There's no evidence that extraterrestrial visitation has occurred

NavyDoc

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.

All these objections have been addresses. Investigators say that deliberate attempts are resisted by the abductees. They try to lead the abductee into a false scenario, to test them and the abductee resists this.

EnPassant

NavyDoc

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.

All these objections have been addresses. Investigators say that deliberate attempts are resisted by the abductees. They try to lead the abductee into a false scenario, to test them and the abductee resists this.

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

SO they claim.

NavyDoc

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.

Trauma to memory would be random. The same themes have been related to the point of tedium. It is always the same and it has been shown that this sameness is not a result of pollution by other cases. Things are now so popular that it is almost impossible to avoid pollution or cross contamination but back in the beginning of investigations the essential themes were established in a 'sterile' environment.

EnPassant

NavyDoc

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.

Trauma to memory would be random. The same themes have been related to the point of tedium. It is always the same and it has been shown that this sameness is not a result of pollution by other cases. Things are now so popular that it is almost impossible to avoid pollution or cross contamination but back in the beginning of investigations the essential themes were established in a 'sterile' environment.

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

No they are not. I've dealt with a lot of trauma. Memories can be linear but patchy. Yes, it is the sameness that is suspicious and exactly why they should be taken with a grain of salt because true events don't come up with carbon copy answers among various people at various times. It is the sameness that makes the popular culture contamination MORE likely than less likely. I disagree that these themes were established in a "sterile" environment. That is a false assumption. The "investigations" began after these things were beginning to be reported and stories like this existed long before these "researchers" started writing books to sell. The "contamination" had already been done and "abductees" were sought out so they already had that theme in their memory. We're not talking about double blinded random sampling here.

reply to post by EnPassant

I think you have to go through a lot of interpretations and assumptions to arrive to the "evidence". We have known that dreams follow a similar pattern between people. Common themes are flying, being seen in your underwear. I just don't see this as evidence of anything other than another similarity that is shared between a theme if its true.

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".

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.

reply to post by NavyDoc


I would be inclined to say that psychic (telepathy etc) & supernatural (spirits etc) are not considered science because mainstream scientists won't theorise these subjects with faith.
The same faith they had when wondering about a spherical earth rather than flat, or atomic structure on such a minuscule level, upto the higgs boson, something so tiny and unfathomable it would be deemed crazy as with the said subjects!!!
Faith in action and belief that they could work it out, led to astounding results!
Apply the same faith to finding a technology that can prove psychic or supernatural wonders and I have no doubts that science can prevail!

Hell talk of telepathy etc to mainstream science fanatics and they'll laugh at you, even though the CIA had some very interesting & successful results from testing!
Just because we haven't got the technology yet, doesn't prove non-existence...
DNA being another prime example of faith in scientific method to eventually find what was believed to be true!!!
Had they ignored all of these things for sounding far fetched where would we be right now???

Same goes with the UFO phenomenon... mainstream science fanatics giggle at the thought and call people "crazy"!!!
Well Einstein, Tesla, Gallileo etc were all considered crazy but they stuck with their belief and kept the faith that they would one day be proven to be correct!

Let's not dismiss and claim "impossible" just because our current technology is just a few years behind the theory, let's keep theorising and working towards an end product, at least until definitively disproved even, then we can move on!


Peace!

if the aliens want you to know they are their you will know
if not
oh well...
shame about your luck

when it come to god:
our lord AMEN ....jeeez, too obvious I guess

CharlieSpeirs
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

I would be inclined to say that psychic (telepathy etc) & supernatural (spirits etc) are not considered science because mainstream scientists won't theorise these subjects with faith.
The same faith they had when wondering about a spherical earth rather than flat, or atomic structure on such a minuscule level, upto the higgs boson, something so tiny and unfathomable it would be deemed crazy as with the said subjects!!!
Faith in action and belief that they could work it out, led to astounding results!
Apply the same faith to finding a technology that can prove psychic or supernatural wonders and I have no doubts that science can prevail!

Hell talk of telepathy etc to mainstream science fanatics and they'll laugh at you, even though the CIA had some very interesting & successful results from testing!
Just because we haven't got the technology yet, doesn't prove non-existence...
DNA being another prime example of faith in scientific method to eventually find what was believed to be true!!!
Had they ignored all of these things for sounding far fetched where would we be right now???

Same goes with the UFO phenomenon... mainstream science fanatics giggle at the thought and call people "crazy"!!!
Well Einstein, Tesla, Gallileo etc were all considered crazy but they stuck with their belief and kept the faith that they would one day be proven to be correct!

Let's not dismiss and claim "impossible" just because our current technology is just a few years behind the theory, let's keep theorising and working towards an end product, at least until definitively disproved even, then we can move on!


Peace!

However, faith is not part of the scientific process, evidence is.

I do not dismiss things as "impossible," I simply do not give them credence until there is evidence to support them. Albeit many of these things are interesting and I agree that they need more study, to accept them without reproducible evidence is not part of the investigative process.

EnPassant


Arguments that persistently hinge on accusations of delusion are suspect.

That is a popular straw man argument employed by those inclined to believe in ET visitation.

Either one accepts eyewitness testimony without question or they are accusing the witnesses of being liars or delusional.


The fact of the matter, whether or not you wish to accept it, is that eyewitness testimony should ALWAYS be questioned for various reasons not limited to the two just mentioned.

reply to post by NavyDoc


That's up for debate to be honest...
Personally I thinks it's highly unlikely Einstein never had faith in his theory of Relativity!
Or that A.C.Doyle had no faith in his finger printing techniques!
What I feel is debatable is the idea that "faith" is only considered to be religious!
I have faith I will overcome if not be healed of my Undifferentiated Schizophrenia... but it's nothing to do with religion!

I wasn't saying that you said its impossible either, I was generalising humanity!
I totally agree we need proof to prove things...
But I also feel we need proof to disprove things!

My main gripe is that mainstream science will not even theorise possibilities when that's what the whole name of the game is...
I feel they are too scared of ridicule nowadays and play it safe...
I mean aside from The LHC & the Higgs Boson physics hasn't made too many strides in the last century, I feel the playing it safe is the reason for this!


Peace!

reply to post by draknoir2

Either one accepts eyewitness testimony without question or they are accusing the witnesses of being liars or delusional.

Before we even get to the actual "eyewitness testimony", a number of questions should be asked like "is it actual eyewitness testimony?" if it is, how much of it is interpreted by the researcher? Among others.

The first rule of alien club is don't question alien club. That's why I got kicked out.

CharlieSpeirs
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

That's up for debate to be honest...
Personally I thinks it's highly unlikely Einstein never had faith in his theory of Relativity!
Or that A.C.Doyle had no faith in his finger printing techniques!
What I feel is debatable is the idea that "faith" is only considered to be religious!
I have faith I will overcome if not be healed of my Undifferentiated Schizophrenia... but it's nothing to do with religion!

I wasn't saying that you said its impossible either, I was generalising humanity!
I totally agree we need proof to prove things...
But I also feel we need proof to disprove things!

My main gripe is that mainstream science will not even theorise possibilities when that's what the whole name of the game is...
I feel they are too scared of ridicule nowadays and play it safe...
I mean aside from The LHC & the Higgs Boson physics hasn't made too many strides in the last century, I feel the playing it safe is the reason for this!


Peace!

edit on 6-3-2014 by CharlieSpeirs because: Auto-Correct!!!

I didn't say anything about religion. I just said that science is not based on faith or belief but by evidence. A scientist may have faith that his theory of (whatever) is the truth about a certain subject but until he can gather independently verifiable and reproducible evidence, that faith is not science nor proven.

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.

One thing we can't do is throw out eyewitness testimony and circumstantial evidence. This stuff is important. The second thing we can't do is lump all incidents and reports into the same bucket. Not all abduction cases are sleep paralysis. Not all lights in the sky are Venus and flares. Not all crop circles are Doug and Dave or other known hoaxers or artists. Not all photographs and videos are carefully conceived hoaxes. We don't know what this stuff is. We don't know what all of these flying objects are, thus they are unidentified.

We know that there is a high probability of life on other planets in the Universe. We know that some if it has evolved from micro organisms to...well that we don't know. We know that there is plenty we don't know! Maybe there is a way to achieve interstellar travel and communications. I'm sure there is, but we don't have the technology yet. It could be hundreds or thousands or millions of years in the future before we achieve that.

Remember also that there isn't concrete proof of some Scientific theories that we hold as truth. But the evidence suggests that these theories are probably certainties.

We have to keep an open mind.

amazing
One thing we can't do is throw out eyewitness testimony and circumstantial evidence. This stuff is important. The second thing we can't do is lump all incidents and reports into the same bucket. Not all abduction cases are sleep paralysis. Not all lights in the sky are Venus and flares. Not all crop circles are Doug and Dave or other known hoaxers or artists. Not all photographs and videos are carefully conceived hoaxes. We don't know what this stuff is. We don't know what all of these flying objects are, thus they are unidentified.

We know that there is a high probability of life on other planets in the Universe. We know that some if it has evolved from micro organisms to...well that we don't know. We know that there is plenty we don't know! Maybe there is a way to achieve interstellar travel and communications. I'm sure there is, but we don't have the technology yet. It could be hundreds or thousands or millions of years in the future before we achieve that.

Remember also that there isn't concrete proof of some Scientific theories that we hold as truth. But the evidence suggests that these theories are probably certainties.

We have to keep an open mind.

Great points and these are yet more arguments coming from skeptics that's just silly. You can't make every eywitness account unreliable. You have to use common sense. Some eyewitness accounts are very reliable and they help capture criminals and convict them.

Also, some people will say that yes extraterrestrials exist but they haven't visited this planet because it's impossible for them to get here. WHAT????????

HOW CAN YOU MEASURE ANOTHER CIVILIZATIONS TECHNOLOGY BASED ON OUR CURRENT UNDERSTANDING OF PHYSICS?

That makes no sense.

Who knows, in 10 years we may discover another energy source or a new understanding of Quantum Gravity may lead to a whole new understanding of physics. The point is, we can't limit what another civilization can or cannot do based on our current understanding. That's very egocentric and just silly.

draknoir2

EnPassant


Arguments that persistently hinge on accusations of delusion are suspect.

That is a popular straw man argument employed by those inclined to believe in ET visitation.

Either one accepts eyewitness testimony without question or they are accusing the witnesses of being liars or delusional.


The fact of the matter, whether or not you wish to accept it, is that eyewitness testimony should ALWAYS be questioned for various reasons not limited to the two just mentioned.

edit on 6-3-2014 by draknoir2 because: (no reason given)

I don't advocate accepting anything without question. But the questions have, to my mind, been adequately answered - for example, obscure descriptions that predate the Hill case - cases they could not have known about.

From Jenny Randles' book Abduction-

July 1965, Valensole, France
...some 'little boys' got out. They were four feet tall with 'pumpkin' heads, thin mouths, big eyes, and white skin.

This was before the publication of the Hill case.

reply to post by NavyDoc


This was my entire point sir, I feel that many scientists now lack that faith that Einstein etc were prepared to have for their theories...
I'm saying if that faith was applied to these subjects, instead of fear of ridicule we probably would have had an answer 20 years ago...
I wasn't saying you mentioned religion either that was my point to make, not via something you said but how many across the board speak of faith!!!

I have actually agreed with everything you said hence the stars, I feel you are correct about proof, but to fight to find the proof I felt it necessary to say certain scientists have extended to faith and belief in themselves, instead of giving up, despite the ridicule and lambasting they were expecting!


Peace!

EnPassant

draknoir2

EnPassant


Arguments that persistently hinge on accusations of delusion are suspect.

That is a popular straw man argument employed by those inclined to believe in ET visitation.

Either one accepts eyewitness testimony without question or they are accusing the witnesses of being liars or delusional.


The fact of the matter, whether or not you wish to accept it, is that eyewitness testimony should ALWAYS be questioned for various reasons not limited to the two just mentioned.

edit on 6-3-2014 by draknoir2 because: (no reason given)

I don't advocate accepting anything without question. But the questions have, to my mind, been adequately answered - for example, obscure descriptions that predate the Hill case - cases they could not have known about.

From Jenny Randles' book Abduction-

July 1965, Valensole, France
...some 'little boys' got out. They were four feet tall with 'pumpkin' heads, thin mouths, big eyes, and white skin.

This was before the publication of the Hill case.

You need to expand your research beyond Jenny Randles' book.

This was NOT before the Hill case was made public.

The Hills met with a NICAP investigator for an interview in October of 1961, after having reported the events to the USAF, three and a half years before the Valensole case. The Hills discussed the case with friends and UFO researchers alike, even lecturing on it in 1963. It was well known in UFO circles by 1965.