maneuver....

originally posted by: Scdfa
Here is a quote from Gordon Cooper from the UFO documentary "Out of the Blue":
"I.... Most astronauts were reluctant to discuss UFOs".

Here's what Cooper ACTUALLY said:
"I would also like to point out that most astronauts are very reluctant to even discuss UFOs due to the great numbers of people who have indiscriminately sold fake stories and forged documents abusing their names and reputations without hesitation."

www.ufoevidence.org...

Thanks for explaining what such a trick tells about the trickster. Pot, meet kettle.

originally posted by: Scdfa

originally posted by: draknoir2

originally posted by: Scdfa
a reply to: Ectoplasm8

I'm apparently one of a very few on this site who does not have to rely on information

Apparently.

You cut my sentence in half to fraudulently alter its content and meaning.
That isn't quoting me, Draknoir, it is lying about me.

Thought that was fairly obvious.

It's not lying about you, though.

You do not rely on actual information... in fact, you offer little to none while demanding it of others.

Your "Fox Lies" fail is a perfect example.

a reply to: draknoir2

Thought that was fairly obvious.

Unless you are a Jedi.

... in fact, you offer little to none while demanding it of others.

And then completely ignores it when its given!

a reply to: JimOberg

First, still waiting for you to explain this:

is it true that in 2004 your organization CSICOP was accused of scientific misconduct for your biased findings in a Discovery Channel examination of a woman's psychic abilities?

Do I have that right?

And these charges come from a Cambridge University physics professor?

Actually he was a Nobel prize winning Physicist, Brian Josephson. This is a quote from him:

"On the face of it, it looks as if there was some kind of plot to discredit the teenage claimed psychic by setting up the conditions to make it likely that they could pass her off as a failure."

And the great Carl Sagan himself said that the "criticism of CSICOP is to some degree justified". Is that correct?
"
Pot. Kettle. Heat.