Do you also speak English?Meanwhile said: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.
.
Ophiolite said:c) Many who are posting here have already studied this material in at least a cursory fashion and reached the conclusion abductions are false. A majority of these would fail to notice convincing new evidence if it jumped up and bit them.
Ophiolite said:This is sound advice awdsci, inspired by noble sentiment, yet it is advice which will largely go ignored for the following reasons:
a) To become fully aware of the existing material on the subject would take a lifetime. Amongst other things it would require interviewing a significant number of alleged abductees after acquiring degrees in medicine, biology and one of the hard sciences.
b) If we take fully to be hyperbole, then it would still require many days of careful reading to absorb the content of even some of the internet sites on the subject. Few people will take up the time.
c) Many who are posting here have already studied this material in at least a cursory fashion and reached the conclusion abductions are false. A majority of these would fail to notice convincing new evidence if it jumped up and bit them.
d) Others, attracted by novelty, or naturally reactionary, believe in abductions. Facts are the last thing they wish to consider.
e) Most of the remainder are just looking for a good argument.
But I applaud and support your appeal. I just don't see much chance of the majority paying it any heed.
awdsci said:....This may sound pompous and silly but I maintain that there IS a subject worthy of study by everybody, even if only a small percentage of the "evidence " has any validity.
Mr Anonymous said:
Hello awdsci, you've made several very well balanced comments. Applause, aplause...
Have to say though, thoroughly in agreement with you here, but isn't this really the point about why people should maintain a healthy degree a scepticism regarding issues the subject raises purely because, if there is anything at all behind it, flapping around and arguing the b'jesus about silly bugger stuff that can't be happening in the first place serves only to a distract attention away from issues which might actually prove germane and b constrain everyone associated with the business as all being absolute adherents to all the rest of the stuff the subject on the whole generally seems to concern itself with.
The reams and reams of argument concerning alien abduction, for example, seems to me somewhat besides the point if one can't establish first and foremost that an object conforming to UFO description and behaviour can actually exist in the first place - it's like everyone been reading the same book and everyone decided to skip Chapter's One, Two, Three, Four, Five and Six and just skip to the end and forget about the beginning and middle like its all been sorted and established as absolute fact.
Gustav's point is an excellent one, and the report concerning the facts of the Belgium UFO Flap, good, concise reading. Very typical in my experience - when one actually goes into these things and does a little background research, turns out indeed the story being presented actually isn't the clear cut, certain "fact" people insist on making it out to be.
And sloppy conclusions, wishful thinking and just plain, dumb stupidity proffered as fact actually do matter - they have a deeply negative effect on subject as a whole. Yet time and time again, these spurious claims for alien this and extraterrestrial that become touted by those who simply know extraterrestrials are real as "evidence" of that belief.
It strikes me all ET Believers care about is their belief, the only significance UFO's have for most of them is that they are presumed to facilitate the presence of Extraterrestrials here in the neighbourhood of Earth.
Without proof, absolute and certain that such things as UFO's can actually exist, the question is always going to remain "what Aliens?"
Deep_MindQuest said:http://alienresistance.org/ce4casefiles.htm CE4 CASE FILES Testimonies of Stopped Abductions!!
Gustav said:It ignores all the official Belgian Air Force statements ,radar reports, multple-witness sightings and other photographs to concentrate on a single reproduction by a student. Not very convincing.
yep. i noticed that too. the new report indicated just one f-15 whereas the military claimed to have scrambled two. perhaps i am too eager to be balanced. lemme dig up the thread
ahh, here
whaddya think
shall we look into it?
afresh?
in this thread?
awdsci said:Have read a few accounts of this episode ,in various forms ,also watched a TV documentary , with some very interesting contributions from Belgian military personnel which included radar and visual sightings....
Mr Anonymous said:But with regards to the case in question, no. I've no doubt something did indeed pull a peek-a-boo where it shouldn't have
phlogistician said:You mean, like this episode;
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/military/jan-june99/marines_2-3.html
If jet jockeys have such low regard for human safety, that they'd pull of such a stupid stunt and end up killing people, I've no doubt that they'd take a detour over a small country, and yank their chain.