Who here has been adbucted?

an_abductee · May 5, 2008

artoo deetoo said:
It is a good movie quote.
If you read Locke, he essentially says that the only things we can be sure exists is ourselves (although that's debatable as well).

Our existence isn't, but our true form might be.

artoo deetoo said:
To the topic at hand, no, I've never been abducted. Some guys once tried to bundle me into a white van on the way home from work once, though.

Did they offer you candy or money too? lol

Artoo · May 5, 2008

an_abductee said:
Did they offer you candy or money too? lol

Almost! They tried to give me a CD player, all I had to do was get it out of the back of the van!

True story...

cabalist · May 8, 2008

an_abductee said:
In your opinion, which is misinformed and not particularly interested in anything else.

Doesn’t stop you posting at great length about it though, does it? Perhaps you just love the sound of your own voice. Or the sight of your own words. Perhaps you might also consider the standard of the “debunkings” you cite in future too. Relying on Phillip Klass isn’t a good start. The very fact that you like the word “debunk” shows that you prefer an almost rigid formula to any sort of open-mindedness. The fact that you quote misinformation and form opinions based on what is at best very sketchy information from very biased sources reinforces that.

Then why bother posting? You are so obviously bored by being surrounded by such mental pygmies, why stoop to our dungeon?

You get swivel-eyed cultists following virtually anything, the UFO/abduction phenomenon isn't any different. I seriously doubt if the majority of us feel like there's any saviour out there other than ourselves and own own power, however.

I don't have time to read all your more recent meanderings here, at least not at the moment. In fact, this is the first time I've had time to even glance at this forum since my last post, whenever that was.

But suffice it to say that the bottom line is that there isn't and never has been any credible evidence of any of these so-called alien visitations, which is why most rational and well-informed people, to say nothing of most scientists, don't take these claims any more seriously than they do claims of fairies and unicorns. Nor, again, have you offered a source for any more credible evidence than I've ever heard anywhere else, your meandering arguments amounting to little but the usual "well it could be -- and you can't disprove it." Which is true. As it is for belief in fairies and unicorns. And the Easter Bunny.

Sorry to bump this aging thread, folks, but as I said above, I haven't been able to respond until now.

an_abductee · May 13, 2008

cabalist said:
I don't have time to read all your more recent meanderings here, at least not at the moment. In fact, this is the first time I've had time to even glance at this forum since my last post, whenever that was.

But suffice it to say that the bottom line is that there isn't and never has been any credible evidence of any of these so-called alien visitations, which is why most rational and well-informed people, to say nothing of most scientists, don't take these claims any more seriously than they do claims of fairies and unicorns. Nor, again, have you offered a source for any more credible evidence than I've ever heard anywhere else, your meandering arguments amounting to little but the usual "well it could be -- and you can't disprove it." Which is true. As it is for belief in fairies and unicorns. And the Easter Bunny.

Sorry to bump this aging thread, folks, but as I said above, I haven't been able to respond until now.

There is no physical evidence: Wrong, as I've said above and you've ignored. As I also said in either my first or second post, it's not my bag (baby) to prove anything to you. If you were interested in the subject beyond the level you are you'd know more about it. You may discount it after consideration, but you'd know about it.

Unicorns/Easter Bunny/Fairies: You're being fatuous for the sake of it. There is considerably more evidence and the prospect is taken a lot more seriously by the scientific world. The majority of the scientific world is open to the prospect of their being life on other planets through, if nothing else, Drake's equation and a not inconsiderable amount of people have said that the abduction subject is one they don't discount because they haven't seen compelling evidence that the witnesses are all mass delusional or that they're all lying to make themselves famous.

You are personally selective in what you believe, even though you've admitted the most you've done is read about the main cases in no great detail and have chosen to agree with someone who even other skeptics have sometimes distanced themselves from because of his underhand and occasionally dishonest tactics.

I myself am skeptical of many things I hear and see in the UFO community, because many people seem driven by a desire to believe in them. I do stay as impartial as I can however.

I don't think there is much point you posting again in this thread if all you're going to do is make an eighth re-iteration of "there is no physical evidence of UFO abductions" (which isn't true). You say "Nor, again, have you offered a source for any more credible evidence than I've ever heard anywhere else". I say again (as many times as you've asked for it) that it isn't my interest to convince you of anything. People joined this thread to discuss the topic, not convince each other of their own views though. If you can't be bothered or don't wish to look for the available evidence that exists beyond the mere re-telling of accounts, I'm not going to catalogue it, although I am mooting the idea of a post about Phillip Klass alone.

Don't however, expect me to have to read some of the blatant untruths you post as fact without pulling you up on them. I may not feel inclined to post a ten thousand word thesis with in-built links to relevant citations just to please you, but so what? If that's what you want, too bad. I have neither the time nor the inclination.

I do apologise (yes, with irony) for my "meandering" replies. Given the length of your posts that I felt compelled to correct, it was difficult replying in any other way.

cabalist · May 13, 2008

an_abductee said:
There is no physical evidence: Wrong, as I've said above and you've ignored. As I also said in either my first or second post, it's not my bag (baby) to prove anything to you. If you were interested in the subject beyond the level you are you'd know more about it. You may discount it after consideration, but you'd know about it.

Are you referring to this, from your above post?

There is to my knowledge at east one piece of evidence removed from one abductee that disappointed on removal because it looked like a shard of glass. It wasn’t however, as it proved conducive to electricity and its structure when studied under an electron microscope was different to glass. Assume it’s a genuine implant, what does it prove? Nothing! It only poses more questions because we can’t explain it.

For which I've seen you post no source. No, you're not obligated to. You're free to just make vague reference to a "mysterious" glass-like substance which is "different from glass", which the highly credulous might assume "must be" evidence of some kind of an "alien implant" based on nothing but this vague reference. But I suspect that the main reason you've supplied no reputable scientific source proclaiming this "mysterious artifact" as of likely extraterrestrial origin is simply because you have none. So of course it's far easier for you to accuse me of not doing my research than it is for you to offer a reputable source to back up your own claim, if, in fact, you don't have one.

So, assuming that scars and other evidence of minor injuries, as common as they are, are hardly cause for assuming an "extraterrestrial connection", unless I've overlooked or forgotten something in your posts, aside from this one piece of purported physical evidence, a claim for which you've cited no source whatsoever, in fact, you have told us essentially nothing about it except that it "was different to glass" (and I'm sure there aren't many natural or synthetic substances on this planet which are "different to glass"), what do we have in the way of physical or other credible scientific evidence? Anything besides unverified anecdotal accounts?

Unicorns/Easter Bunny/Fairies: You're being fatuous for the sake of it.

Not at all. I meant exactly what I said, quite literally. Your "mysterious" shard of "not-glass" notwithstanding, as far as I can tell the credible evidence for extraterrestrial abduction is exactly the same as the evidence for unicorns, fairies, and the Easter Bunny -- i.e., nonexistent.

There is considerably more evidence and the prospect is taken a lot more seriously by the scientific world. The majority of the scientific world is open to the prospect of their being life on other planets through, if nothing else, Drake's equation and a not inconsiderable amount of people have said that the abduction subject is one they don't discount because they haven't seen compelling evidence that the witnesses are all mass delusional or that they're all lying to make themselves famous.

I also am very much "open" to the possibility of life elsewhere in the universe. However, it's a rather gigantic leap from "might be life elsewhere in the universe" to the belief that earthlings are currently being, or have been in the recent past, abducted by alien beings. In fact, a "not inconsiderable amount of people" might seem to believe in the literal truth of biblical miracles as well. But, let's see, who was it who said:

“Even if you are in a minority of one, the truth is still the truth.”

Or, as a scientist might put it,.it doesn't matter a whit how many people believe something to be true, but in fact, it's only the quality of the evidence that matters.

As for anyone not having "seen compelling evidence that the witnesses are all mass delusional or that they're all lying to make themselves famous", whether or not that's the case, or perhaps I should say, even if that was the case, that would hardly justify belief in farfetched claims for which there's not any actual compelling evidence. That, too, would require a gigantic "leap".

In fact, can you name one well-known credible mainstream scientist who has gone on record as claiming he/she believed that the alien abduction "phenomenon" was "real"? I certainly can't think of one.

One quite well-known scientist who I believe may have been very "open" to the possibility of life elsewhere in the universe was Carl Sagan, yet I'm quite sure he didn't accord the alien abduction stories any more serious credibility than I do. But I suspect that that fact alone might lead you to question his credibility as well...given your own great (ahem) objectivity in these matters. But I suspect that he was much better qualified to judge the scientific credibility of these claims than a "nut doctor" like John Mack ever was. As I suggested above, I would consider Mack as unqualified in this area as Targ and Puthoff were to judge Uri Geller's purported "paranormal" abilities. (And, as an aside, I might add that his "work" in this field was "officially" regarded as little but an embarrassment to the institution for whom he worked, according to what I've read.)

You are personally selective in what you believe, even though you've admitted the most you've done is read about the main cases in no great detail and have chosen to agree with someone who even other skeptics have sometimes distanced themselves from because of his underhand and occasionally dishonest tactics.

You seem to be blatantly misquoting me here. Please show me where I've said what you're claiming here? In fact the closest I can recall to saying anything even remotely resembling the words you seem to be trying to put in my mouth here was when I said that it had been awhile since I'd looked into some of these cases and therefore I don't remember all the facts of every case in minute detail. That's quite a bit different from your implication that I never looked into them in any great detail, don't you think? In fact, blatantly misquoting me doesn't exactly contribute to your own credibility. And you're accusing Klass of twisting things? Tsk tsk.

As far as "other skeptics" having "distanced" themselves from Phil Klass, without naming anyone specifically or stating any specific facts about this claim, what enlightenment does it offer on the subject -- that is, other than serving as just another vague ad ad hominem aimed at discrediting someone whose investigations cast considerable doubt on many of these claims?

But while I won't claim to know what "everyone" in the "skeptical community" may think of Klass, while looking up some information in the course of this thread, I found a rather comprehensive tribute to him, including reprints of many of his articles, at the website of one of the most well-known skeptical publications, the Skeptical Inquirer. Of course, I'm sure you might only regard that as an indictment of them as well, assuming that it's doubtful that anyone connected with that publication considers these farfetched claim as having any serious credibility.

But in fact, I think I'd be quite surprised to find the editors of any particularly reputable mainstream scientific publication taking these claims at face value or even worthy of serious scientific inquiry. The only difference is, some skeptics do bother looking into them anyway, whereas I suspect that many wouldn't even take them seriously enough to even think them worth the trouble. Klass, like Sagan and a number of others, was one who did. But you obviously don't like what they found when they did.

I myself am skeptical of many things I hear and see in the UFO community, because many people seem driven by a desire to believe in them. I do stay as impartial as I can however.

As I do as well. But how impartial a judge can one be of one's own impartiality, I wonder? However you have made clear some strong possible personal basis for bias earlier in this thread, which I won't attempt to quote verbatim from memory at the moment, at the risk of not quoting you accurately, but I'll just say that you seemed to imply earlier that coming to believe that these experiences of yours may have been "real" may have had what I might call "therapeutic" value to you. While I'm not saying that that's necessarily, in and of itself, a "bad" thing, it certainly does suggest some possible personal basis for bias in what you might wish to believe.

I don't think there is much point you posting again in this thread if all you're going to do is make an eighth re-iteration of "there is no physical evidence of UFO abductions" (which isn't true).

So you've said, but still haven't proven. But of course I know you don't "have to" prove anything. Nor, of course, does anyone "have to" assume facts not in evidence here or elsewhere, based on nothing but your vague, I might even say evasive, or at least elusive, references.

You say "Nor, again, have you offered a source for any more credible evidence than I've ever heard anywhere else". I say again (as many times as you've asked for it) that it isn't my interest to convince you of anything. People joined this thread to discuss the topic, not convince each other of their own views though. If you can't be bothered or don't wish to look for the available evidence that exists beyond the mere re-telling of accounts, I'm not going to catalogue it, although I am mooting the idea of a post about Phillip Klass alone.

I've looked at the supposed evidence for years. And thus far I've found none of it credible. And no, I don't expect to convince you of my view. But if this thread is intended for serious discussion, then certainly the credibility of the claims is of some central importance to the issue. And if it is not, then I have trouble taking seriously any claim that this thread might be in any way intended for serious discussion of the topic. Which is fine, if that's the case. But if so, then I think that should be made explicitly clear with some sort of disclaimer...such as, perhaps, "This threads is for entertainment purposes only and isn't to be regarded as serious (scientific) discussion of a true phenomenon"? But I don't think it's reasonable to expect to have it both ways.

Don't however, expect me to have to read some of the blatant untruths you post as fact without pulling you up on them.

Ditto. But if you can prove that anything I've said here is an "untruth", then please do so. As far as I can tell, you haven't yet.

I may not feel inclined to post a ten thousand word thesis with in-built links to relevant citations just to please you, but so what? If that's what you want, too bad. I have neither the time nor the inclination.

No, I don't expect you to prove what you're not able to. As you haven't anything you've said here for the most part, as far as I can tell.

I do apologise (yes, with irony) for my "meandering" replies. Given the length of your posts that I felt compelled to correct, it was difficult replying in any other way.

You're forgiven (with irony).

TinyTickler · May 13, 2008

there was a time when i thought that aliens did have something to do with me and it didnt help when i saw three ufos, one of them scared me so much i was coming back form church camp that and i questioned whether or not what i was seeing was real or ET like and it scared the crap out of me i couldnt sleep for three days, but abduction would scare the crap out of me

an_abductee · May 23, 2008

Just to tag this thread.

I haven't forgotten its existence and I will come back to it eventually.

an_abductee · May 23, 2008

TinyTickler said:
there was a time when i thought that aliens did have something to do with me and it didnt help when i saw three ufos, one of them scared me so much i was coming back form church camp that and i questioned whether or not what i was seeing was real or ET like and it scared the crap out of me i couldnt sleep for three days, but abduction would scare the crap out of me

Any even vaguely normal person would be scared.

Come to think of it, any person who wasn't dead would be scared. At first anyway.

an_abductee · May 23, 2008

Forgive the inserts here please people: wherever I have included text in italics and brackets, it means I’m quoting something of my own that cabalist is referring to, because quoting his words alone would require searching back through the thread.

Please also forgive the lengthy content of this post. It was necessary.

cabalist said:
Are you referring to this, from your above post?

( There is to my knowledge at east one piece of evidence removed from one abductee that disappointed on removal because it looked like a shard of glass. It wasn’t however, as it proved conducive to electricity and its structure when studied under an electron microscope was different to glass. Assume it’s a genuine implant, what does it prove? Nothing! It only poses more questions because we can’t explain it.)

For which I've seen you post no source. No, you're not obligated to. You're free to just make vague reference to a "mysterious" glass-like substance which is "different from glass", which the highly credulous might assume "must be" evidence of some kind of an "alien implant" based on nothing but this vague reference. But I suspect that the main reason you've supplied no reputable scientific source proclaiming this "mysterious artifact" as of likely extraterrestrial origin is simply because you have none. So of course it's far easier for you to accuse me of not doing my research than it is for you to offer a reputable source to back up your own claim, if, in fact, you don't have one.

So far as I remember, yes I was referring to that.

Highly credulous = highly uncritical. In other words, no use to any debate that is meant to have some sort of cerebral function. There is no “must” in anything. Evidence yes, but no definite or must.

Have no reference/far easier: What I have nothing of, is desire to present the case for abduction. Apart from anything else I am not up to the job and if I were, I wouldn’t doing it here. Nor am I interested in changing the mind of someone else who has a contrary opinion to me. In my mind, someone who was skeptical but genuinely interested in finding out if there was such a thing wouldn’t be asking me to provide evidence because, you not knowing me from Adam, I could be any old asshole with a total lack of education or presentation skills. Hey presto – one botched argument form me later and all that’s happened is that I’ve done the open-minded proponent side a disservice by giving something to you that is almost as easy to rebut as a sock puppet post.

My main interest is (in the context of the discussion between you and me – which has sadly seemed to pretty much kill this thread deader than dogshit – originally it was a discussion of people who wanted to hear from people they thought had been abducted – not a presentation for and against the argument with a board and chair examining various viewpoints) … oh irony of ironies… dispelling a few myths that seem to have taken root in the skeptical community. Even then I can only refer to other people’s words though, because I am no researcher. Not in this field anyway. You may find it strange to find that I therefore cite Travis Walton (not least because his account has major differences to what I remember) but that article you cited admitted his credibility has stood the test of time and I have yet to see anything laid against him that has not been refuted successfully, many of them from Phillip Klass, who showed just how little class he possessed with his ill-advised rantings and character assassinations about this case. The thing the article pounced on right at the end was that Walton didn’t manage to bring back irrefutable proof from the ship. Not only an unreasonable thing to expect, but highly ridiculous, for reasons anyone should be able to fathom.

Yes, there are urban myths on the “believer” side of things too, that is beyond dispute. Considering how non-communicative and “functional” I have found these “people” to be, I find it rather strange that so many people seem to know exactly what star system they come from, exactly what their agenda is and exactly what their part in the aliens’ plans is.

Classic example: I nearly always hear of the gray aliens referred to as “Reticuleans”. So far as I’m aware, this stems purely from Betty Hill, who reproduced an almanac she was allegedly shown by the Bossman of her abductors and this was some years later, found to fit an arrangement of stars relatively near to Earth. The system indicated as home to the aliens was the binary star we call Zeta Reticuli. (So called because it’s the sixth brightest star, as seen from Earth, in the constellation of Reticulum.)

I’m no professional astronomer, only an enthusiastic amateur, but I don’t imagine it would be terribly difficult to find a star pattern, even one that included binaries, in a galaxy that contains a hundred billion stars. On top of this, Betty Hill doesn’t describe the beings as I would. They’re taller, I think they different color skin, their eyes are different and they spoke out loud. (Although her husband, I think, reported telepathic comms.)

cabalist said:
So, assuming that scars and other evidence of minor injuries, as common as they are, are hardly cause for assuming an "extraterrestrial connection", unless I've overlooked or forgotten something in your posts, aside from this one piece of purported physical evidence, a claim for which you've cited no source whatsoever, in fact, you have told us essentially nothing about it except that it "was different to glass" (and I'm sure there aren't many natural or synthetic substances on this planet which are "different to glass"), what do we have in the way of physical or other credible scientific evidence? Anything besides unverified anecdotal accounts?

Do you ever properly read anything I’ve written and actually take it in, or do you just enjoy the sight of your own words?

Just to drive the point home cab… I am not going to present evidence for the case of abduction. Get that into your head now, because I am getting tired of seeing you post the same thing over and over and over and over again, thus necessitating me having to say that I’m not going to present shit in this thread in favour of scientific or otherwise belief in abductions.

Other people have done so more professionally than I could ever do and with far more credibility than I will have. Read them and then make up your own mind. If you already have done both as much as you wish to, then good for you. Congratulations on having a critical faculty, because too many people don’t. Just stop bothering the shit out of me for it.

cabalist said:
Not at all. I meant exactly what I said, quite literally. Your "mysterious" shard of "not-glass" notwithstanding, as far as I can tell the credible evidence for extraterrestrial abduction is exactly the same as the evidence for unicorns, fairies, and the Easter Bunny -- i.e., nonexistent.

Wrong. You are being fatuous. No-one, apart from extremely young children whose minds are completely unquestioning, believes in the easter bunny. Apart from the bedtime stories adults tell them, there is no anecdotal evidence for the Easter Bunny’s existence in physical reality. That you would suggest there is a similarity between it and abduction shows just what a prat you are being. You are making fun, sneering and poking jokes at an extremely serious subject.

Yes, I consider your comparison to be both a sneer and a joke.

cabalist said:
I also am very much "open" to the possibility of life elsewhere in the universe. However, it's a rather gigantic leap from "might be life elsewhere in the universe" to the belief that earthlings are currently being, or have been in the recent past, abducted by alien beings.

Yes, it is. A huge one in fact. Life could be anything from protozoa to a brachiosaurus.

cabalist said:
In fact, a "not inconsiderable amount of people" might seem to believe in the literal truth of biblical miracles as well. But, let's see, who was it who said:

“Even if you are in a minority of one, the truth is still the truth.”

Or, as a scientist might put it,.it doesn't matter a whit how many people believe something to be true, but in fact, it's only the quality of the evidence that matters.

As for anyone not having "seen compelling evidence that the witnesses are all mass delusional or that they're all lying to make themselves famous", whether or not that's the case, or perhaps I should say, even if that was the case, that would hardly justify belief in farfetched claims for which there's not any actual compelling evidence. That, too, would require a gigantic "leap".

You seem to be suggesting I have an issue with people who don’t believe in abduction. I don’t. I would encourage anyone to keep an open mind, but I would also encourage them to keep a critical one.

cabalist said:
In fact, can you name one well-known credible mainstream scientist who has gone on record as claiming he/she believed that the alien abduction "phenomenon" was "real"? I certainly can't think of one.

Ruling out those academics who have written proponent literature I assume?

Scientists are, by their professional natures, people who use systems to find things out, not who consider themselves the instruments of discovery. That rules out personal bias or deceived senses collecting incorrect data.

If, as I’ve already said, a scientific system has yet to provide incontrovertible and irrefutable proof of the phenomenon, then they won’t believe it, because all their conditioning won’t let them. Nor should it.

Perhaps a more pertinent question is: How many scientists are open to the possibility and do not consider it proven that it doesn’t happen, and that certain critiques of prominent cases are heavily flawed and personally biased?

My answer to the above question is, how the fuck should I know? I don’t know any scientists and I’m not a big reader of abduction literature. If you are really that interested in the answer, go out and find it for yourself.

cabalist said:
One quite well-known scientist who I believe may have been very "open" to the possibility of life elsewhere in the universe was Carl Sagan, yet I'm quite sure he didn't accord the alien abduction stories any more serious credibility than I do. But I suspect that that fact alone might lead you to question his credibility as well...given your own great (ahem) objectivity in these matters. But I suspect that he was much better qualified to judge the scientific credibility of these claims than a "nut doctor" like John Mack ever was. As I suggested above, I would consider Mack as unqualified in this area as Targ and Puthoff were to judge Uri Geller's purported "paranormal" abilities. (And, as an aside, I might add that his "work" in this field was "officially" regarded as little but an embarrassment to the institution for whom he worked, according to what I've read.)

You really can’t help sneering at me can you? You are incorrect about me. I am as objective as I can be, which is considerably more so than many people who claim to have been involved directly in this. You are also, once again, wrongly assuming something about me. You are, in short, a condescending prick of a person. The reason I dispute some of the things you’ve written, is because more than just us two are reading this, not because I actually give a damn about changing your opinion.

Targ and Puthoff: No idea who they are. I know who Uri Geller is, but don’t have any interest in him.

Carl Sagan: I have a lot of time for him. I’ve read his novel, Contact, and thought it was an inspired piece of fiction for its era. (One of the few cases where the movie adaption was better than the book though.) Wasn’t too good at predicting the future though: he had hotels in orbit , the Soviet Union still existing and interplanetary capable drives for coffins, yet he didn’t think the internet would be developed enough for scientists to communicate effectively through it. He is skeptical, but he isn’t disrespectful and I’ve never known him to be anything other than objective.

What is there in that, that would make me question his objectivity?

cabalist said:
You seem to be blatantly misquoting me here. ( You are personally selective in what you believe, even though you've admitted the most you've done is read about the main cases in no great detail and have chosen to agree with someone who even other skeptics have sometimes distanced themselves from because of his underhand and occasionally dishonest tactics.) Please show me where I've said what you're claiming here? In fact the closest I can recall to saying anything even remotely resembling the words you seem to be trying to put in my mouth here was when I said that it had been awhile since I'd looked into some of these cases and therefore I don't remember all the facts of every case in minute detail. That's quite a bit different from your implication that I never looked into them in any great detail, don't you think? In fact, blatantly misquoting me doesn't exactly contribute to your own credibility. And you're accusing Klass of twisting things? Tsk tsk.

Then let me rephrase and see how the new one sits with you…

You are personally selective in what you believe, even though you've admitted the most you've done is read about the main cases and retained no great detail and have chosen to agree with someone who even other skeptics have sometimes distanced themselves from because of his underhand and occasionally dishonest tactics.

cabalist said:
As far as "other skeptics" having "distanced" themselves from Phil Klass, without naming anyone specifically or stating any specific facts about this claim, what enlightenment does it offer on the subject -- that is, other than serving as just another vague ad ad hominem aimed at discrediting someone whose investigations cast considerable doubt on many of these claims?

Considerable doubt? I thought you considered yourself scientific cab? Klass does nothing apart from re-inforce the views of those desperate to believe the die-hard skeptic viewpoint and raise the eyebrows of anyone remotely open-minded.
He is however, the one thing I will allow myself to be drawn on, because of his uniqueness.

A few quotes I can dredge up in two minutes read…

Klass' critics have accused him of using pseudoscience explanations and propaganda techniques to advance his anti-UFO arguments. He has also been accused of being vindictive and resorting to character assassination and other "dirty tricks" against UFO witnesses and opposing UFO researchers. A notable example were his attacks on atmospheric physicist Dr. James E. McDonald after McDonald had demolished his ball lightning theory for UFOs as scientifically invalid.

And…

In his first book, UFO's: Identified, Klass argued that UFO reports were best explained as a previously unknown type of ball lightning. Though initially speculative and provisional, Klass thought that plasma was consistent with many UFO reports: bright lights moving erratically. A highly charged plasma might further explain the reported effects of UFOs on the electrical systems of airplanes and automobiles. Ball Lightning Ball lightning is a natural phenomenon associated with thunderstorms and takes the form of a long-lived, glowing, floating object, as opposed to the short-lived arcing between two points seen in common lightning. ... The word plasma has a Greek root which means to be formed or molded (the word plastic shares this root). ...

Criticism of Klass
Klass's plasma conclusion met with considerable incredulity, even from some pronounced UFO skeptics; Klass was essentially invoking one mystery to explain another. Atmospheric physicist James E. McDonald offered a detailed rebuttal of Klass' plasma hypothesis. In part, McDonald wrote "My most basic objection to his plasma-UFO theory is that he does not confront the fact that the interesting UFO reports do not involve hazy, glowing, amorphous masses, but reportedly sharp-edged objects often exhibiting discernible structural details, carry discrete lights or port-like apertures, and maneuver for time-periods and in kinematical patterns that are extremely difficult to square with his plasma-UFO hypothesis. It also fails to deal quantitatively with parts of the argument that are, in terms of existing scientific knowledge, amenable to quantitative analysis." [2] Dr. James E. McDonald (1920 - 1971) was an American physicist. ... The word plasma has a Greek root which means to be formed or molded (the word plastic shares this root). ...

Klass and McDonald engaged in an often savagely adversarial relationship. Tom McIver writes that "Klass accused McDonald of misusing public funds, resulting in a traumatic government investigation and audit (in which he was cleared, though he committed suicide not long afterwards)."

Klass has been accused of using unfair, baseless "dirty tricks" in efforts to discredit UFO researchers with whom he disagrees. Jerome Clark (a UFO researcher and vice president of the Center for UFO Studies) writes, "To destroy the UFO 'problem' Klass concluded that ufologists should be the target as much as the UFOs themselves. If the ufologists could be publicly shamed or embarrassed on any grounds (not just professional but personal as well), who would take their pronouncements about UFOs seriously?" In politics, dirty tricks refers to duplicitous, slanderous, and downright illegal tactics employed by politicians (or their underlings) to win elections and/or destroy opponents. ... The Center for UFO Studies is an unidentified flying object research group. ...

McIver (a self-described "fellow skeptic") writes that many of Klass's opponents "have been subjected to ... smear treatment. Richard Kammann was a CSICOP Fellow who quit in disgust, appalled in particular at Klass's response to a once-loyal CSICOPer who dared to criticize the botched statistical methods of a CSICOP investigation. Klass's published response to this critic, said Kammann, contained 'so many smokescreens, red herrings, non sequiturs, quotes out of context, and misstatements' that it constituted 'intellectual fraud' if not outright cover-up. Not only did it ignore all the substantive points of the criticism, it was 'one huge ad hominem attack.' Klass 'ignored practically every specific point that [the critic] Rawlins had made. Instead [he] offered blatant ad hominem attack on Rawlins' motives and personality, bolstered with rhetorical ploys--including crude mis-quotation.' Describing his own attempts to reason with Klass, Kammann says: 'The Klass letter started a long and exasperating exchange in which he talked about everything but the statistical errors [the focus of the criticism] and the real cover-up. He kept me busy for a while answering irrelevant questions, while periodically attacking my objectivity, intelligence or integrity. From time to time, he threatened to expose my cover-up of scientific evidence he imagined he had uncovered [and] regularly ignored all my serious answers and questions...'" The Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal, or CSICOP, is an organization formed to encourage open minded, critical investigation of paranormal and pseudoscientific claims from a responsible, scientific point of view. ... Look up red herring in Wiktionary, the free dictionary. ... Non sequitur is German for it does not follow. ... When a scandal breaks, the discovery of an attempt to cover up the evidence of wrongdoing is often regarded as even more scandalous than the original deeds. ... An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin, literally argument to the man), is a logical fallacy that involves replying to an argument or assertion by addressing the person presenting the argument or assertion rather than the argument itself. ...

In 1983, Klass suggested that, as Clark writes, "that UFO cover-up proponents were serving the ends of Soviet foreign policy." Clark notes that this was a "new wrinkle" "in an unending stream of vitriol from the mouths and keyboards of CSICOP's bombast artists. After all, Klass and his CSICOP colleagues had already characterized us ufologists as antiscience cultists, cryptofascists, mental cases, money-grubbing exploiters, and raving irrationalists, and CSICOP chairman Paul Kurtz had repeatedly assured the press that societal acceptance of anomalies and the paranormal threatens the fabric of civilization." [3] The UFO conspiracy theory is any one of many conspiracy theories in which it is suggested that major world governments (particularly the United States government) have proof that UFOs are the result of alien visitation, but are suppressing this information either for nefarious purposes and/or out of the belief... In religion and sociology, a cult is a relatively small and cohesive group of people (often a new religious movement) devoted to beliefs or practices that the surrounding culture or society considers to be far outside the mainstream. ... Crypto-fascism is when a party or group secretly adheres to the doctrines of fascism while attempting to disguise it as another political movement. ... The Scream, the famous painting commonly thought of as depicting the experience of mental illness. ... Paul Kurtz (born February 12, 1926 in Newark, New Jersey) is Professor Emeritus of Philosophy at the University at Buffalo (SUNY), but is best known for prominent role in the American skeptical community. ... Anomalous phenomena are phenomena which are observed and for which there are no suitable explanations in the context of a specific body of scientific knowledge,. ...

However, Klass's defenders have questioned Clark's objectivity in assessing Klass, beyond their normal differences of opinion regarding UFOs. The men have butted heads on several occasions; in 1984, a series of friendly letters turned sour when Clark thought that one of Klass's jokes was a "death threat". Clark has also been accused of ignoring Klass's explanation on at least one occasion despite the fact that it was endorsed by the participants in the UFO case. Peter Brooksmith writes: "I've long found it interesting too that in his treatment of the RB-47 case in his UFO 'Encyclopedia', which is so admirable in so many other ways, Jerome dismisses Klass's interpretation of the data as a series of unlikely coincidences. But he doesn't mention that Klass presented that interpretation to the RB-47 crew, who agreed that the 'UFOs' were the product of human error & excitement combined with ghost echoes on the radar. This is a key item in Klass's analysis. Surely it was not just dislike for the man that led Jerome to omit it?" [4])

Critics, however, point out that Klass's explanation for the RB-47 case was thoroughly demolished by researcher Brad Sparks, who found, among other things, that Klass had the RB-47 plane sometimes moving at impossible supersonic speeds in order to get portions of his explanation to work. Sparks also disproved the keystone of Klass's thesis, that the RB-47 microwave sensors were miscalibrated because of equipment malfunction. Thus, it is argued, it doesn't really matter if the participants endorsed Klass's explanation or not, since it was bogus.

Questioning the accuracy of the above claims by critics about Klass's character, defenders like to point to instances where Klass behaved in a civil, reasonable manner when debating UFO research. An example given was a 1976 letter to Gordon Thayer (a Condon Report investigator), Klass wrote of his and Thayer's disagreements "there are several more basic issues. For these, I want to give you the maximum possible time to do your 'homework' to dig out the strongest possible supportive evidence for your viewpoint. Thus I shall raise them now to provide you at least three months time to find/locate supportive evidence (if same can be found).”

During one interview, Klass said…
” I never encountered a single hoaxer during my entire 10 years with GE.”

This infers, one assumes, that he prefers to regard UFO sightings as misidentifications or drunken hallucinations. I have personally heard this man say “I believe this was a hoax” when he was being interviewed about a UFO sighting in Texas.

This is the champion of open-minded investigation you so like to admire cab?

Thank you for coming folks, please check your scientific credibility at the door.

cabalist said:
But while I won't claim to know what "everyone" in the "skeptical community" may think of Klass, while looking up some information in the course of this thread, I found a rather comprehensive tribute to him, including reprints of many of his articles, at the website of one of the most well-known skeptical publications, the Skeptical Inquirer. Of course, I'm sure you might only regard that as an indictment of them as well, assuming that it's doubtful that anyone connected with that publication considers these farfetched claim as having any serious credibility.

You’re sure of a lot of things you know nothing about, which speaks volumes about how you form your opinions. Still, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt in this case. You did say “might” after all, although I suspect it comes with a shovelful of your condescending irony.

In this case I have no formed opinion of the articles in question until I encounter them directly.

cabalist said:
But in fact, I think I'd be quite surprised to find the editors of any particularly reputable mainstream scientific publication taking these claims at face value or even worthy of serious scientific inquiry. The only difference is, some skeptics do bother looking into them anyway, whereas I suspect that many wouldn't even take them seriously enough to even think them worth the trouble. Klass, like Sagan and a number of others, was one who did. But you obviously don't like what they found when they did.

The only thing I’m “obviously” doing is taking apart some of your arguments at the seams.

Phillip Klass and Carl Sagan are not in the same universe so far as their methods and credibility are concerned. Sagan is without doubt the better scientist and has far more credibility. Copernicus’s corpse had more truth in it than Klass did during his life.

Science in general: Science very rarely takes new ideas seriously. Things that are now considered cornerstones of modern medicine were rubbished and “de-bunked” with arrogance and ignorance for centuries by the world’s top medical professionals of the time.

Eventually I think there will be something approaching a half objective study of this by a scientific body of people. It will take time, I am sure, but it will happen.

cabalist said:
As I do as well. But how impartial a judge can one be of one's own impartiality, I wonder?

A difficult one obviously. I have stated at least twice that I consider alternative explanations to the proponent theory for my own experiences. I believe I’ve also said that I believe the most realistic alternative to my experience’s reality is the one of self-deception. I believe I am as impartial to my own self as I can be, which is a great deal more than most people are.

cabalist said:
However you have made clear some strong possible personal basis for bias earlier in this thread, which I won't attempt to quote verbatim from memory at the moment, at the risk of not quoting you accurately

Too late, you’ve already done it. I have bent over backwards to appear unbiased. I have welcomed skeptical opinions, because I am myself a skeptical person by nature. I have even conceded that although I currently believe the most likely explanation for what I’ve experienced is that it was real, there are alternative theories that I haven’t shut my mind to. What is biased about that?

cabalist said:
but I'll just say that you seemed to imply earlier that coming to believe that these experiences of yours may have been "real" may have had what I might call "therapeutic" value to you. While I'm not saying that that's necessarily, in and of itself, a "bad" thing, it certainly does suggest some possible personal basis for bias in what you might wish to believe.

If it seemed that way, then you didn’t read it properly. Either that or I was drunk when I wrote it and mistyped.

I have found the process of exploring my memories and coming to terms with them to be therapeutic, not coming to believe they were real. Coming to believe they were real was a result of the exploration, not the goal of it. Once again, you seem to have made up your mind about something without knowing a great deal about it. I was counting how many times you’d done it, but I’ve only got so many fingers.

cabalist said:
So you've said, but still haven't proven. ( I don't think there is much point you posting again in this thread if all you're going to do is make an eighth re-iteration of "there is no physical evidence of UFO abductions" (which isn't true).) But of course I know you don't "have to" prove anything. Nor, of course, does anyone "have to" assume facts not in evidence here or elsewhere, based on nothing but your vague, I might even say evasive, or at least elusive, references.

Again, you show you haven’t bothered to digest what I’ve said. (I’m onto my toes now.)

I have encouraged people to seek out everything they can find on this subject, providing they have the interest and inclination to do so. If someone made up their mind that alien abduction was real based on the little I’d written here I’d seriously worry about the state of their mind.

cabalist said:

I've looked at the supposed evidence for years. And thus far I've found none of it credible. And no, I don't expect to convince you of my view. But if this thread is intended for serious discussion, then certainly the credibility of the claims is of some central importance to the issue. And if it is not, then I have trouble taking seriously any claim that this thread might be in any way intended for serious discussion of the topic. Which is fine, if that's the case. But if so, then I think that should be made explicitly clear with some sort of disclaimer...such as, perhaps, "This threads is for entertainment purposes only and isn't to be regarded as serious (scientific) discussion of a true phenomenon"? But I don't think it's reasonable to expect to have it both ways.

Click to expand...

If by serious discussion you mean discussion worthy of reporting as evidence in a journal or similar publication, then no it isn’t. But then I never claimed it was. I don’t think anyone else did either.

A disclaimer? Jesus cab, do you treat everything in life as seriously as this? When you go to Burger King or MacDonald's do you ask them if they can scientifically prove that their burgers are as “delicious”, “juicy” and “dripping with taste-bud tingling loveliness” as their posters on the wall claim? Do you then harangue them for days on end for them to provide documented papers proving that they are? My God man you are so far up your own backside you could clean your teeth from the inside.

cabalist said:

Ditto. But if you can prove that anything I've said here is an "untruth", then please do so. As far as I can tell, you haven't yet.

Click to expand...

If God himself appeared in front of you, parted the ocean, raised a dead person from the grave, healed you of a disease just by touching you and said the Bible was true… every word of it… you still wouldn’t believe him unless he cited a scientific publication that agreed with him. I think what I’ve said has rebutted the points you made that I disagreed with. As for “proof”, I really couldn’t give a shit. I’m not into it for something like this for the reasons I’ve stated above.

cabalist said:

No, I don't expect you to prove what you're not able to. As you haven't anything you've said here for the most part, as far as I can tell.

Click to expand...

Ooooohhhhhhh…. a stinging and witty go-home line. Obviously a WWE fan as well as someone who doesn't know the difference between choice and ability.

In that case, I will just copy and paste part of my paragraph from above…

I think what I’ve said has rebutted the points you made that I disagreed with. As for “proof”, I really couldn’t give a shit. I’m not into it for something like this, for the reasons I’ve stated above.

IF YA SMEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEELLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL………………WHAT THE ABDUCTEE……… IS COOKIN’!

an_abductee · May 23, 2008

For General Interest...

With reference to cabalist's statement of his professional credibility being destroyed, Dr. John Mack was investigated by whatever body at Harvard serves for internal discipline of faculty members for unprofessional conduct. Here is a C&P extraction from Wikipedia about the matter...

In 1994 the Dean of Harvard Medical School appointed a committee of peers to 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 this investigation as "Kafkaesque:" He never quite knew the status of the ongoing investigation, and the nature of his critics' complaints shifted frequently, as most of their accusations against him proved baseless when closely scrutinized.

After fourteen months of inquiry, there were growing questions from the academic community (including Harvard Professor of Law Alan Dershowitz) regarding the validity of Harvard's investigation of a tenured professor who was not suspected of ethics violations or professional misconduct. Harvard then issued a statement stating that the Dean had "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." (Mack was censured for some methodological errors.) He had received legal help from Roderick MacLeish and Daniel Sheehan, and the support of Laurance Rockefeller, who also funded Mack's Center for four consecutive years [3] at $250,000 per year.

Wikipedia is of course, far from infallible. I don't think any of this is factually incorrect however.

BigJim · Aug 31, 2013

I'm going to bump this.

Anyone else for comment?

BigJim · Aug 31, 2013

One thing I'll say, is that I'm quite disappointed in Carl Sagan, who has always been something of an idol of mine. (Not least cos it's rare for a bloke that small to have a voice that would rival Christopher Lee's for baritone mellifluousness. lol)

A few of the things he's written about this subject have not been up to the sort of scientific par you'd expect.

BigJim · Aug 31, 2013

In the last year or so I've done a fair bit of reading about some aspects of this "experience" and a number of things now stand out for me.

The bottom line is that the main evidence for this abduction comes from the testimony of the Hills that comes from a combination of nightmares and accounts given under hypnotic regression. They came across as sincere and truthful people to everyone who interviewed and met them. Though this was undermined by Betty's many subsequent claims of psychic events, and sightings of hundreds of UFOs many of which could be easily explained.

As I alluded to above, a lot of scientists or "reputable" people" who write about UFO cases do so extremely selectively, and Carl Sagan was guilty of this several times with the Hill case.

One such instance seems to be the sort of thing that inspired the above extract. Sagan himself wrote words to the effect that the Hills whilst driving home saw A "star-like" UFO that appeared to be following them and afterwards Betty started having nightmares that subsequently mirrored her recollections under hypnosis.

What it never mentions is that whilst totally conscious both Betty and Barney saw not only a distant star-like object (implying a light in the sky) but sometime later saw it close-up, by which time it was fully visible as a metallic “pancake” disk with lights at different points on the hull, windows and in Barney's case (when he got out of the car and looked at it through binoculars), crew-members standing at them, staring down at the Hills.

They also both recalled a roadblock and a vague memory of a fireball in the road.

None of this required hypnosis. It was all in their memories from the time it happened onward. The actual hidden stuff was from the point when the men at the roadblock advanced on the car and removed the Hills from it.

While most would certainly consider the point from the capture onward as the meat of the story, it rather unfortunately ignores very significant occurrences that preceded it, including Barney’s sighting of non-human beings standing at the windows.

There are also several inconsistencies in their abduction story. They showed extreme anxiety when recounting the incident, yet Betty said to the 'leader' alien as she was leaving the spaceship: 'This is the most wonderful experience of my life. I hope you'll come back. I got a lot of friends who would love to meet you.' (9

The phrase “when recounting the incident” smudges together the whole incident into one blob, when emotionally it went (for Betty at least – Barney was at best semi-conscious most of the time) through several phases.

She started out with blind terror, and moves into outraged indignation (at one point smacking the one she identifies as the leader in the mouth) and then into angry cooperation before, when the leader stopped the pain she was in and the procedure that caused it, becoming actually interested in her surroundings and more friendly toward him.

She also had a long period of time, I think three quarters of an hour or more, while the examiner was doing Barney’s procedures during which she was talking to the leader and overcame her fear of the unknown and actually enjoyed herself.

Leaving aside the fantastical situation in which she supposedly was, that isn’t an illogical parade of emotional states to progress through. Once she realised she wasn’t going to be dissected for some lab exhibit she got talking and not surprisingly found the conversation pretty interesting.

) Other inconsistencies occur in the description of the aliens. Betty at first described them as having Jimmy Durante noses but this was dropped in later recollections.

This is a very selective description of the facts and it also shows the double-standards some debunkers will go to, to pick fault with evidence of UFO encounters.

They say for instance, that Betty’s dreams parallel her hypnotic recall of the abduction so closely that they invalidate it on the grounds that when people dream about things in real life they never do so exactly, but in broken up, symbolic ways that reflect the way the sub-conscious processes information.

In Betty’s dreams she remembers the occupants of the craft as looking basically human, but with slightly strange colouring (such as bluey lips) and wearing caps. I’ve seen the drawing described as “the Jimmy Durante picture” which was drawn reflecting the dream crew members and the first thing I thought of was Marlon Brando in Rebel Without a Cause.

Betty never recalled such figures under hypnosis. During regression she described the figures with one exception as being four or five feet tall, bald and large headed with no coverings, no lips at all, hardly any nose, very big and slanted eyes and overlarge, rounded upper torsos.

Thus....

They eyes and skin colouring are, according to something I heard Betty say, exaggerated. They skin was greyer and the eyes not so yellow as this.

This is precisely then what the sceptics say should happen: dreams are twisted from what would become conscious recall into something that is more relatable when viewed through the medium of dreaming.

But in their sketchy, selective, unscientific cherry-picking they don’t mention this. With this particular doozy they have contradicted their own evidence.

Barney said they communicated via some form of telepathy whilst Betty's aliens spoke to her in English.

This ignores that Barney heard the beings speaking audibly to each other and using telepathy to him. Betty actually seemed uncertain under hypnosis how exactly they were communicating, sometimes thinking it was English with an accent and then wondering if she were hearing with her mind. I do know that later she seemed far more sure it was normal speaking.

The aliens also seemed to have selected areas of knowledge and ignorance. For example, they were puzzled by Barney's false teeth yet had an otherwise good knowledge of human anatomy.

This doesn’t prove or even suggest anything relevant, apart from that an intelligent race knows some things about human physiology and not others.

There are several fantasy or folkloric elements to the encounter. Like visitors to the fairy otherworld Betty is not allowed to take away a souvenir as physical proof of her experience. And, the Kalendrier des bergiers, a fifteenth century French calendar shows demons torturing people by inserting long needles into their stomachs.

That would be this….

I assume?

Did I mention that the die-hard sceptics also accuse abductees of “stretching” and “reaching” when recounting their tales? Again, it seem that they’re allowed to do it, because they’re “reputable”. There is no evidence, anywhere, that either Barney or Betty Hill had any interest in or even passing contact with whatsoever in mediaeval or Renaissance French art or literature. But then evidence isn't needed when you're a septic sceptic, only vague allusions to might be's and possibly could's. For some reason they don't need to adhere to the same standards that they demand of pro-abduction theorists to be able to claim that they've proven their own case without question.

Barney was intensely aware of his racial background and it is significant that he thought he saw an evil Nazi alien looking at him when he originally viewed the UFO through binoculars. On these slim grounds this has led some to speculate that this proved their encounter was with a craft built under an alliance of the CIA, Nazis and the aliens.

Lumping together people in the pro-UFO community with people who do their best to be objective is not fair. Speculation is speculation. I don’t indulge in it without deliberately labelling it.

I don’t think it’s unreasonable of Barney to make a mental/emotional leap when feeling as threatened as he did with an image from an earthly perspective that make him feel equally threatened.

Martin Kottmeyer and Peter Rogerson in their many contributions to Magonia magazine have looked in detail at how science fiction films and television, UFO literature and beliefs, combined with the Hills' own psychological stresses and the 'mood' of the time (fears generated by the Cold War, atomic doom, civil unrest, the Space Race) all helped shape the Hill abduction experience.

All of this assumes that the Hills were fans of sci-fi TV shows and movies, UFO literature and so on before their encounter. They weren’t. Neither one had read a UFO book prior to it, only doing so once they began researching in the wake of it. Nor did they watch movies or TV series or listen to wireless shows that dealt with such things. Quite frankly, their lives were too full of important things than dealing with the fripperies of the 60's American equivalent of the Jeremy Kyle show, although it's certainly true that they were affected, as all in the West were, by the thought of Atomic Doom.

All such theories have been cooked up as “may have beens” and “might have dones” by sceptics since then, in exactly the same hopeful, reticulated manner that they usually accuse UFO believers of doing.

Tickleslave83 · Sep 1, 2013

Just noticed this thread, didn't have time to read all 8 pages. Just wanted to say I have an entire blog about my abductions and other paranormal experiences. Unfortunately it seems to be down right now cause Xanga seems to be updating their entire site. Not sure if I want to link it here though. I try to keep my fetish interests and my paranormal interests separate.

tickler101:) · Sep 1, 2013

Aleister Crowley book of the law aliens
demons fallen angels
Aleister Crowley said himself,
"Today they call then angels and demons,
tomorrow they will call them something else."
What we label as alien abductions today, are
very similar to what ancients documented as
encounters with incubi and succubi in the
past. There are even myths/stories of hybrid
incubi children as well as alien hybrid
children.
for those of you who don't know who aleister crowely is Aleister Crowley ( /ˈ k r oʊ l i/ KROH-lee ;
12 October 1875 – 1 December 1947),
born Edward Alexander Crowley , and
also known as both Frater Perdurabo
and The Great Beast 666 , was an
English occultist , mystic, ceremonial
magician , poet and mountaineer , who
was responsible for founding the ethical
philosophy of Thelema.
The hierarchy of the Secret-Societies have been deeply involved in the Black-Occult since they have existed.
This includes the ritual sacrifice of children and babies. This knowledge has been kept from the minds of
society at large until more recently. It is now only a matter of time when the masses of the people become
fully aware of the real agenda behind the secret societies and the true purpose of why they exist.
Aleister Crowley — Initiated to the
highest levels of Freemasonry and
high priest of the Golden Dawn,
said: "A white male child of perfect
innocence and intelligence makes
the most suitable victim."
In the US each year 400,000 children
are reported missing.
In the UK,98,000 children are
reported missing.
UFO news from around the world
Dirk Vander Ploeg, the Publisher of UFO Digest , recently
asked me if I knew of alien abductions having been
stopped by the utterance of the name of Jesus. He told
me that “apparently this information is being withheld
by Mufon and other reporters, investigators etc.”
I reminded him that I had written about the possibility
of such occurrences in several articles including,
Extraterrestrials Tremble at the Name of Jesus, UFO
Digest March 29, 2007, and more recently The Birth of
Christ caused the Extraterrestrial Fallen Angels to
Tremble, UFO Digest, December 3, 2008.
The word of God tells us that demons (as well as fallen
angels, i.e. extraterrestrials) tremble at the name of Jesus ( James 2:19 ) because God
highly exalted Him and bestowed on Him the name which is above all names ( Philippians
2:9 ). At the name of Jesus, every knee shall bow of those on the earth, and those under
the earth and every tongue shall confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the
Father ( Philippians 2:10 ).
Read the
King James bible. In particular Revelations
13. In it? If you read it from the possibility of
an alien invasion. One alien at the head. And
the use telepathy to communicate. The world
will need a mouth piece to speak for him
through telepathy. And that is the anti Christ.
The beast, the anti Christ, and the False
Prophet are 3 different beings. The anti
Christ and the False Prophet get their power
from the 1st beast. It is all there. WAKE UP

Jagermeistered · Sep 2, 2013

Did I mention that the die-hard sceptics also accuse abductees of “stretching” and “reaching” when recounting their tales? Again, it seem that they’re allowed to do it, because they’re “reputable”. There is no evidence, anywhere, that either Barney or Betty Hill had any interest in or even passing contact with whatsoever in mediaeval or Renaissance French art or literature

Why are you arguing against skeptics? Where is your proof that Barney and/or Betty Hill; did not have any interest in or even passing "contact"(whatever that means), with mediaeval or Renaissance French art or literature? Why do I have to prove their story?

BigJim · Sep 2, 2013

Jagermeistered said:
Why are you arguing against skeptics?

To be accurate, I am arguing against bad scientific thinking masquerading as reputable, empirical, mainstream thinking. When it occurs on the pro-UFO side it usually doesn't need arguing against, because it stands out and is laughably bad. (And does get laughed at.)

But when it occurs on the sceptical side it is usually whilst claiming to be honest and wise etc. I find that to be very unsavoury and dishonest.

Actual, genuine sceptics (ones who use empirical facts and honest analysis of them) I am not arguing against. More power to them in fact. We need more of them.

Jagermeistered said:
Where is your proof that Barney and/or Betty Hill; did not have any interest in or even passing "contact"(whatever that means), with mediaeval or Renaissance French art or literature?

I don't need any, I'm not the one using it as a basis for my argument. And how could you have proof of a negative anyway? Their house being devoid of books or magazines about said art would not be proof that they'd never seen it, but it's certainly proof that the sceptical argument isn't ... err, proved. (More proof than a bottle of whiskey in that sentence.)

I am rebutting that article which states its belief that such matter is partially the cause for cases like the Hills. It is pulling a wishy-washy argument out of its arse with no evidence or proof that is is actually relevant. Clutching at straws, as we limeys say. Precisely what they claim UFO proponents do too often.

If someone claimed to have worked out the formula for turning lead into gold but presented no proof of it, they'd be rightly pilloried and would look absurd for saying that a logical thinker couldn't prove that they HADN'T done it. That seems to be what you're saying here though.

Someone putting a theory forward needs to have evidence for it to be considered serious. Someone else doesn't have to prove them wrong, only ask why they haven't proved themselves right.

Jagermeistered said:
Why do I have to prove their story?

You seem to identify yourself as a sceptic, but you're asking about proving the Hills story? Surely you'd be trying to DISprove it?

Either way, if someone has an opinion that they are presenting as a rational, scientific one then they should be required to have evidence for it. Too often I have seen anti-UFO arguments put forward that are to be frank, total horseshit and full of the most un-scientific assumptions, errors, miscalculations and falsehoods. (And sadly for my old childhood hero, Carl Sagan makes a total dog's breakfast of his analysis of the Hill case, whether or not he's actually right in assuming it didn't happen.)

As for my opinion of the Hills case, I am on the fence. I have yet to be convinced of its certain reality, but equally the sceptics have done a truly crap job in arguing against it. Puzzling, if you consider that the subject matter is so "out there" that it should be easy. Maybe one day evidence will 100% disprove it? I doubt it though, because if it existed it would have come out by now.

To quote Carl Sagan extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and the ever more convoluted explanations for UFO's by sceptics do qualify as extraordinary a lot of the time. But they seem to get away without doing any decent investigation or adhering to the same standards of evidence that they demand of proponents.

BigJim · Sep 2, 2013

Before I forget, passing contact would mean peripheral exposure to subject matter maybe once or twice, as opposed to repeated exposure to it like you would get if it was your hobby.

I have had passing contact with knowledge of fighter jets because my dad used to be an airfield fireman and got us into air shows when I was a kid, for instance. But astronomy and physics are hobbies because I read about them a lot and have done for years.

BigJim · Sep 2, 2013

Hmmm.... just caught this on skepdic.com....

Dr. Mack claimed that his psychiatric patients were not mentally ill (then why was he treating them?)

A rather snide remark and not very detailed. Until I read anything Mack has written in detail I won't know (that's an admission of ignorance folks, not something you get very often in this field), but I could just as easily say that he was treating them for PTSD or because they thought they were psychotic because of what was in their memory, but turned out not to indicate on any acceptable test.

and that he could think of no better explanation for their stories than that they were true. However, until someone produces physical evidence that abductions have occurred, it seems more reasonable to believe that Dr. Mack and his patients were deluded or frauds.

That last half sentence seems to indicate a willingness to form a concrete opinion based on a rather lazy application of Occam's Razor in a circumstance where it is obvious that we just don't know enough.

Personally, I think it is more "reasonable" to believe that we should keep an open verdict in our opinions.

Dussicar · Sep 12, 2013

I don't remember making any posts in this thread.

BigJim · Sep 12, 2013

Dussicar said:
I don't remember making any posts in this thread.

That'll be the amnesia.

Druidici · May 4, 2015

Almost 20 years ago now,4 friends and I saw a couple fast moving lights while having out one night in one of our local parks. We all remember seeing them about 500 ft. or so up then nothing much after that and we have approx. 20-25 minutes unaccounted for that night. Weird til this day.

:abducted:

BlasterMaster · May 9, 2015

Neil deGrasse Tyson on other sentient beings visiting our Planet:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9BRDCxNEuyg

BigJim · Jun 7, 2015

DebonairDamsel said:
Neil deGrasse Tyson on other sentient beings visiting our Planet:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9BRDCxNEuyg

I won't watch that clip, because I know his attitude is summed up by what he said when briefly touching on the subject once. He said he couldn't understand why none of these so-called abductees didn't, when in mid-abduction, suddenly cry out "Oh! Look over there!" and then swipe a piece of equipment when the aliens looked the other way.

He is in many ways a brilliant man, as is anyone who seeks to bring science to the masses. But that is quite the silliest and most impractical suggestion you could give any abductee.

Tickleslave83 · Jun 9, 2015

I won't watch that clip, because I know his attitude is summed up by what he said when briefly touching on the subject once. He said he couldn't understand why none of these so-called abductees didn't, when in mid-abduction, suddenly cry out "Oh! Look over there!" and then swipe a piece of equipment when the aliens looked the other way.

He is in many ways a brilliant man, as is anyone who seeks to bring science to the masses. But that is quite the silliest and most impractical suggestion you could give any abductee.

I agree here. Although I am a strong admirer of Neil Degrasse Tyson (despite the whole Pluto thing), as well as many other great scientists, many of them simply are close minded and aren't willing to accept the unacceptable. I think most people still have this idea about how contact is supposed to happen. The alien abduction phenomenon is really just how we wouldn't want contact to happen. In most science fiction the aliens either contact us directly or just outright invade. The idea that we are being studied by lab rats and have no idea what the abductors are doing or why just makes the entire thing all the more frightening. At least even in an open invasion we would know indisputably what they want and what their plans are and there wouldn't be any ambiguity or mystery about it.

And it's also clear that a lot of these scientists haven't even really seriously looked into the phenomenon. It is one of those great scientific taboos to openly admit that we might have been visited already and I think that a lot of people take that view simply because it's safer. Saying why can't the abductees just shout here I am over here shows a complete ignorance of the phenomenon. When you are completely paralyzed and in an altered state of consciousness at the mercy of another being who comes into your room at night, there's really not a whole lot you can do as far as evidence gathering goes. You have to give these beings credit – if they can pilot interstellar spaceships, taking us out of our rooms in the middle of the night and making sure that we don't obtain any specimens that they don't want us to obtain from them should be a piece of cake.

And that again is precisely why many will not accept the phenomenon – accepting this means that we have to accept that we are not on equal ground and that the people who have contacted us are not so much greeting us as equals, so much as greeting us as a scientist greets his lab rat. For whatever else the abduction phenomenon implies it implies that whatever we are in contact with is not something that is going to be meeting us on equal ground and may not care of our own desires in the matter. Basically to admit the phenomenon is real is to admit that we are the inferior species in this contact scenario and are basically helpless before it.

Who here has been adbucted?

Registered User

Verified

4th Level Red Feather

Registered User

4th Level Red Feather

TMF Expert

Registered User

Registered User

Registered User

Registered User

Level of Cherry Feather

Level of Cherry Feather

Level of Cherry Feather

TMF Expert

Banned

Level of Tangerine Feather

Level of Cherry Feather

Level of Cherry Feather

Level of Cherry Feather

2nd Level Green Feather

Level of Cherry Feather

4th Level Red Feather

1st Level Yellow Feather

Level of Cherry Feather

TMF Expert