How to stop alien abductions

[Donnal]

have a bath use heaps of soap and hide in a a glass barrier

 

[Giambattista]

This thread has run on, but you still haven't managed to dig up any vaguely credible evidence, nor make a postulation that survives scrutiny.

Blah. You never addressed my example of JAL Flight 1628, though twas one of the very few I made (only one?). I'd say that qualifies as being at least "vaguely" credible. The fact that you completely ignored my reference to the incident means either you're not very observant (flocks of birds notwithstanding) or you intentionally made no mention of it. In that case, I could probably write all day...

You haven't therefore, managed to support that UFOlogy is a legitimate subject.

Hello? God? It's me, Margherita...

I'll debate you on facts, but the rhetoric is getting a bit tiresome.

Rhetoric, eh? Something YOU never indulge in, I suppose? Like the part about rectal probes? Or the part about alien logic?
Reminder needed?

Don't cop out and say we cannot think like Aliens, intelligence is intelligence, no matter what creature possesses it.

Cop out, eh?
All intelligence is intelligence?
All humans think like all other humans? All humans eat meat? All humans listen to the same music? Laugh at the same jokes? Find the same people attractive? Find the opposite sex attractive? Vote for the same politicians? Hold the same political ideals and doctrines? All Americans love football? Ice cream? Ronald McDonald?
All people care about what goes on above our heads? Care about UFOs, and all other paranormal subjects?
Everyone is interested in what everyone else is interested in? No one has independent thought? No one ever plots against other people, while telling those people that it's all in their own best interest?

Yeah. Intelligence is intelligence. Really.

'nor make a postulation that survives scrutiny'
Did your statement about alien logic survive scrutiny? Honestly?

 

[phlogistician]

Blah. You never addressed my example of JAL Flight 1628, though twas one of the very few I made (only one?). I'd say that qualifies as being at least "vaguely" credible.

No, I looked it up, but there was a mundane explanation, and I didn't want to get into a tangential discussion about it.

The fact that you completely ignored my reference to the incident means either you're not very observant (flocks of birds notwithstanding) or you intentionally made no mention of it. In that case, I could probably write all day...

It got debunked, so what's to discuss?

Rhetoric, eh? Something YOU never indulge in, I suppose? Like the part about rectal probes?

I'm sure I said 'anal probes' but anyway, I didn't start that rumour, that aliens shove implements up abductees butts, abductees claim that. If you have an issue with this claim, take it up with those that claim to have suffered it.

Or the part about alien logic?
Reminder needed?

I'm sure I said 'Intelligence is Intelligence' when considering possible motivations, so no, I don't need to be reminded, nor paraphrased!

'nor make a postulation that survives scrutiny'
Did your statement about alien logic survive scrutiny? Honestly?

If only I had made one about logic. I said Intelligence, and you took that off on a tangent about personal preferences. I could understand an alien race abducting humans for scientific research, but cannot see the value in repeatedly abducting the same subject. Scientists prefer a large sample size as it improves statistics, so why waste time with the same subject over and over? Alien intelligence is going to come up with a different answer is it? Alien maths and statistics differ somehow? Taking the contrary position to this is dishnonest, it's like the 'God of gaps' argument, ie, flawed, and debunked.

 

[Ripley]

I could understand an alien race abducting humans for scientific research, but cannot see the value in repeatedly abducting the same subject. Scientists prefer a large sample size as it improves statistics, so why waste time with the same subject over and over? Alien intelligence is going to come up with a different answer is it? Alien maths and statistics differ somehow? Taking the contrary position to this is dishnonest, it's like the 'God of gaps' argument, ie, flawed, and debunked.

Well, on the other hand, instead of setting up a criterion for validity, then speculating by assuming that the subject is faulty because the criteria is not satisfied, why not pick up what's already demonstrated, and speculate from there? If single people are repeatedly abducted, what can be inferred? Of course, this wouldn't be evidence, but at least it would exercise a more sweeping perspective and readiness for filling in the gaps—the "thinking outside the box" argument.

 

[Avatar]

http://www.piparmetra.net/ftp/comics/squee/squee-1.jpg
http://www.piparmetra.net/ftp/comics/squee/squee-2.jpg
http://www.piparmetra.net/ftp/comics/squee/squee-3.jpg
http://www.piparmetra.net/ftp/comics/squee/squee-4.jpg
http://www.piparmetra.net/ftp/comics/squee/squee-5.jpg
http://www.piparmetra.net/ftp/comics/squee/squee-6.jpg
http://www.piparmetra.net/ftp/comics/squee/squee-7.jpg

 

[Giambattista]

No, I looked it up, but there was a mundane explanation, and I didn't want to get into a tangential discussion about it.

So you didn't mention it because it was mundane? Mundane according to who? Why is discussing the matter so bothersome to you, if it can easily be categorized as explainable?

It got debunked, so what's to discuss?

Debunked by who? Was it explained to everyone's satisfaction, or just those people you have personally deemed as being "right thinkers"?

I'm sure I said 'Intelligence is Intelligence' when considering possible motivations, so no, I don't need to be reminded, nor paraphrased!

If only I had made one about logic. I said Intelligence, and you took that off on a tangent about personal preferences.

Yes, confusing semantics, I do apologize, however I felt that in this question of motives, both intelligence AND logic are concerned. People's personal preferences and actions also illustrate differences in logic and intelligence in determining their motives for doing the things they do, hence my partial listing of such examples.

I could understand an alien race abducting humans for scientific research, but cannot see the value in repeatedly abducting the same subject.

Understand is a reference to intelligence or knowledge, as to not understand would suggest a lack of intelligence or knowledge on a certain subject. It is very easy to go from not understanding a thing to not being able to see the value in something, which to me involves a questioning of logic, not just intelligence. That you see no value in something, does not imply that there is NO value in something, it simply points to the fact that for YOU, there is no reason, logic, intelligence, etc. The perceived value or logic of something can and will be limited by your (or any other person's) understanding and point of view. Others may see things quite differently.

Scientists prefer a large sample size as it improves statistics, so why waste time with the same subject over and over? Alien intelligence is going to come up with a different answer is it? Alien maths and statistics differ somehow?

You're assuming things about motives from your own perspective, as I noted in the previous paragraph. You're assuming that they're interested only in samples and studies and statistics (the 3 S's, I call them, starting now ).
Certainly, when one reads various abduction accounts, studying and tagging is not always the centerpiece of the encounters.
Just because you see no value or logic in their actions does not mean there is not a purpose, assuming that they are indeed happening.

If single people are repeatedly abducted, what can be inferred?

And if they are told differing reasons for the abductions by their captors themselves, what can be inferred?

Taking the contrary position to this is dishnonest, it's like the 'God of gaps' argument, ie, flawed, and debunked.

Flawed and debunked? Not quite. However, I do not wish to confuse Fundamentalist-oriented defenses of inconsistencies in Biblical doctrine (real or perceived) with purely hypothetical ideas regarding the meaning or purpose of the abduction phenomenon.
Because you see the only purpose as one of scientific, interplanetary zoological inquiry, you seem to conclude (correct me if I'm wrong) that all other hypotheses are baseless, and therefore the entire abduction phenomenon is baseless, while also implicating the wider study of UFOs in the guilt of abductions.

Failure to see intelligence or logic in something does not mean it doesn't exist!

While there are many facets to the overall UFO phenomenon, presuppositions about the validity of one of these facets (like abduction) based on what is probably a limited understanding of it, shouldn't automatically damn all aspects of the study.

 

[Giambattista]

If single people are repeatedly abducted, what can be inferred? Of course, this wouldn't be evidence, but at least it would exercise a more sweeping perspective and readiness for filling in the gaps—the "thinking outside the box" argument.

Indeed, instead of reaching the conclusion that because something sounds illogical that it is automatically untrue.
I feel that too many skeptical inquiries (note the italics, as if the usage of the word is questionable! ) are coloured by biased preconceptions.

 

[phlogistician]

Giambattista, it is clear that you want to believe so much, you throw all semblance of logic, study and discernment away.

Saying that we are unable to understand alien intelligence or logic and therefore a motive, excusing the variety of reports is ridiculous. That there is no physical evidence says everything, however.

You offered on 'credible' report, which has been debunked. And yes, by people I deem credible, scientists.

Offer more then rhetoric, please.

 

[Yorda]

alien abductions are real, but they're not extraterrestials, just the same astral entities that have been visiting us for thousands of years. back then we called them elves and demons. they look like aliens because the astral world is like a dream, it reflects our thoughts.

nowadays everyone usually see those grey aliens, but before they became famous, "aliens" came in many different shapes: robot aliens, hairy aliens, human looking aliens... i know because my mom has 2 old comic books based on real stories with many different aliens.

 

[Stryder]

You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time.

So are you one of the fooled, or one of those that aren't?

 

[Ripley]

If single people are repeatedly abducted, what can be inferred?

And if they are told differing reasons for the abductions by their captors themselves, what can be inferred?

When I made that comment I was thinking more on the lines of boundries.

It seems to me that a repeated abduction of a single individual exposes at least one stark peculiarity about an extraterrestrial civilization's priorities.

The first think that came to mind was their capacity to focus in on a single individual (for whatever reason). Regardless of their objectives, their focus is one that is untethered by limitations—a certain luxury of time and resources to indulge on a long-term case.

And this is the crux of it: evidently they don't rely on the limits of government grants and budgets—they seem to have carte blanch on everything they do. In fact, if one takes an overall snapshot of the UFO phenomenon, including fancy fly-bys (maneuvers), craft designs, aloofness (non-communicative), audacity (abductions, no-fly zones, inspections), one is stricken by their laissez-faire attitude—one that is more in league with the profiles of our own aristocratic classes.