is there evidence for alien abductions etc.?

[glenn239]

I cannot disagree with that. I was thinking more along the lines of an independent eyewitness who is alleging a crime that wasn't witnessed by others, particularly not to the degree of the initial witness.

For either UFO sightings or abductions to have any credence, the eyewitness testimony must conform to the standards that legal precedent demonstrates is reliable and trustworthy. This should pretty much eliminate abduction cases, because as you suggest, they tend to lack corroboration from other independent witnesses.

However, for UFO sightings, I think you’ll find that using demographic and statistical analysis to ‘weed’ sighting cases will actually reinforce the credibility of certain sightings. In this respect I would draw a sharp distinction between abduction reports and UFO sightings.

 

[Gustav]

JDawg

What's "so hard about this" is the fact that it is a ficticious scenario, and it isn't real. We don't have these evidences.

i do not think i was trying to prove anything. i was merely trying to establish whether your evidentiary requirements would be satisfied by the given scenario. i was however a bit clumsy in setting up the scenario. a "rendezvous" presupposes the existence of an et/ufo and as such is illogical. what i meant was the types of data typically available in the usual astronaut sightings that allegedly indicate et ufos

No, I can't. Science has stated what the "extraordinary" evidence would entail, yet none of you can provide it. If this evidence is out of reach at "any point in time" then what are the chances that the thing you claim is true?

really? and what are these statements? would you differentiate b/w the evidentiary requirements for the various fields of study in science? would you make distinctions b/w the hard sciences such as chemistry and the inferential sciences such as astronomy and their respective methodologies?

again, what specific evidentiary requirements do you have for ufology?

let me illustrate again how unreasonable you pseudo skeptics are with your evidentiary requirements

In the same way one of the requirements of science is that it be repeatable - how are you going to repeat an alien abduction - or that you can analyse the phenomenom with repeatable precision and methodology. When that is done it does seem that there are so often much simpler explanations to account for the observations: explanations that have been validated by the scientific method.

As a geologist I am accustomed to dealing with the fact that, in many cases, our laboratory experiments took place millions of years ago and we are now in the process of trying to interpret the scattered notes left behind in the ruins of the lab. The hard sciences do have the luxury of setting the experiment up just so, varying one factor at a time. Pity the poor geologist or the field biologist.

"how are you going to repeat an alien abduction"]

/speechless

opi then goes on to make excuses for other sciences yet insists that an actual ufo abduction be reenacted on demand
this is to me is an absolute perverted and unrealistic application of the scientific method. i mean, do you pseudo skeptics not understand that deduction would work just fine in cases where reproducibility is unrealistic as an option?

lets go back to school...

3) Test the hypotheses—In some situations it may not be practical to test your hypotheses by experimentation. Instead, you can subject your hypotheses to deductive reasoning. Your reasoning might include how the current situation is different from others. For this imaginary situation, you have not had any previous flyrock problems in that quarry. You have been successfully using the same drilling crew, the same blasting crew and the same explosives. Therefore, engineering issues are unlikely, but should not yet be ruled out. The difference is that you started a new level in the quarry. You do know that the area you previously quarried contained fractured but non-cavernous limestones, but prior to the blast you had not seen many exposures of the bedrock at the new quarry level.?

As you test your hypotheses, it is acceptable to collect more data. Discussions with the driller revealed that small cavities were encountered during drilling. A site visit to the new blast face confirmed that observation. It was further determined that the amount of explosives used was based on the weight of the truck when entering the operation (before filling the shot holes) and when leaving the operation (after filling the shot holes). Exactly how much explosive went into each hole was not recorded. In this imaginary situation, the most likely hypothesis, which becomes a theory, is that cavities were inadvertently filled with excessive blasting agent, and because the blast holes were filled at a fast rate using a bulk loader, the application of excessive explosives was not noticed. The excess explosives generated too much blast, thus resulting in the flyrock occurrence. Fireflies, Flyrock and the Scientific Method

you agenda ridden and disingenuous pseudo skeptics always move the goal posts.

secondly, you pseudo skeptics/scientists seemingly believe that since most cases can be explained away, all have been too

So you are willing to believe that NASA put bogus dialouge on the airwaves for the "elite group in society" when that very elite group's accounts would not be considered evidence?

strawman
i do not. i believe the pseudo skeptics do. i pay scant attention to tabloid journalism so am in dark with regards to the details of the moon landing hoax crap

How is it that you are willing to believe that scenario rather than the entirely plausible (and actually true) scenario that we went to the moon? What is so hard to believe about that, and so easy to believe about extraterrestrials swooping down and abducting people from Earth?]

strawman
you need to focus pal.. you pull stuff out of thin air. justify both allegations of belief. with quotes

You'll get back to me after you cook up an answer, you mean.

no, just gotta get motivated to repeat myself again. it is akin to bashing ones head against a brick wall and who really looks forward to that? besides, i have no doubt you would debunk magnificently, any cooked, baked or stir fried answer

you exhibit hostility. funny.

 

[Ophiolite]

Gustav, I had taken you to be an intelligent, but aggressive poster. Your latest opus suggests I may have been only half right.

I had earlier noted that:
In the same way one of the requirements of science is that it be repeatable - how are you going to repeat an alien abduction - or that you can analyse the phenomenom with repeatable precision and methodology. When that is done it does seem that there are so often much simpler explanations to account for the observations: explanations that have been validated by the scientific method.

Later I noted,
As a geologist I am accustomed to dealing with the fact that, in many cases, our laboratory experiments took place millions of years ago and we are now in the process of trying to interpret the scattered notes left behind in the ruins of the lab. The hard sciences do have the luxury of setting the experiment up just so, varying one factor at a time. Pity the poor geologist or the field biologist.

To this you gave the thoughtful response,

""how are you going to repeat an alien abduction"
/speechless

opi then goes on to make excuses for other sciences yet insists that an actual ufo abduction be reenacted on demand
this is to me is an absolute perverted and unrealistic application of the scientific method. i mean, do you pseudo skeptics not understand that deduction would work just fine in cases where reproducibility is unrealistic as an option?

Listen dumb nuts, read the words. Understand my argument. Stop your provocative, knee jerk reactions. I do not like coming out of self imposed exile from these fora to deal with thoughtless accusations and gross misinterpretation of my words by someone too careless to read properly.

Are you paying attention? I offered two ways in which science can conduct itself properly:
a) By repeatable experiment.
b) By repeatable precision and methodology of the analysis of phenomena.

I then ask the rhetorical question - how are you going to repeat and alien abduction? Obviously, you cannot (unless you happen to be an alien). So that rules out option a) and calls into play option b).
I then offer an example from my own field of geology where option b) is often the only viable option.

In short I am arguing that while we cannot be on hand when an alien abduction occurs we can still follow a rigorous, structured, consistent approach to the analysis of such aspects of the abduction as ar accessible: witness statements, abductee statements and history, forensic data, etc.

Now, was that so difficult. I normally take responsibility for failure to communicate an idea or position to another person, but having read and re-read my post (and assessed your own communication skills) the only justification for your gross distortion of what I wrote, was that you could not be bothered to more than scan my post and take out of it what you expected to see there. Very scientific. Kind of degrades the value of anything else you might write in the future.

Now I'd like to be left in peace, so please accept your admonition with good grace, acknowledge you screwed up and we can all go about our business.

 

[Gustav]

Now, was that so difficult

no
i am suitably chastened.
i deliberately misrepresented your post and for that i offer up my most abject apologies. it will never happen again

Now I'd like to be left in peace

i rather you come back and post

 

[Balerion]

I'm going to forfeit my option to answer the first part of your post, because I've already told you the requirements for ETs being proven. We've discussed this already, and we've actually agreed that simply having something obvious happen, such as an admission from NASA (for example) would be plenty.

And "Opi" already addressed your gross misunderstanding of his posts.

i do not. i believe the pseudo skeptics do. i pay scant attention to tabloid journalism so am in dark with regards to the details of the moon landing hoax crap

Then why use it in your argument?

strawman
you need to focus pal.. you pull stuff out of thin air. justify both allegations of belief. with quotes

You got it, pal:

i repeat....introducing fairies, deamons and dragons, fantasy creatures, the holy ghost and comparing it with entirely plausible concept of an et ufo

Here, you postulate that UFOs are a plausible scenario, and don't try backtracking out of this statement. You said that ET UFOs were plausible, meaning and encompassing the entire spectrum; from sightings to abductions. This is what you implied with that statement. So, you are saying that abductions are readily believable.

nonsense. joe public was quite happy to buy into the moon landing with nothing butvisuals and anecdotes as evidence. yet even today there are some pseudo skeptics that say it was faked.

I'm sorry, maybe it's the way you try to argue for the side you claim not to believe but the fact is that I believe you are saying that you do believe in these things. To hide behind such a statement as "Some pseudo skeptics say..." is a cop out, and a cowardly way to go about a discussion.

The problem with you is that you won't stand behind any one belief; it allows you to hide and duck and run and stay comfortably away from the situation.

Already, you've backed away from an argument, in the form of the moon landing hoax. If you don't believe it yourself, don't argue for it.

no, just gotta get motivated to repeat myself again. it is akin to bashing ones head against a brick wall and who really looks forward to that? besides, i have no doubt you would debunk magnificently, any cooked, baked or stir fried answer

What? I'm sorry, but is the disbelief in the notion that people are being abducted by aliens a crime? Why is it so wrong to be skeptical? No matter what you say, there isn't overwhelming evidence for the argument that ETs are here, and until there is, I simply won't believe it.

ps. Nobody's moving the goalposts on you. As O pointed out, you merely misread the posts where the "psuedo skeptic" tells you what is expected, or at least the means by which they are attained, and continue your rants.

JD

 

[Mr Anonymous]

i rather you come back and post

Mmmmm, so y'can actually disable that arse-hole chip you appear to have had implanted and talk actual sense once in a while - this day shall be hallowed long in the annuls of the Psudoskeptics forum.

For generations father psudoskeptics will relay to their pusdoskeptical children how, when push came to shove, G-spot actually treated another forum member with courtesy, consideration and respect...

Of course, psudoskeptic children being as they are want are simply bound to retort "delusional, woo-woo claims, where's your evidence?!" and, in so doing, the punch-up can happily pass to a new generation.

But in the meantime, that was actually a smart, heartening moment.

Not going to last, is it?

 

[Gustav]

i do not see why not
i similarly want to aplogize to you for starting off on the wrong foot. i ask for a truce and perhaps an eventual civil discourse.

consider please
this shit is getting absolutely tedious

 

[Mr Anonymous]

Remain true to your word old man, and everything's jake. You even get the kudos for calling the truce, can't say fairer than that and it's an arrangement I couldn't be happier with if y'paid me.

Deal. Done. And thank you.

 

[Gustav]

excellent. thank you

 

[Balerion]

No! Mr. Anonymous is MY best friend!

...Great, whos that leave me with?

...Duendy? Whatcha doin this weekend?

JD

 

[Mr Anonymous]

excellent. thank you

Not at all, my abolsute pleasure.

No! Mr. Anonymous is MY best friend!

...Great, whos that leave me with?

Hopefully, with all of us still retaining our respective memberships indefinately for years to come which, considering the degree of disruption we've both managed to course over the past month we'll be lucky to be able to say with any degree of impunity for a lot, lot longer than the fun we've been having has lasted.

Regards to y'both gents,

A

 

[Balerion]

Yeah, that's so true. For as much as Gustav makes me want to pull my hair out, I genuinely like that guy. Same with Duendy, even though she kinda scares me.

Let's not let any of these sometimes heated arguments get in the way of the fact that we all really do enjoy this stuff, and each other's role in it.

JD

 

[Stryder]

[Off of topic]
None of you should have any reason to be "enemies", Discussion in these threads might sometimes seem aggressive however people shouldn't take "hatred" as being implied by peoples posts. Most of the time it's just mearly a disagreement on a subject and perhaps a wrongly interpretted response.

This is why I and other members of the forums do suggest not to bother with all the personal attack rituals that people do, since afterall those that you "upset" might go on to do a das work somewhere where you have to genuinely interact with them.

Imagine they might be the Bank Manager you want a loan from which you've just told are a complete woo-woo (bye bye loan!) or countless other scenarios involving you needing aid/courtesy from them putting them in a bad frame of mind for the day might give you a kick (in the arse, literally)

 

[Mr Anonymous]

Let's not let any of these sometimes heated arguments get in the way of the fact that we all really do enjoy this stuff, and each other's role in it.

Well, absolutely. Trick is isn't about winning, it's all about staying in the game...

Speaking of which:

None of you should have any reason to be "enemies"...

I can see why they made you the Moderator around here.

No, seriously. Message read and implicitly understood. Thanks also for not developing an itchy finger in the general direction of the ban button - personally, I'dve had both our arses bounced out of here quicker than even I can blink and, as most of the ladies around here know only too well, I'm quite a blinker...

Seriously, ta.

Right, back on topic - wasn't someone calling me a psudopodia or something?

 

[duendy]

pseudosceptic darling...

 

[Meanwhile]

Sorry for this delay—the seas are quite rough these days.

SW: in your sea of non sequitur you pass off as a reply to my posts

Be glad you have no seven seas to navigate through.

SW: your hypothesis depends on a central theme: that extraterrestrials are here and space aliens are abducting people.

A bit simplistic for my taste—for my nitimur in vetitum.

SW: That simply hasn't been demonstrated to be factual and, indeed, my posts have demonstrated that the alternative hypothesis is far more plausible.

But what you "demonstrate" as being factual—conclusive evidence and hypotheses garnered from surveys, lab experiments, psychology, folklore—is reached, firstly, by duplicating said problems satisfactorily, or filling-in gaps with similar adaptations, or improvising with features that are analogous but whose derivatives are clearly at variance. Yet, for all your polished and elegant demonstrations, there is one component in this whole scenario that can not be absolutely substituted for. Hence, your hypotheses never much provided me with much qualification. Not that I dismissed them for others. It's strange though to remark the reverse is true for you too—that for all the "demonstrations" I lack, the one component I don't lack does not qualify for you in the least. Funny that.

SW: That you choose not to accept it is, of course your perogative, but one that is biased to your beliefs, not of evidence.

And how would you know from where I base my bias? When does a "prerogative" become a prerogative?

SW: First, I'm not sure how I may have "reinvented the meaning of 'belief.'"

Right. A typo. I noticed that too, a few days later. I should have said: I think you are being unfair, and excessively—or perhaps desperately—reinventing the significance of "belief". Then I followed up with a list of examples where "belief" is merely a consequence and procedure instigated from a preceding foreign experience; belief is not the impetus to experience, nor a state of being, but a reaction, like slamming into a glass door.

SW: Belief in the UFO-ETI hypothesis is *not* grounded in scientific method but rather the supernatural.

The actuality of experience is hardly of the supernatural—but in this case it can certainly be made to appear as such, or accounted for in a language that also describes the supernatural. But since I'm not at all into the supernatural, I must find other means to describe my experiences. But I've already gotten almost bored with attempting to describe any of it—words can so easily mock and even alter the nascent nature of an experience-come-conscious. So I just let the waves wash over me.

SW: Second, I don't see that you've demonstrated my unfairness at all. Indeed, all you've really done is show that I'm being fair!

I was pointing out at how you were treating the word "belief", as though it were linked to an immorally, narrow-minded end in itself. A cul-de-sac. My impression of your rhetoric was that an experience was no longer relevant but had to be smothered before it could breath full consciousness.

SW: I've admitted on several occasions in this and other threads that I'm open-minded to the space alien hypothesis. I hold my assertions and hypotheses provisionally. That's far more than I've seen several others admit to on the believer side of the debate.

Well, I could deny myself and have it both ways, I suppose, but my experiences would then accuse me of subversion.

SW: Neither you or duendy seem willing ot acknowledge even one case of sleep paralysis or false memory is possible.

What you are shunning is the fact that we are applying our exploration to alien scenarios that involve the other type of paralysis and the other type of real memories; not those that don't.

SW: what would be the point in my alleged "desparation?"

It was an impression.

SW: I would love the opportunity to examine a completely alien culture -one that no other anthropologist has. Yet I maintain that the space alien hypothesis is, as yet, quite unevidenced.

I understand.

SW: And my assertion is that belief in alien abductions in the face so much evidence for the alternative hypothesis and no evidence for the ETI hypothesis is foolhardy.

It's like this: you require certain materials to form a solid perspective. The perspective you seek must proceed from a definite starting point. I require certain materials to form a solid perspective. The perspective I seek must proceed from a definite starting point. Both our requirements and our starting points discharge from different perspectives. Nitimur in vetitum.














.

 

[duendy]

ok, let's look at 'sleep paralysis'

remember that family i told you about?
it was mum, gran, and two boys travelling in car. they all see a very bright object which moves very fast, and then hovers over teir car. ALL of te family say how they felt tis 'love' comingfrom this UFO

then they later ntoice an hour missing. their journey shoul take only 20mins

now. where does sleep paralysis fit into the scenario, it is a limited explanation in tis scenario that's clear. donthave to ask you for confirmation

lets look at 'false memory syndrome'...i sm suposing you are meaning that te whole family remembered wrong...? well, what about a train crash. would such a dramatic event as that mean that the victim-survivor of it haas false memory syndrome if he later explains what happened..?
David Jacobs:"false memory syndrome is based on te idea that memory is faulty. And memory IS faulty -OBVIOUSLY, I am living proof that memory is faulty. The older Iget. The fact is though tat, memory is not SO faulty that people are going to forget entire events. They might get details wrong. They might get their chronology out of order a litle bit, but fact tet tey were, for example, in a train crash or something like that. They are not going to forget that EVENT.
Without anecdtoal evidence, without human memory, without the ability to retrieve memories we would not have a judicial system and our civilization would grind to a halt."

 

[phlogistician]

duendy, lovely story, but it's just hearsay, without some sort of witness statements from those involved.

Otherwise, this story could have mushroomed out of the imagination of just one of the kids, who also dreamed they spoke about the experience.

Without names, places and times, it's far from being evidence.

 

[duendy]

duendy, lovely story, but it's just hearsay, without some sort of witness statements from those involved.

me)))))))))Phlo...all thru the docu. they were making witness staements

Otherwise, this story could have mushroomed out of the imagination of just one of the kids, who also dreamed they spoke about the experience.

me))))))))HOW you explain away....you know, tis is strraightup, and i spose you feel same towards me. i can figure out your mindset...just cant. yu seem to explian away and then forget. weird.....
Think about it. we have a family ALL sharing about the experience. Gran cries talkin about it, mum cries after being hypnotized. yet you translate it to be one of te boys tellin fibs...? NOT plausible!

Without names, places and times, it's far from being evidence.

IF you had them. beee honest. ou still would not move toward a beginning of open xploration....?

 

[phlogistician]

Duendy, what witness statement and document? Got a name, a date, a link? Anything?

IF you had them.

Show me them.