Fear of Outcomes: UFOlogy vs Astrobiology Distrust Explained

originally posted by: Scdfa

Dr.Mack theorized that these aliens may be coming from some other dimension of reality, possibly a parallel universe.

Well now. So much for your sleep paralysis theory.

Did you find the studies that prove your theory yet? No?

even though I don't know what it's about and where it's going. It's a mystery, and I want to stress my agnosticism."

Have you?

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: Scdfa

but...but...the real research at a real university

Said real university was none too thrilled about his real research.

In May 1994, the Dean of Harvard Medical School, Daniel C. Tosteson, appointed a committee of peers to confidentially review Mack's clinical care and clinical investigation of the people who had shared their alien encounters with him (some of their cases were written of in Mack's 1994 book Abduction). In the same BBC article cited above, Angela Hind wrote, "It was the first time in Harvard's history that a tenured professor was subjected to such an investigation." Mack described the investigation as "Kafkaesque": he never quite knew the status of the ongoing investigation, and the nature of his critics' complaints were not revealed to Mack until the committee had prepared a draft report eight months into the process. Because the committee was not a disciplinary committee, it was not governed by any established rules of procedure; the presentation of a defense was therefore difficult and costly for Mack. The committee chairman was Arnold "Budd" Relman, M.D., a Professor of Medicine and of Social Medicine at Harvard Medical School who served as editor of the New England Journal of Medicine. According to Daniel Sheehan, Mack's attorney, the committee's draft report “finds that it is professionally irresponsible for any academic, scholar or practicing psychiatrist to give any credence whatsoever to any personal report of a direct personal contact between a human being and an Extraterrestrial Being until after the person...has been subjected to every possible available battery of standard psychological tests which might conceivably explain the report as the product of some known form of clinical psychosis....To communicate, in any way whatsoever, to a person who has reported a ‘close encounter’ with an Extraterrestrial life form that this experience might well have been real...is professionally irresponsible.”[7]

Any implied endorsement is complete B.S..

originally posted by: Scdfa

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian

originally posted by: Scdfa
a reply to: ZetaRediculian

Trouble with nuance? Not surprised.

Yep, He was right that alien abductions are real, and he was wrong when he doubted they took on a physical nature.

Budd Hopkins understood the nature of alien abductions better than Mack did. But Mack got the most important facts right; alien abductees are telling the truth, and alien abductions are real, with profound implications for humanity.

but...but...the real research at a real university. Your writing style is a little convoluted and unclear

The hell it is.

Troll along, you waste of space. The best you can do is to parrot my words.

Ouch! but really, your writing is convoluted in so many ways. its only real research at a real university until an artist with absolutely no education like Budd Hopkins comes along and proves the real research wrong? And then what real research at a real university was ever done to prove aliens are here abducting people? none, right? but were supposed to believe your first hand account? And wait, isn't JadeStar doing real research at a real university? I think you just negated everything you ever made up! too funny! Troll along, you waste of space. your words came back in your face! troll away, you loose...troll away, you loose!

a reply to: draknoir2
Oh absolutely. Harvard wanted nothing to do with his real research at their real university! The statement is wrong on so many levels. here's another. Real research by real universities have shown that hypnosis does not recover real memories. So much for real abduction research.

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

Oh yes the Michalak case from Canada. Again it is one of those odd ones with some real evidence (Michalak's injuries) I haven't crossed that one off my promising list. It is very odd. It is similar in some ways to the Bob Taylor case from Scotland. It is the only UFO case in the United Kingdom to have been subject of a criminal investigation because Taylor was injured during the encounter.

Even the UFO he described does not fit any regular conception of how many would describe a UFO.



Weird and I don't rule out anything in that case. But I don't want to sidetrack the thread discussing these cases. They maybe worth a revisit in their own threads somewhere down the line.

When our pal Scdfella says

All of the best cases added together, being just evidence on their own, but to me, all together they become undeniable proof.

From someone who spends a lot their days 'analyzing data' (maybe I've even analyzed some of yours ) I would say that putting together all these cases does not collectively make them undeniable proof. Because not one of those cases (as yet) has turned up any undeniable proof. The size of the pool of evidence does not increase the probabilityin that case. In fact if UFO sightings were a lot rarer then perhaps it would make things easier to sort the wheat from the chaff.

I think that is where we differ. I am not always looking for a UFO case to be an alien encounter. I rather look to solve the mystery (if I can!)

I do accept that we all have different perspectives and where things are not black and white we all make our own mind up. That doesn't mean I don't entertain the possibility aliens might be out there either. Just that I haven't seen the proof to satisfy myself as yet.

BTW if you do have that clip of Michalak impersonating an alien I would like to see that.
MM

a reply to: mirageman

From someone who spends a lot their days 'analyzing data' (maybe I've even analyzed some of yours
) I would say that putting together all these cases does not collectively make them undeniable proof. Because not one of those cases (as yet) has turned up any undeniable proof. The size of the pool of evidence does not increase the probabilityin that case. In fact if UFO sightings were a lot rarer then perhaps it would make things easier to sort the wheat from the chaff.

I think that anyone that understands what "analyzing data" means understands this. It is really an interesting problem because some of the cases are really interesting all on their own. What people don't understand is that when you reduce the cases to "data" to be analyzed, it takes away any initial subjective impression. What we are left with are objective facts and the only thing you can get from that type of analysis is that there are things that people see that they cant identify. The size of the pool has zero impact because aliens are simply not known to exist. Once one or two aliens show up, its a different story.

a reply to: ZetaRediculian

How many falses does it take to make a truth?

originally posted by: draknoir2
a reply to: ZetaRediculian

How many falses does it take to make a truth?

Good question. In our data, we can score a true (1) for every alien we find and false (0) every time we don't find an alien. In order for our data to be considered positive for aliens, we simply add the numbers up and if the numbers add up to a number greater than 0, we have aliens. So the number of falses to make a true is...carry the one...50,0064. But it really depends on how many times you can tolerate being called a troll by the forum troll.

originally posted by: draknoir2

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: Scdfa

but...but...the real research at a real university

Said real university was none too thrilled about his real research.

In May 1994, the Dean of Harvard Medical School, Daniel C. Tosteson, appointed a committee of peers to confidentially review Mack's clinical care and clinical investigation of the people who had shared their alien encounters with him (some of their cases were written of in Mack's 1994 book Abduction). In the same BBC article cited above, Angela Hind wrote, "It was the first time in Harvard's history that a tenured professor was subjected to such an investigation." Mack described the investigation as "Kafkaesque": he never quite knew the status of the ongoing investigation, and the nature of his critics' complaints were not revealed to Mack until the committee had prepared a draft report eight months into the process. Because the committee was not a disciplinary committee, it was not governed by any established rules of procedure; the presentation of a defense was therefore difficult and costly for Mack. The committee chairman was Arnold "Budd" Relman, M.D., a Professor of Medicine and of Social Medicine at Harvard Medical School who served as editor of the New England Journal of Medicine. According to Daniel Sheehan, Mack's attorney, the committee's draft report “finds that it is professionally irresponsible for any academic, scholar or practicing psychiatrist to give any credence whatsoever to any personal report of a direct personal contact between a human being and an Extraterrestrial Being until after the person...has been subjected to every possible available battery of standard psychological tests which might conceivably explain the report as the product of some known form of clinical psychosis....To communicate, in any way whatsoever, to a person who has reported a ‘close encounter’ with an Extraterrestrial life form that this experience might well have been real...is professionally irresponsible.”[7]

Any implied endorsement is complete B.S..

I notice you stopped reporting about the incident before Harvard decided to support his research into alien abductions.

But that's what you best, dreknoir2, like when you edited my posts to change the entire meaning and tried to pass it off as my quote.

Of course he faced opposition from establishment, but it is underhanded of you to pretend that Harvard didn't finally put their support and confidence behind Mack.

Typical Drek from drecknoir.

I wonder about you deniers;if you have the weight of logic and science on your side as you claim, why do you always resort to distorting the facts and twisting the truth?

I'm beginning to think you don't have any case at all.

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian

originally posted by: Scdfa

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian

originally posted by: Scdfa
a reply to: ZetaRediculian

Trouble with nuance? Not surprised.

Yep, He was right that alien abductions are real, and he was wrong when he doubted they took on a physical nature.

Budd Hopkins understood the nature of alien abductions better than Mack did. But Mack got the most important facts right; alien abductees are telling the truth, and alien abductions are real, with profound implications for humanity.

but...but...the real research at a real university. Your writing style is a little convoluted and unclear

The hell it is.

Troll along, you waste of space. The best you can do is to parrot my words.

Ouch! but really, your writing is convoluted in so many ways. its only real research at a real university until an artist with absolutely no education like Budd Hopkins comes along and proves the real research wrong? And then what real research at a real university was ever done to prove aliens are here abducting people? none, right? but were supposed to believe your first hand account? And wait, isn't JadeStar doing real research at a real university? I think you just negated everything you ever made up! too funny! Troll along, you waste of space.

your words came back in your face! troll away, you loose...troll away, you loose!

Your ignorance is showing. It was Budd Hopkins who convinced John Mack to study alien abductions in the first place.

Mack was stunned by Budd Hopkins' work, and then began to research alien abductions.

Try doing some research before you sound like a fool.

Too late.

a reply to: Scdfa
Huh?

Are you really going to make me spell it out for you?

a reply to: Scdfa

Harvard never "supported" his work. They just couldn't stop it. A not so subtle difference which is typically lost on the likes of you.

Because you don't rely on facts, Scudfail. You said so yourself as I directly quoted. And it was the absolute truth.

originally posted by: mirageman
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

Oh yes the Michalak case from Canada. Again it is one of those odd ones with some real evidence (Michalak's injuries) I haven't crossed that one off my promising list. It is very odd. It is similar in some ways to the Bob Taylor case from Scotland. It is the only UFO case in the United Kingdom to have been subject of a criminal investigation because Taylor was injured during the encounter.

Even the UFO he described does not fit any regular conception of how many would describe a UFO.

Weird and I don't rule out anything in that case. But I don't want to sidetrack the thread discussing these cases. They maybe worth a revisit in their own threads somewhere down the line.

When our pal Scdfella says

All of the best cases added together, being just evidence on their own, but to me, all together they become undeniable proof.

From someone who spends a lot their days 'analyzing data' (maybe I've even analyzed some of yours

) I would say that putting together all these cases does not collectively make them undeniable proof. Because not one of those cases (as yet) has turned up any undeniable proof. The size of the pool of evidence does not increase the probabilityin that case. In fact if UFO sightings were a lot rarer then perhaps it would make things easier to sort the wheat from the chaff.

I think that is where we differ. I am not always looking for a UFO case to be an alien encounter. I rather look to solve the mystery (if I can!)

I do accept that we all have different perspectives and where things are not black and white we all make our own mind up. That doesn't mean I don't entertain the possibility aliens might be out there either. Just that I haven't seen the proof to satisfy myself as yet.

BTW if you do have that clip of Michalak impersonating an alien I would like to see that.
MM

I will have to make the clip of Michalak impersonating the aliens he heard inside that craft from a documentary I have, and it will fit within the confines of being fair use, so I will get to that later tonight and see if I can get it done.

And you mentioned Scdfa and how all of the best cases together constitutes undeniable proof, I agree with him 100%.

He is one of the few on this site that have the presence of mind to understand the data and what it means. Many people in the world have seen things and been witness to things that simply can't be human technology. I have seen it, I have friends in high places who know this stuff and what it is.
They can't stop knowing it for what it is simply because people who do not know what's going on don't get it. Those same people who don't understand are those who always scream about those who DO. It is not the fault of those who do know for the ones who don't having problems with all of it, and yet they are always targeting those who understand it as if they are wrong, and are faulty for believing/knowing what they know.

What this boils down to is sociological barriers and psychological limitations that people put upon themselves as a way to deal with things they do not understand.

And since it is impossible for those who have never witnessed things close and personal to just take someone' who has' word for it, we will continue to fight over the whole thing. (LOL)

originally posted by: draknoir2
a reply to: Scdfa

Harvard never "supported" his work. They just couldn't stop it. A not so subtle difference which is typically lost on the likes of you.

Because you don't rely on facts, Scudfail. You said so yourself as I directly quoted. And it was the absolute truth.

You are still lying about me, dreknoir2, and I don't take kindly to it.

You did not quote me directly, you cut my sentence in half to change the meaning. Then you posted it, and attributed it to me.

That was a lie. Now you repeat that lie, and again attempt to attribute it to me.

That makes you a liar again.

Actually, it just makes you a liar.

On the matter of Professor Mack, here is what Harvard had to say about his research into alien abductions:

Harvard issued a statement stating that they "reaffirmed Dr. Mack's academic freedom to study what he wishes and to state his opinions without impediment," concluding "Dr. Mack remains a member in good standing of the Harvard Faculty of Medicine.

You characterize that as an attempt to STOP him.

I characterized it as supporting him.

People can interpret the direct quote for themselves.

Unless you cut it in half.

a reply to: Scdfa

Draknoir2 is right in that Harvard didn't endorse or support Mack with his conclusions of alien abductions being real. They supported the freedom for him to continue his research. Two totally different things.

a reply to: Scdfa

Let me explain it to you since its not clear to you.

You wanted someone to follow a standard to "prove" something to you.

I would ask you, though: What test, what study established this to be definitive proof that alien abductions claims are in fact simply sleep paralysis? What universities were involved, and how many alien abductees were studied? How long did the study go on?

Apparently this standard doesn't apply to anything you have claimed. What test, what study established definitive proof for alien contact? What universities were involved...etc.,

and then

I will point to what the real research, done at a real university found:

First it is pretty clear that Harvard did not "support" Mack's research nor was it "done" at Harvard. This was something he did on his own.
Next, this "real" research was wrong so It doesn't even meet your standards to begin with.

Either way, Budd Hopkins was right and Mack was wrong.

but...but...the nuance! Budd Hopkins doesn't qualify by your standards anyway.
What "real" research at a real university have you ever sited?

Here are some links to real research (that I am sure are wrong too but do meet your academic standards) for you to get started on your research since you seem so interested in understanding the academic point of view.

Memory Distortion in People Reporting Abduction by Aliens

The Construction of Space Alien Abduction Memories

The Ordinary Nature of Abduction Memories

At any rate, rather than try to figure out your convoluted "nuance" of who is right and who is wrong and when to apply standards and when not to, I will just hold you to your standard of "real research, done at real universities". Its as simple as that.

So you got any to back up any of your claims?

a reply to: Scdfa

You characterize that as an attempt to STOP him.

I characterized it as supporting him.

Do you consider being questioned for 14 months about your standards and then finally giving up because there is no way to get rid of you "support"? Well I guess I support you too!

a reply to: Ectoplasm8

They did indeed support Mack, the quote speaks for itself.

I never claimed that there was universal academic support for his conclusions, so don't try to suggest I did.

a reply to: ZetaRediculian

What "real" research at a real university have you ever sited anyway?

Cited, you mean? How seriously can I take you? Site, sight, cite, these are different words, I shouldn't have to tell you this.

I cited the work of Pulitzer prize winner and Professor of Psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, John Mack.

originally posted by: Scdfa
a reply to: ZetaRediculian


Tell us the prestigeous universities and professors the studies you cited come from?

this one is from Harvard:
Memory Distortion in People Reporting Abduction by Aliens

This one is from Dr Elizabeth Loftus from the University of Washington
The Construction of Space Alien Abduction Memories

This one looks like its from Yale?
The Ordinary Nature of Abduction Memories

They site a lot of references so there is no need to take me seriously at all

I cited the work of Pulitzer prize winner and Professor of Psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, John Mack.

You mean the guy that was shown to be wrong by the guy that had no academic credentials whatsoever?