Hey duendy, post some facts, or discuss the topic for a change eh? All you post is ego driven drivel and ad homs.
Disclosure Conclusions
- Thread starter craterchains (Norval
- Start date
everyone here wit any wit. see how tis ever-so-educated-scientist operates. when he is put in a spot he just name calls and accues the other of samephlogistician said:
checkout te previous post to him focus on one quewstion i asked him. sources of info to back up what he was 'infomring' us about. now bear in mind, tis is 'mr_facts' mann himself. you would imagine he would JUMP at the chance to present lots and lots of facts. bit no. he avoids that, and other questions, atacks the asker, and ten has te nerve to call the other as doing ad hominem. so a hypocrite as well
this man is a joke
Duendy, in this thread, you pounced on a post made by me to in reply to Oli, and used it as launchpad for an ad-hom.
As usual, you didn't discuss the original topic, nor it's tangents. You didn't offer any fact, insight, or value.
What 'spot' do you think you have put me in? was it this insightful phrase?
or was it your question;
referring to sleep deprivation studies?
here's some info;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleep_deprivation
http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/p980301b.html
http://www.channel4.com/entertainme...ws/features/Sunday_what_happens_no_sleep.html
http://menshealth.about.com/od/lifestyle/a/sleep_depriv.htm?once=true&
You are being obtuse duendy. It's well known that sleep deprivation causes hallucinations, this much is established fact, but you question it, merely because I repeat it. That is pretty sad, and shows how out of touch with reality you are.
As usual, you didn't discuss the original topic, nor it's tangents. You didn't offer any fact, insight, or value.
What 'spot' do you think you have put me in? was it this insightful phrase?
duendy said:
or was it your question;
referring to sleep deprivation studies?
here's some info;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleep_deprivation
http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/p980301b.html
http://www.channel4.com/entertainme...ws/features/Sunday_what_happens_no_sleep.html
http://menshealth.about.com/od/lifestyle/a/sleep_depriv.htm?once=true&
You are being obtuse duendy. It's well known that sleep deprivation causes hallucinations, this much is established fact, but you question it, merely because I repeat it. That is pretty sad, and shows how out of touch with reality you are.
psyahiatrictimes hey?....suprise surprise....phlogistician said:
i am NOT in any way shape or form claiminnnnng tat sleep deprivation doesn't
encourage hallucincations. i speak from exprience....what i AM saying is that tat xplnation in no way covers all reported abdution experience. no sir......you phlo have the unfortunate tendency to generalize, rathe thn keep an open mind
Am I aware of Dr Susan Blackmore, well, yes, and I have posted about her before, and have even met her, as she lectured an ex gf of mine.
Yes, NDEs are nothing more than oxygen deprivation. They can be recreated.
Abduction experiences can be reproduced by inducing temporal lobe epilepsy too. She even subjected herself to that one.
I wasn't say that sleep deprivation accounts for all forms of hallucination either, it was one amongst three reasons I gave iirc. What I am saying, is that my money is there being a prosaic explanation for all of these abduction experiences, and they are all some kind of hallucination or dream.
Yes, NDEs are nothing more than oxygen deprivation. They can be recreated.
Abduction experiences can be reproduced by inducing temporal lobe epilepsy too. She even subjected herself to that one.
I wasn't say that sleep deprivation accounts for all forms of hallucination either, it was one amongst three reasons I gave iirc. What I am saying, is that my money is there being a prosaic explanation for all of these abduction experiences, and they are all some kind of hallucination or dream.
You're not getting my point.
Epilepsy may be a neurological condition characterised by seizures and visions but, what causes it? Evidently there isn't agreement on that ("scientists believe that seizures can result from a number of unrelated conditions, including...").
The point is, just as dreaming is a subconscious activity triggered by, wait -- there isn't agreement on that either... ("There are two competing stories as to the neurological cause of the dreaming experience.")
In other words, under atypical conditions--or perhaps, under exclusive conditions?--the brain will react "abnormally". But what's so abnormal about the brain reacting to atypical conditions? And how can you prove that such atypical conditions might not also be externally derived, generating very similar "symptoms"? If alien scientists with a superior grasp of scientific methods tamper, if an individual (an abductee) must be accessed via ulterior channels, if the self must be approached from an inanimate consciousness, all of which are atypical scenarios, will the mind not... react?
Or are you all waiting for special neurological "symptoms" expressly earmarked to determine the "alien" experience, proving that for here, the brain will react thus, but react like that for everything else?
Epilepsy may be a neurological condition characterised by seizures and visions but, what causes it? Evidently there isn't agreement on that ("scientists believe that seizures can result from a number of unrelated conditions, including...").
The point is, just as dreaming is a subconscious activity triggered by, wait -- there isn't agreement on that either... ("There are two competing stories as to the neurological cause of the dreaming experience.")
In other words, under atypical conditions--or perhaps, under exclusive conditions?--the brain will react "abnormally". But what's so abnormal about the brain reacting to atypical conditions? And how can you prove that such atypical conditions might not also be externally derived, generating very similar "symptoms"? If alien scientists with a superior grasp of scientific methods tamper, if an individual (an abductee) must be accessed via ulterior channels, if the self must be approached from an inanimate consciousness, all of which are atypical scenarios, will the mind not... react?
Or are you all waiting for special neurological "symptoms" expressly earmarked to determine the "alien" experience, proving that for here, the brain will react thus, but react like that for everything else?
Light said:
Right. You sort of turned me off after describing me doing "psycho-babble" -- wasn't that what Water was complaining about you?
Anyway, the honchos of this thread have long left the scene after doing their bob and dance with each other -- the thread was essentially dead until I answered something c20H25N3o asked three days prior, something about good and bad aliens? I just made an observation. The rest just developed. Happy?
Meanwhile said:
No, that wasn't the problem with Water at all. She just became extremely defensive (which is to be expected, I guess) and became offensive - which is also a common defensive tactic.
The reason I called your presentation "psycho-babble" is that it appeared your purpose in using big, technical terms was an attempt to dazzle while at the same time most of what you were were saying was pure speculation with no foundation in fact whatsoever.
craterchains (Norval said:
There are so many variables to this issue it can give you a headache. Do aliens exist? Where are their crafts/bodies? Have they been hidden? Can you prove they have been hidden, IF they have been hidden?? Are they dangerous? Are they friendly? Can you hide their crashes when and if they happen? Nonetheless this is a very fun topic, filled with opinions and guesses.
I suppose if one was to leap to the conclusion that alien technology has been covered up I would think the following would be the easiest to conclude; That most militaries cover-up (or classify) alien technology as advanced technology and therefore a great asset for them and something you don't want other nations to have. I would also think for this to make sense, that "Alien crashes" are rare making it a bit easier to keep under wraps at least somewhat.
I am sure some people here will reject any assumption of such a cover-up, I on the other hand do not. Because there have been (and are) cover-up's before that were covered up that dont even begin to touch ETI-technology.
The tricky part is proving it!
I suppose I'd like to know how one would prove something is classified. If you can find that evidence of ETI is classified top secret (Or above) then you'd be on the way to finding your smoking gun. Anyways, I am rambling, so I will shut it. btimsah said:There are so many variables to this issue it can give you a headache. Do aliens exist? Where are their crafts/bodies? Have they been hidden? Can you prove they have been hidden, IF they have been hidden?? Are they dangerous? Are they friendly? Can you hide their crashes when and if they happen? Nonetheless this is a very fun topic, filled with opinions and guesses.
I suppose if one was to leap to the conclusion that alien technology has been covered up I would think the following would be the easiest to conclude; That most militaries cover-up (or classify) alien technology as advanced technology and therefore a great asset for them and something you don't want other nations to have. I would also think for this to make sense, that "Alien crashes" are rare making it a bit easier to keep under wraps at least somewhat.
I am sure some people here will reject any assumption of such a cover-up, I on the other hand do not. Because there have been (and are) cover-up's before that were covered up that dont even begin to touch ETI-technology.
The tricky part is proving it!
Yes, I agree that the tricky part would be proving it.
There's a serious, major problem that I think most "believers" tend to forget or dismiss far too easily (or actually just ignore). The fact that any coverup by the government or military would involve hundreds if not thousands of people.
Never once in the history of humans have THAT many people cooperated well enough to pull that off. Just look at all the other coverups that someone has leaked - with credible evidence - concerning political issues, private deals and the like.Someone , actually several, by now, would have blown the whistle on something that big. And they would have brought some tangible proof with them.
So, in order to maintain their favorite myth, the believers are forced by default - with absolutely no other recourse left to them - to claim that the real information is being withheld.
The whole thing is really no more complicated than just that.Light said:
www.disclosureproject.org features many witnesses that could be just what you are talking about. Might take a look at it. I suppose my response to you is that there are hundreds of witnesses and when even one says it's covered up nobody believes them, so I don't really think this is much of an issue. Once you get the thousand witnesses of the coverup, you'd then merely have debunkers claiming that those thousands are lying or mistaken because hundreds of thousands do not support their claims.. lol. Right??
We'd have to know how many UFO crashes/ETI events there were to accurately ascertain the number of people that would (hypothetically) be involved. Also, some have blown the whistle (www.disclosureproject.org) only to be ignored.
So, in order to maintain their favorite myth, the believers are forced by default - with absolutely no other recourse left to them - to claim that the real information is being withheld.
I've read and studied a lot of eye-witness testimony and cases regarding the UFO/ETI connection with the military. Some (Government workers) insist that evidence of UFO/ETI is being withheld - These are people with the security clasification and working position to know such a thing.
I don't think we can just ignore them, as I don't think you do either.
Last edited:
btimsah said:www.disclosureproject.org features many witnesses that could be just what you are talking about. Might take a look at it. I suppose my response to you is that there are hundreds of witnesses and when even one says it's covered up nobody believes them, so I don't really think this is much of an issue. Once you get the thousand witnesses of the coverup, you'd then merely have debunkers claiming that those thousands are lying or mistaken because hundreds of thousands do not support their claims.. lol. Right??
We'd have to know how many UFO crashes/ETI events there were to accurately ascertain the number of people that would (hypothetically) be involved. Also, some have blown the whistle (www.disclosureproject.org) only to be ignored.
I've read and studied a lot of eye-witness testimony and cases regarding the UFO/ETI connection with the military. Some (Government workers) insist that evidence of UFO/ETI is being withheld - These are people with the security clasification and working position to know such a thing.
I don't think we can just ignore them, as I don't think you do either.
I believe you missed one key statement in my post, namely "And they would have brought some tangible proof with them. "
The only "thing" they've presented is talk.
And anybody can do that - it proves nothing.Light said:
Come to think of it, what purpose would proof or disclosure serve? The very nature of this scenario -- whether true or false -- involving extraterrestrials and UFOs is a curious one, isn't it? Under climate of this scenario, the human being is "victimised", the human being is "disadvantaged", "vulnerable", "insecure", "alone", "frightened". The human community is "unsympathetic", "indifferent", "distrustful", "contentious", "contemptuous", "conventional", "provincial", "haughty". Why should ETs desire contact with that?
But as long as abductions continue in this trend (as they continue to be "reported" -- whether true or false), I doubt any proof or disclosure will ever happen. However, should abduction reports and UFO claims suddenly stop. Then, like the calm before the storm...
BTW, I read somewhere that governments are in fact dropping hints and bits of information here and there amid disinformation.
Meanwhile said:
Interesting thoughts.
My main point about proof from the whistleblowers, as opposed to all those people that just crave attention, is that some of them would have brought along tangible proof. Photos, small artifacts, material samples - something besides just their mouths. They would know their word alone would be doubted. If it were me, I woudn't say anything without something to back me up.
So I don't believe a single one of them. They just enjoy (as many people always have) the attention their wild claims get them.
Now understand that I'm not at all berating those who really think they've seen something. There have been many mysterious sightings that haven't been fully explained. But that still doesn't mean they are craft being flown by ETs. I'm talking about all the wild claims of abductions, having seen alien craft secluded away in some remote location - all that sensationalism junk. I don't think there's an ounce of truth to any of it.
“
So you judge her on a superficial level? Very fair and even minded of you.
It's simple duendy. Weird shit happens. Science investigates weird shit, and learns what causes it. An experiment is devised that can recreate the symptoms, based on the data gathered from monitoring real live situations. That is pretty conclusive. You are just throwing doubt, saying 'well you can't prove there isn't more to it, so science is flawed.' Well woowoos can't prove there is a spirit to live on post death, there have been no measurements, or readings. Science has data, and woowoos have assertion. I an the antithesis of religion, duendy, but oddly, you call me religious as a slur, when believing in the afterlife is a religion. Again, you speak out of both sides of your mouth at the same time!
Started reading it, and he uses some really below the belt moves to try and prove his point. Of course, having studied at a theological seminary, he's hardly objective on the matter, and in fact, is guilty of one of the things you supposedly dislike; he's attempting to maintain the power of the church by propogating their lies so they can keep controlling the masses. I'm surprised you can't see through the article and see that!
To quote that article;
"The common link between NDE and these other experiences is the release of the spirit, to a greater or lesser extent, from the body. This is the relation that should be investigated".
Now, that is an interesting, and obviously flawed statement. Surely, if such a thing as a spirit existed, it would leave the body once it is dead. Why does a spirit leave, and then presumably re-enter a body during a _near_ death experience? How does it get back in? Stone's critique of Blackmore supposes the existence of the spirit. But he has not proven that. So anything built on his initial premise is not proven, until the spirit is proven. Good luck to him making his words good.
Listed in the thread previously. Perhaps time for a recap?
duendy said:
So you judge her on a superficial level? Very fair and even minded of you.
It's simple duendy. Weird shit happens. Science investigates weird shit, and learns what causes it. An experiment is devised that can recreate the symptoms, based on the data gathered from monitoring real live situations. That is pretty conclusive. You are just throwing doubt, saying 'well you can't prove there isn't more to it, so science is flawed.' Well woowoos can't prove there is a spirit to live on post death, there have been no measurements, or readings. Science has data, and woowoos have assertion. I an the antithesis of religion, duendy, but oddly, you call me religious as a slur, when believing in the afterlife is a religion. Again, you speak out of both sides of your mouth at the same time!
Started reading it, and he uses some really below the belt moves to try and prove his point. Of course, having studied at a theological seminary, he's hardly objective on the matter, and in fact, is guilty of one of the things you supposedly dislike; he's attempting to maintain the power of the church by propogating their lies so they can keep controlling the masses. I'm surprised you can't see through the article and see that!
To quote that article;
"The common link between NDE and these other experiences is the release of the spirit, to a greater or lesser extent, from the body. This is the relation that should be investigated".
Now, that is an interesting, and obviously flawed statement. Surely, if such a thing as a spirit existed, it would leave the body once it is dead. Why does a spirit leave, and then presumably re-enter a body during a _near_ death experience? How does it get back in? Stone's critique of Blackmore supposes the existence of the spirit. But he has not proven that. So anything built on his initial premise is not proven, until the spirit is proven. Good luck to him making his words good.
Listed in the thread previously. Perhaps time for a recap?
Light said:
You know, this obsession for proof proof proof -- what is it really? As I've mentioned in passing somewhere here, either here or in philosophy, one must also learn to scratch the surface where least expected. But what is this obsession for proof? Couldn't it also be a "symptom" of a "deranged" mind, such as an allegory for capture, possession... imprisonment? Sure, we want to know the truth. But I suspect that desire is disingenuous -- knowing much about ambitious, competitive, territorial modern man. And if sentient aliens have any similar psychological perceptions -- being well travelled and savvy and all -- wouldn't they also conclude, in reference to disclosure, "ah, thanks but no thanks."
Meanwhile said:
I'll simply say this. There is no obsession with proof. Rather, without proof there is nothing at all.
Science is a never-ending search for proof, always scratching, always digging. Specualtion, wishful thinking, imagining and all the rest generally leads to nothing at all. Now THAT'S where mental derangement comes into the picture. Just look at Duendy and Rabon for prime examples of that sort of thing. <sad>
But how can there be proof if the proposition is constantly cheapened, if the proposition is barely permitted to be heard? This pseudoscience forum can attest to that! No -- you haven't convinced me: the naysayers abound in this society, and their tactics and imperial impatience is enough to support my theory that humankind is sadly not an attractive prospect for any galactic civilisation to meet in toto.