News article, man cites UFO crash, little men, etc

Discussion in 'Other/Miscellaneous' started by Patricio Da Silva, May 23, 2022.

You are viewing posts in the Conspiracy Theory forum. PF does not allow misinformation. However, please note that posts could occasionally contain content in violation of our policies prior to our staff intervening.

  1. HonestJoe

    HonestJoe Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Messages:
    14,839
    Likes Received:
    4,815
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You started an thread on an open forum and anyone here can read our posts. You manner of presenting your beliefs has been the same throughout and you didn't present this presumed "in my opinion" concept until after I questioned that. The fact remains that you wouldn't need to preface every line with "In my opinion" to express your beliefs and opinions in that context. After all, if you accept that the "in my opinion" caveat needs to be assumed, you are acknowledging that the wording of your statements is implying more certainty than you actually have.

    I said religion rather than God and the fact is that many religious people will say exactly the same thing regarding evidence for their beliefs. Some religious people would consider the same evidence as supporting the existence of some form of gods, angels or demons rather than aliens and some religions are based on beliefs about extra-terrestrial aliens rather than gods.

    The point remains that I have had pretty much exactly the same discussions with religious people. They express their beliefs with great implied confidence, say there is lots of evidence without actually presenting it, talk about we can't really understand without going on the same journey of discovery and, of course, tell us to read specific books written to support and promote their beliefs.

    My issue is less about the specific topic of aliens and more the general principles of intellectual honesty and the dismissal of scientific process whenever it is inconvenient to particular belief systems. As I've just mentioned, the issue is far from unique to this topic and impacts much more significant and important ones, so that can make it easier to address in the context of something that doesn't (shouldn't!) matter as much.

    Pretty much yes, and unapologetically. I will always challenge beliefs that aren't based on sufficient evidence. Aren't you trying to do exactly the same in trying to shift my opinion too? Wasn't that essentially the whole point of the thread, to try to convince other people of the validity of your beliefs?

    I don't understand how you can keep saying that given that I have explicitly stated that there is evidence (I've probably reference more evidence in the thread that you have). My position remains that I don't feel the evidence is sufficient to support the specific beliefs you have stated. You apparently do believe there is.

    The means either you are interpreting the evidence differently or you are aware of additional evidence that I am not. That is why I have repeatedly asked you to reference the evidence you have looked at. Maybe you'll point to something game changing I was unaware of and convince me but you're only ever going to do that if you present the actual evidence. Expecting me to accept the legitimacy of your beliefs (especially all of the complex details) without that is irrational.

    There are two clear statements here. One is that "all of the abductees reported experiences are exactly the same" but the other that "some abductees report encountering different types of aliens". Those statements are directly contradictory and so simply can't both be true.

    Yes, we both agree it is not conclusive so why would that be a problem. You feel the evidence is sufficient and consistent enough to support your specific beliefs and I feel the evidence isn't sufficient and consistent and so have reach a different belief (essentially "We don't know"). If you want to convince me of the validity of your beliefs, we'd need to discuss that evidence to understand why we're interpreting it differently.

    Sorry but you need to pin down that number because it is vitally important to reaching a legitimate conclusion on these odds.

    Imagine if the chance of an advanced alien species developing on any given plant was one in a billion. If there were a trillion such planets, we would expect one million alien species. If there were only a billion such planets, we would expect only one alien species. At this kind of scale, the difference in numbers can be massive. If you overestimate the number of planets (even by a small amount), you can massively overestimate the resultant chances of such species existing.

    But again, actual qualified scientists have formally investigated these questions and reached reasonable (if unavoidably inconclusive) answers. They do not conclude that the chances of alien species willing and able to travel to Earth is anything like as certain as you want to imagine. That is evidence for you to consider.

    Your logic being wrong? Them being capable of coming here but choosing not to (yet) for some reason? Them being capable of entirely hiding themselves from us and the evidence we think supports their existence actually being caused but entirely unrelated things (or manufactured by them as a distraction)? Are you willing to accept that all of these options (or we could say "counter arguments" ;-) ) are at least possible?

    You have another fundamental contradiction there. You previously said that the aliens aren't going to reveal themselves to humans (yet) but now you're saying they have revealed themselves to some humans but that has somehow been kept entirely secret. Again, these two statements can't both be true. This is a classic example of not "doing hypothesis" creating unnecessary complications.

    You literally just wrote about believing in the possibility of interstellar travel on the pure logic basis of the number of habitable planets so this clearly isn't the only reason. Or could it be that you believed based on their writings alone and are now trying to spin the science I just made you aware of to match those beliefs? Don't you recognise how it could be significant that whenever the details of your beliefs are challenged, you fall back to these other people's conclusions rather than directly supporting them yourself?

    I also don't see how (as yet) unexplained UFO incidents like the "Maelstrom incident" has anything at all to do with interstellar travel. Since we have no idea what actually caused the various aspects of that incident, how can you make a direct link to interstellar travel specifically? Even if we assumed the cause was something alien, that in itself wouldn't automatically imply interstellar travel. Why couldn't it be time-travel, teleportation or some kind of remote projection?

    Because I am still not asking for "incontrovertible evidence", I am asking for literally any evidence, however "grey" or inconclusive. I am asking for references to the evidence you keep saying that you have personally studied, yet have remained stubbornly unwilling (or unable) to even describe or reference.

    If the evidence is inconclusive, I will say it is inconclusive. Given that would be a tautology and we have both apparently agreed that there is no conclusive evidence in this field, I fail to see how that would be any kind of issue. It would only be an issue if you wanted me to accept inconclusive evidence as if it were conclusive and therefore concede to your beliefs.

    Yet again, because you are saying there is sufficient (if inclusive) evidence to convince you of your beliefs. I am not convinced of those same beliefs but if you presented that inclusive evidence to me, presumably I could be. If you don't present any evidence, how do you expect anything to change?

    That is a literal confession of what I accused you of; You don't trust him because he didn't reach the same conclusion you have. Yet he is one of those qualified hypnotherapists who had sessions with abductees and who you specifically referred to in support of your beliefs.

    Also, why did you ask if he was saying "dreams" (which he didn't)? Don't you know what he said about the incident? Wouldn't that be a key element of your years-long study of the subject? I found his quotes in a couple of minutes via Wikipedia.

    I'm open to the idea that the recollections might be of real events too. That doesn't necessarily mean they had anything to do with extra-terrestrial aliens though.

    No, we're avoiding tangents. I've picked the core basis of your thread and that is the rabbit hole we're in now. Please stop trying to dig your way out and just address the rabbit in the room. :cool:
     
  2. modernpaladin

    modernpaladin Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2017
    Messages:
    27,705
    Likes Received:
    21,104
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Given the option between 'we have been visited' and 'we have not been visited' I see no logic in picking either one. Both are equally possible at this point.

    But I dont believe all the claims of visitations are crazy or lies. Theres simply too many. Some people are clearly being abducted and/or tested on (or at least ****ed with) by someone or something. But its just as likely to be terrestrial human organizations as it is extraterrestrial aliens.
     
    Last edited: May 30, 2022
  3. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There are multiple (hundreds I believe) independent corroborating accounts about abductions and (surgical?) experiments conducted by "Greys", who are allegedly about 4 ft tall with huge eyeballs and in a disk or cigar shaped spacecraft. Not likely these are being carried out by "terrestrial human organizations". Like you say, there are too many from some people who have nothing to gain and risk humiliation to just dismiss as fakes, hallucinations or some other kind of mind fart. There's just too much commonality in these accounts.
     
  4. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    31,246
    Likes Received:
    16,930
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    If this were a science forum, you'd have a point. But this is the CT forum, where declaring one's opinion without the cumbersome 'in my opinion' is the norm.
    Perhaps, but I can find no logic behind a personal god other than just blind faith, but I can find a path of logic for aliens.
    This is a CT forum, pontificating about 'intellectual integrity' is a meaningless concept.
    I should think we can discuss here about aliens and government cover ups in an informal, conversational fashion in the CT forum without having to be concerned with seeking approval from that lofty perch crowd.
    In other words, get thee to the science forum. You're in the wrong neighborhood.
    Well, the proper response to that is: You're in a CT forum, we're not hear to seek approval form the lofty perch crowd, get thee to the science forum. We know it can't be proven, and, so? So what? We love this subject and merely want to converse about it.
    You won't proof? I just told you, there is no proof.
    Now, not trying to be mean, I say it in as friendly of a manner as I can.
    Not in the CT forum, but in the Science forum, yes, and I've posted there.
    but here....
    To discuss, informally, conversationally, a subject with which I find a deep fascination. Whether or not it's factual, I know I can't prove it, so I don't try nor care. I just like the subject and love to talk about it.
    There is no black an white evidence. There is what I call grey evidence.
    Thing is, no one item of grey evidence will be convincing. But, if you examined the mountain of grey evidence, you MIGHT change your mind to 'I'm inclined to believe in Alien visitation".
    Or, you might not. I have, however.
    And I've repeatedly asked you to consider a few places to start "on the journey of grey evidence'.
    First stop, "Walking Among us" by Dr. David Jacobs.
    I doubt it. I repeat, there is no black and white evidence, I've searched for it for years, and haven't found it yet. But there are mountains of grey evidence. How one chooses to interpret that evidence is entirely personal.
    Please read the following very carefully.
    The descriptions of four or five different types of aliens reoccuring by the experiences of hundreds of abductees, the DESCRIPTIONS of those different types are rather uniform, either exactly the same or pretty darn close.
    Other descriptions, listed here: are pretty much uniform, as well.
    https://www.ufoabduction.com/straighttalk.htm
    Capiche?
    But I don't. I'm just here to discuss. I find the fact that people from all over the world, under hypnosis, tell pretty much the same story down to astonishing detail, I find that compelling.
    There are variances, of course, but the overall story is the same.
    No one knows the number other than the fact the numbers are astronomical.
    You do know you are making assumptions. IT's an unknown. I would say in our corner of the universe (that which we can perceive via Hubble and Webb) i.e., the 'known universe' it's at least four or five advanced civilizations, based on what I've learned. That's because it appears there are only four or five, or so, who are coming here. but, it's also possible that there is some kind of alien galactic organization designating some alien groups different sectors of the universe, for study, exploitation, etc., ( as humans do species in rain forests), but, that's just a wild guess. So, the point is, there could be a lot more.
    Because they demand conclusive proof, which does not exist.
    Why doesn't it exist? They say because there is none and thus aliens haven't visited.
    I say it is because the aliens are not allowing us to have conclusive evidence. And they are visiting us, cloaking their crafts, by the 10s of thousands, abducting humans, every day.
    Both are plausible. Testimonies from abductees say I'm right. One can claim they are not reliable, but remember, confabulation varies in repetition, but accuracy grows more solid. That's how a skilled hypnotherapist can separate truth from fiction. The items that grow more solid is that they are doing these things:
    https://www.ufoabduction.com/straighttalk.htm
    Anything is possible, of course. Given the testimonies of abductees, we know aliens are very clever via a phenomenon called 'screen memory', where they project into the minds of abductees, humans in general, what they want you to see. But, screen memories are not foolproof. Flickerings of truth reveal through the cracks which, taken from enough testimonies, a picture emerges.
    It's amusing how eager you appear to be finding inconsistencies in my conclusions.
    Okay, Not really a contradiction. There are a number of legs to the alien story. In the 50s, as the story goes, aliens contacted leaders in government to make a deal. THe deal was, technology exchange for alien's permission to abduct humans given X number of humans per year. aliens complain we violated the agreement's terms by weaponizing their technologies they gave us, and after that breach, they removed the limit and are now abducting humans by the millions, and, overall, are cloaking themselves, hence the claim. Could this be CT nonsense? Sure. I tend to believe it, though. Just a gut feeling, nothing more. No scheme of any kind is absolute. In the physical universe, absolutes are unobtainable, right? So, Out of the millions of successful cloakings, there are some occasional failures that flicker through, hence photos by cell phones of unexplainable things in the sky.
    I merely stated that, given the astronomical numbers of planets, it is reasonable to believe that at least a few alien civilizations within our known universe have conquered the problem of practical interstellar travel, and if they are that advanced, then they would also have the technology to detect our existence and they come here to study us, and/or advance some agenda about which we know very little.
    Couple that logic with testimonies of abductees, and voila, I'm inclined to believe in alien visitation.
    Here are two facts about the Maelstrom incident.
    1. 10 (not sure the the number) ICBMs went off line, and since each of them are totally independent systems from each other, there is no way to connect them to a single source failure, and because of this fact, there is no explanation.
    2. UFOs were spotted nearby at the time of the occurrence.
    If #2 is true AND the UFOs were alien visitors, then interstellar travel is possible.
    is this black and white proof?
    NO, it is what I call "grey evidence'.
    See, no one occurance of grey evidence would I ever based my inclination to believe in alien visitation.
    But, if there are mountains of grey evidence, then I'm more inclined to believe in it.
    I don't believe in time travel (in the H.G. Wells sense). For the following reasons I gave, here:
    http://www.politicalforum.com/index...seems-impossible-to-me-prove-me-wrong.595435/
    I can suggest a number of places to start on your journey.
    Might I suggest Dr. Jacobs 'Walking Among Us'. It's better than the title suggests.
    It's not an issue. I repeat, are you willing to settle for the state of affairs that goes:
    after examining mountains of grey evidence, conclude that it is more likely than not likely we are visiting by aliens or at least come to some determination?
    If you are, then commence with the journey. If not, sit here and argue with me about it.
    I can't give you a single thing, only sources. Try Jacob's book,
    There are many niches in hypnotherapy. Simon's niche is not abductions.
    John Mack's, Budd Hopkin's, and David Jacob's, etc. In fact, the prominent schools in hypnotherapy do not teach this niche. They, like Simon, assume it's poppycock.
    THAT is why I don't trust him. Besides, Mack is far more accomplished than Simon is.
    I just based it on the wikipedia entry:
    ...Simon speculated that Barney's recollection of the UFO encounter was possibly a fantasy inspired by Betty's dreams...
    Simon wrote an article about the Hills for the journal Psychiatric Opinion, explaining his conclusion that the case was a singular psychological aberration.

    Okay, so psychological aberration, a euphemism for 'poppycock'.
    Except for the detail that we have basically the same story being told by thousands of different people from all walks of life spanning decades.
    There is that.
    Whose digging?
     
    Last edited: May 30, 2022
  5. HonestJoe

    HonestJoe Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Messages:
    14,839
    Likes Received:
    4,815
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It shouldn't matter where you're posting, you should naturally want to be honest and accurate in how you are presenting yourself. You are obviously intelligent and literate so there should be nothing cumbersome about expressing yourself more clearly. The only possible reason for not doing so is that you don't want to admit that you're not as certain in your opinions as you'd like to make out (or indeed would like to believe).

    If anything, this is more important in a conspiracy theory forum, which will be routinely be full of lies, misinformation and misunderstanding. You should be seeking to stand out from the usually trash here, not lowering yourself to their standards.

    Sure, but the point is that other people feel differently but with equal (perceived) confidence. That suggests to me that individual confidence in an opinion is no measure of that opinion's validity.

    Are you saying you have no intellectual integrity, allowing you to post here, or that you have intellectual integrity but you are actively ignoring it to allow you to post here? Do you not see how either option is problematic. You're essentially saying you're happy to lie, spin and misdirect in this thread and you think that is perfectly OK? Please tell me if that is the case so I can stop wasting my time here and just block you!

    OK, and can you point me to any one example of this "grey" evidence (not someone else talking about it, actual primary evidence that you have looked at)? I'm not looking to assess anything (yet), I'm still just trying to establish if any of this evidence you're claiming to have studied actually exists.

    And that in itself would be fine. The problem is that you wrote earlier (in reference to others claiming) that the reports from abductees were all exactly the same. That has now been established as a lie. You have blown your credibility out of the water. We can no longer take any of the claims about any other consistent factors in those reports, we would have to look at the transcripts directly.

    Astronomical by literally definition but that still doesn't mean the number automatically means there are likely to be multiple advanced civilisations out there. You can say we don't know the underlying number but then claim to know the result of the calculation resulting from it. That is another lie.

    We're all making assumptions on this point. The difference is that I am admitting my assumptions and coming to a conclusion of "We don't know.". You are making assumptions but then asserting a specific answer that just happens to conveniently fit with your existing beliefs. That is more dishonesty.

    NOBODY IS DEMANDING CONCLUSIVE PROOF! STOP REPEATING THAT SLANDEROUS LIE!

    The scientists in question specifically state that we don't know the answer because we don't know all of the relevant factors. They only reach conclusions based on what we do know, estimating the kind of probabilities and identifying the key factors which are the major blockers to a clearer answer.

    You are declaring that "There are lots and lots of stars therefore there must be 4 or 5 civilisations which have visited Earth". That is simply wrong. I think you know it is wrong because you're clearly not an idiot.

    But exactly how can you differentiate between the created lies and the "flickerings of truth". How do you know the aliens aren't smarter than you and you're falling for a double bluff?

    I don't need to be eager to find them, that part is easy. I'm just eager to convince you to recognise and accept their established existence.

    Sure, you can now come up with a version of the story that is internally consistent. The problem is that your definitive statements in your previous posts remain inconsistent. You clearly stated that the aliens have not yet revealed themselves to any humans. That has now been established as yet another lie and always will be, regardless of what you now say.

    The point is that you said this was reason alone to believe in aliens capable of interstellar travel but you then went on to suggest that the only reason you believe in interstellar travel was the writings a couple of authors. Both statements can't be true. There is significant difference between presenting something as the primary reason you reached an opinion and something you use to simply reinforce an existing belief.

    And if #2 were true and the UFOs were ghosts, life-after-death is possible. You presented the "Maelstrom incident" as a reason to believe in interstellar travel but if that is conditional on the unsupported assumption that extra-terrestrial aliens were involved in the first place, it is meaningless circular logic. You are essentially assuming interstellar travel as evidence for interstellar travel!

    And plenty of people (including some much more qualified that either of us) don't believe in interstellar travel. Neither beliefs mean either can't be possible explanations for as-yet unexplained incidents. The point is that you can't treat your preferred explanation as the default or primary assumption. Evidence of alien visitors would not automatically be evidence for any of the specific details that make up your belief system.

    I'm already perfectly aware of that (and was before this thread). What I'm ultimately trying to get is you to describe and explain your journey in more detail. I'm more interested in how humans work than I am in how aliens do. After all, we know the former exists for certain and it is infinitely more relevant and important.

    Yet again, such books are not sources of evidence, they are sources of conclusions. You keep saying you've studied evidence so it is that I am interested in. Or, potentially, an admission that you've not actually looked at any evidence yourself, but only others descriptions of it. Note that isn't a bad thing in itself (we can't possible study everything ourselves after all - that is why we have scientists) but it is important to understand the difference.

    The key point is that you named him specifically in support of your beliefs because he performed the hypnosis of the Hills. Now it turns out he doesn't provide such a clear and definitive support for your beliefs, you're trying to dismiss him out of hand. This is yet more dishonest inconsistency.
     
    Last edited: May 31, 2022
  6. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    31,246
    Likes Received:
    16,930
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Nonsense. Expressing opinions on a CT forum is, writ large, the norm. That one has to preface each opinion with 'in my opinion' on such a forum just to please the likes of you is your problem, not mine. As for 'honesty', I resent the accusation that I'm not being honest. I honestly believe what I believe, but I don't confuse opinions with fact.

    Now, I told you to 'preface' all my declarations on this forum with 'in my opinion'.

    Yet, that isn't good enough for you. Well, I can't help that, you'll just have to live with it.
    What's more important on any forum is not to jump to conclusions without evidence. I wouldn't assert any opinion is a lie, without querying for clarification and sourcing, backing up one's opinion, on some level. I take what people post on a case by case basis, and do not make blanket disparaging accusations.

    Obviously, you come here with a chip on your shoulder.

    I suggest you remove it. It's the courteous thing to do.
    So? I mean, if you have such a low opinion of this place, why are you here?

    Oh, that's right, you have a chip on your shoulder, you come here looking for a fight. You are obviously superior to the souls on this forum, and they can't fathom nor comprehend the lofty perch you apparently believe you occupy.
    I posted the OP to discuss aliens in a friendly casual manner. Honestly, chill out.
    .[/QUOTE]

    OK, and can you point me to any one example of this "grey" evidence (not someone else talking about it, actual primary evidence that you have looked at)? I'm not looking to assess anything (yet), I'm still just trying to establish if any of this evidence you're claiming to have studied actually exists.
    [/QUOTE]
    You're essentially asking me to write to the estates of John Mack and Budd Hopkins, and request their contemporaneous notes, recordings, transcripts of their hypnotherapy sessions. THat would be primary 'grey evidence'. Sorry, I doubt they would oblige and I trust their reportage in their books and interviews. As for Dr. Jacob's, he's in his 80s now and retired, and no longer takes interviews, and I'm just not going to bother the man, and, again, like the others, I trust his reportage that he isn't lying that what he says he as observed is what he has observed. Other grey evidence is similar, reportage in books by certain persons I trust. Please understand that I do not trust most authors in this field, just a few. My criterion for that trust is just my personal sensibilities. Then there is the evidence of the testimony of military personnel, more 'grey evidence', I have no reason to disbelieve their testimony. Again, what they report isn't incontrovertible, but it is compelling, and we have a lot of this type of evidence.
    That has now been established as a lie.

    My gawd, just listen to you.

    This is simply a misunderstanding, and please revert to my clarification. That is my point, my only point, and if I didn't articulate it precisely that way at the outset, I meant to. I"m not perfect. But take the clarification and ignore anything that is less than articulate. Even Scientists do not always perfectly articulate their points of view. The courteous thing to do is ask for clarification, not treat people like you are a lawyer cross examining a hostile witness in a court of law. I mean, FFS, eh?
    See above. In the meantime, chill out.
    [/QUOTE]
    Astronomical by literally definition but that still doesn't mean the number automatically means there are likely to be multiple advanced civilisations out there. You can say we don't know the underlying number but then claim to know the result of the calculation resulting from it. That is another lie.
    [/QUOTE]
    Opinions derived on available data, however easily it could be wrong, is just an opinion. Opinions, by their nature, cannot be lies, they can be incorrect, close to correct, or correct.

    And, obviously, it's not 'automatically true', and no one is suggesting it is. My gawd, please climb down from this lofty perch, You're aching my neck.
    See above, and don't have a conniption, okay? Remember, the OP was just an offering for discussion, preferably in friendly tones where people don't make demands, where people query anything that isn't clear, under a concept called 'courtesy'.

    It wasn't unreasonable, given the tone and tenor of your comments, that you were asking for incontrovertible proof, since you went out of your way assert everything I wrote wasn't conclusive, and so, I drew that inference. Now, that you've clarified that point, your concerns are addressed above.
    Given the astronomical numbers, I think it's reasonable to presume there are at least a few civilizations which have the technology to reach us, and if they have that kind of technology, it's safe to presume they have, indeed visited us.

    Now don't infer that I believe that as fact. Okay? Of course I could be wrong. Until we do have conclusive proof, one way or the other, I'm content with that OPINION. If you aren't, that's fine, too, but I am.
    Oh yes, sure, that is extremely possible, and not only that, it's probably true.

    But, if it is true, then aliens are here, and that has been the salient point, all along, specifics are just icing on the cake and/or a red herring to that point.

    I don't mind being wrong on details, but if they are here, and I HONESTLY believe they are, then SETI is a waste of time and funds. What they should be doing is investigating the abductees, putting more effort to find out if they are telling the truth, or not. But, of course, we all know 'hypnosis' is unreliable. Well, yes and no. But there is enough yes in the equation to warrant serious research, that is my OPINION.

    See, they way I look at it is this: Verifying space craft in our airspace doesn't tell us what they are up to. But, abductees are close encounters of the 4th kind, and from there, we might be able to figure it out, or find out what's going on inside the craft.
    No, it's simply a case of misunderstanding, and your requiring more precise language. And I'm fine with that, but you haven't proven to me that I've been inconsistent, you've only proven to me that you misunderstood something I wrote, which could have been due to a less than perfect articulation, one which I would gladly polish for your edification upon request.

    [...]

    I gotta run, will answer the rest of your comment, later.

    Cya


    .
     
  7. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    31,246
    Likes Received:
    16,930
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Lack of articulatory perfection doesn't equal 'lie'. It's courtesy to ask for clarification before shooting arrows.

    My clarification on whatever point you are referring to vanquishes your accusation. I am consistent.

    Now please remove the chip that is on your shoulder.
    I don't think I did. But, now that you are demanding articulatory perfection, let me state that my belief is based on a few factors, inclusive of both.

    so, on the first item, IF that were all I had to go on, it would be enough for me to believe it. There are additional reasons which fortify my believe.

    From there you concluded I meant 'reason alone and none other', no, not in the slightest. I don't' think I said that. What we have here is a failure to communicate, a misunderstanding, and PERHAPS my need to more perfectly articulate what is in my mind.

    Now don't go claiming I'm lying, my only crime is lack of articulatory perfection.

    See, here's what I'm getting from you. You come to this forum with a chip on your shoulder, looking for a fight, it's like your this kind of guy who says to himself, 'okay, I'll bet there are a bunch of easy punching bags in the CT forum, let me go there and see who I can crush for the sake of amusement'.

    Is that who you are?

    That kind of attitude, one who lives on a lofty perch with a chip on his shoulder, who is intent is disingenuous and unfriendly, that is the portrait I'm getting from you.

    Is this who you are? IF so, then please, please put me on ignore.
    No, you've totally misunderstood this.

    No, it's a plausible explanation. In fact, I've yet to see any others.

    It's what I call grey evidence. It doesn't prove alien visitation, but ti does heighten the possibility (since no other explanation has been offered, and the sighting of the UFO, and the going off line 10 nuclear ICBM silos, one right after the other).

    IF it were true, then it would be true that interstellar travel is possible.

    IF.

    And what is the plausibility of it? There is no other explanation for the UFO and the downing of 10 nuke silos which has been offered, so that we've only one explanation, though not conclusive, the plausibility is therefore increased, if only moderately. (which, by the way, as I've stated many times, is as good as it will ever get in Ufology).

    It's not absolute proof, it just heightens the plausibility. That's all it does. And I did not intend for it to be communicated in any other light.

    Remember way back when when I told you that I don't want to present to you any grey evidence (evidence that isn't conclusive, but does increase plausibility), because all you are going to do is assert 'it's not conclusive' or 'it proves nothing' Then, from there I drew the inference that you were searching only for conclusive proof, and now you are telling me you will look at evidence that is not conclusive, and when I do, you chide me for it?

    Make up your mind.
    Not conclusive proof, but to my way of thinking, a neighbor in the real world is more likely than one from the future or another dimension.
    A journey starts with the first step. To that end, I suggest you read 'Walking Among Us" by Dr. David Jacobs' for starters.
    They are both. Evidence provided, conclusion drawn. I'm only interested in the former. Jacob's book's title is a conclusion, ignore it and just read the evidence provided in the book. Remember, the only kind of evidence that exists anywhere is of the grey variety, which I'm defining as evidence that increases plausibility/likelihood without conclusively proving it. I've been searching for 10 years, and this is all I've found. but there is a lot of it, WHICH IS THE POINT.
    I understand the difference, noting that scholarly treatises are derived from both primary and secondary sources, so my reliance on the words of those whom I believe are competent and trustworthy isn't , for me, a problem.

    I'll quote what I wrote, in the previous comment (#31)

    You're essentially asking me to write to the estates of John Mack and Budd Hopkins, and request their contemporaneous notes, recordings, transcripts of their hypnotherapy sessions. THat would be primary 'grey evidence'. Sorry, I doubt they would oblige and I trust their reportage in their books and interviews. [noting that truncated portions of transcripts are provided] As for Dr. Jacob's, he's in his 80s now and retired, and no longer takes interviews, and I'm just not going to bother the man,

    I did not link to the Simon hypnotherapy sessions for his opinion, I wasn't thinking of him at all, I was only thinking of the Barney and Betty recordings which I wanted you to listen to. So, you are drawing an incorrect inference.
     
    Last edited: May 31, 2022
  8. HonestJoe

    HonestJoe Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Messages:
    14,839
    Likes Received:
    4,815
    Trophy Points:
    113
    On the contrary, on conspiracy forums the norm is people expressing their definitive and unshakable conclusions with no evidence or rational reasoning. If people were expressing ideas and opinions in a normal fashion, we wouldn't need separate conspiracy forums at all, it would all work in the same way as any other area of discussion (or indeed normal discussions on the same subject areas).

    The key thing is the fundamental difference between belief and opinion, and your shifting between the two terms is symbolic of the problem here. A belief (in this kind of context) is being presented as if it is clear and definitive fact. And that is how you have presented your specific and detailed beliefs about the alien species you say have been visiting Earth, carrying out defined actions for defined motives. And nothing you initially said indicates any possibility of you changing your beliefs, of even considering the possibility that any of the particular details you state aren't entirely accurate. You have been on your journey and reached your end point. The entire focus of the thread is about getting other people to follow in your footsteps (distinct from going on their own journey, wherever that might take them).

    As I've said, this is perfect normal human behaviour and none of us are going to be able to completely avoid behaving in this way, but it is vital for us to recognise and understand that we do; that all of our observations, beliefs and opinions can be mistaken or flawed, regardless of how sure we are of them (often because of how sure we are).

    Yes, that is why I keep asking you to present your evidence rather than your conclusions (or repeating those of others).

    To try to help make it better and help lift any positive or interesting elements up above the mire.

    But the point is that you specifically said you have studied the evidence yourself. Now you're saying it is impossible for any of us to study the evidence, that we have to just trust the writings of others. That is fine in and of itself but you need to be clear on this kind of point and the limitations it brings.

    And I don't trust them (at least not by default). I'd also expect them to make the evidence they're basing their conclusions on available, or at least reference where they got it from. I mean, a whole load of different reports, transcripts and recordings exist on the internet these days, and form the basis of a lot of peoples opinions on this kind of topic. If someone has actually looked at all the available evidence, I would expect that to include a lot of evidence that is publicly available and could therefore be easily referenced.

    Could it be that the ones you trust are those who reach similar opinions to you and the ones you don't trust reach different opinions? Have you ever changed any significant aspect of your established beliefs as the result of reading a new book on the topic?

    I don't automatically disbelieve that kind of testimony either. I question some of the conclusions people base upon such testimonies though, which is why the testimonies need to be considered directly rather than blindly trusting other peoples interpretations.

    That is fine - we all make mistakes - but that is exactly why we need to be clear about exactly what we are saying and exactly what we're basing our beliefs/opinions/conclusions on. That in itself would help reduce errors or misunderstanding.

    I think "less than articulate" would be unfair to you but there are lots of elements of your descriptions that aren't at all clear or consistent. I only picked out the most obvious direct contradictions. This falls back to the entire form of how this kind of thing is presented (not just by you but in general). I don't believe you are being intentionally evasive but I do believe the general format you are following (due to your sources and influences) was designed to make it so much more difficult to properly assess, question and challenge aspects of these beliefs/opinions/claims. It is a system for making statements, not asking questions. That is why a somewhat more structured scientific approach to these questions would be better.

    The opinion can't be a lie. The assertion that the opinion is legitimate based on all of the available data (and the limitations of it) certainly can be a lie. Your assertion that the number of stars in the universe supports the likely existence of multiple advanced alien species in existence today is not a valid opinion based on the evidence. Claiming that it is a valid opinion is the lie.

    You have repeatedly asserted that I and/or scientists in general demand conclusive proof. This is fundamentally false on the core principles of science and I have clearly explained that to you. For you to continue to accuse people of demanding conclusive proof as an obvious attempt to dismiss their opinions, evidence and conclusions out of hand is totally indefensible. All you have to do is stop making that accusation.

    But the fact remains that you are wrong to say that is reasonable. You are misunderstanding the realities of dealing with probabilities in the context of such large numbers (which is understandable given that most lay-people have difficult with that). I have explained how scientists who do understand dealing this have reached entirely different conclusions on what is reasonable.

    Now you are perfectly entitled to hold a flawed opinion but you can't then expect anyone else to accept that opinion as any kind of supporting basis for other beliefs. Your opinion about the probability of advanced alien civilisations doesn't actually support your belief about aliens visiting Earth precisely because it is just your opinion.

    You are creating circular logic there though. It is the specifics of your beliefs that you use to support those beliefs (e.g. the aliens are real because of the consistent details in abductee recollections). If you're now accepting that all of the specific details you belief could (probably are! - even I didn't go that far) be false wipes out the validity of everything you're using as a basis for believing their existence in the first place.

    If you were expressing a belief about there being some kind of alien visitors on Earth you could have a point but you are not. You beliefs involve a massive (and somewhat shifting) set of very specific details. Your entire house of cards is still wobbling worryingly.

    Continued in next post...
     
    Last edited: Jun 1, 2022
  9. HonestJoe

    HonestJoe Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Messages:
    14,839
    Likes Received:
    4,815
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Continued from previous post ...

    As we already discussed, I agree, but for different reasons. The people who support SETI do so because they believe aliens could be out there just like you do. They believe in some different specifics but for many of the same reasons. They're ultimately much more like you than me and mistaken for much the same reasons you are.

    Remember than a lot of abductees don't believe (or want to believe) that their experiences are due to aliens so it isn't as simple as determining whether a single hypothesis is true or not. I certainly agree that people like this need support to help them understand the causes of their experiences but that shouldn't be based on any kind of predefined assumptions about what that cause could be. The difference is between wanting to use the abductees as tools to support your beliefs or wanting to help them understand and move on their disturbing experiences, regardless of the causes.

    Sorry, but I pointed out clear examples of you making directly contradictory statements. That wasn't my misunderstanding, it was your mistake. You do need to be more precise in your language and ideas if you want to avoid such "misunderstanding". That was one of the first points I raised with you, but you dismissed it with "I'm not a scientist", "Assume everything is 'my opinion'" and "This is a conspiracy forum". Now we can see why this was a relevant point when I made it.

    No, but making directly contradictory statements then trying to dismiss that as "imperfection" or gaslighting readers by calling it their misunderstanding is a lie. You just need to accept that you make clear mistakes (as we all do) and try to understand why you made those mistakes so you can avoid them in future.

    As I suggested above, I think a useful thing here would be understanding how you got to the beliefs you now hold, understanding that journey you took. On this aspect specifically, that would clearly establish which of these pieces of evidence you encountered and considered first, which brought you to particular beliefs and which subsequently supported those beliefs. If you really want to understand why other people don't believe what you do, understanding why you believe what you do should be an obvious first step.

    No. As I've already said, I didn't even notice the sub forum this was on. I look at all new threads and respond to any that interest me, regardless of who (mostly) or where they're from. I am totally open that my interest in this kind of thing is about how people (myself included) reach some confident beliefs and yet others believe entirely differently, even based on the same information or observations. I think this tendency extends in to much more immediately important fields, like politics, religion, healthcare, etc. so understanding it is much more important than the actual possibility of alien visitors (IMO).

    I don't expect to change your mind on aliens since I don't really care about that (though maybe you will go away and consider the underlying reasons behind your beliefs, which I think would be good) but other people can read these posts, see both sides of the discussion and hopefully think about it in their own beliefs, again, especially in those more important contexts. Of course, intellectual debate is also good brain-training, even if it isn't very well structured or effective, so it's less punching bag and more sparing partner. :cool:

    Sure, but "plausible explanation" is entirely different to "reason to believe" and you explicitly called it the latter. Also, I suggested other plausible explanations, such as ghosts or time travellers. You can not consider them "reasons to believe" (I don't either) but you can't dismiss them as "plausible explanations" without any reasoning.

    Sorry, but no. Your refusal to accept the possibility of any other explanation does not render your chosen explanation more plausible. It doesn't even make it more possible (which is a different thing).

    Why would that be a problem though? If you are saying you don't have a definitive conclusion, just an opinion based on "grey" evidence and I have totally accepted that, why can't we discuss that "grey" evidence to see if I agree that is supports the possibility of your opinion (or maybe even raise things you hadn't previously considered). I'm already saying you have no conclusive evidence but that isn't the be-all and end-all of evidence. They key point is how we respond to and present inconclusive evidence, how we talk about things we know and agree (in theory) we can't be certain of.

    I'm already on my journey and those steps have already been part of it. Why are you assuming my journey has to be the same as your or that the only way I can understand your journey is by repeating it myself? Why can't we just discuss your journey? I think you are much more interesting than me.

    Commercial books don't present evidence, they talk about it (even proper academic ones). They may well selective quote or reference evidence but won't present it in a raw and complete (and books like this I have looked at don't always provide clear references for their evidence either). I totally agree that the evidence is more important than others conclusions, which is why I'm asking to discuss the evidence here. Saying "look at this book, there is some evidence in there somewhere" isn't very helpful when it should be perfectly possible to say "look at this evidence that was referenced in this book". If you can't even point to the source evidence referred to in these books, how can you know that evidence ever existed?

    So you have no primary sources at all? Your beliefs are entirely based on the secondary sources that are these books?

    I get that, but that doesn't mean he wasn't a qualified, informed professional involved in the field. After all, you apparently trust his performance of the hypnotherapy in the first place. My question is why are you declaring that all of his conclusions should be automatically dismissed out of hand? Can you give any reason other than his happening to disagree with your established beliefs?
     
    Last edited: Jun 1, 2022
  10. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    31,246
    Likes Received:
    16,930
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Abductees describe mostly up to five basic types. I would include those in my 'belief'. I didn't realize you wanted the run down on them in my posts, but I did ask you to read Dr. David Jacob's 'Walking Among Us', which describes them.

    Nothing is shifting, you are misinterpreting my words. Quote me when you characterize me, and I will show you.

    There is nothing 'circular' in my logic. Quote me when you characterize my words, and I will show you.

    Is it possible I didn't articulate my meaning as precisely as I could have? Sure, but, if clarifications are forthcoming, when all is perfectly articulated from my mind, there will be no circular logic, nor circumlocutions, nor shifting anything.

    Please read the book and quit making assumptions about it. Your characterizations are false.

    Thank you.
     
    Last edited: Jun 1, 2022
  11. HonestJoe

    HonestJoe Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Messages:
    14,839
    Likes Received:
    4,815
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'm sorry but there is no misinterpretation here, you have simply made contradictory statements. You said in post #5 that all abductees "are basically telling the same story, over and over and over again" but if they're seeing entirely different types of alien the first statement can't really be true. And, of course, you're presenting the consistency of the stories as the basis for your beliefs, which makes ignoring differences between those stories somewhat significant. The only way to interdependently assess the truth would be to look at the initial reports and transcripts of the hypnotherapy sessions.

    I did quote you. You said that if the specifics of your beliefs are all wrong because the aliens have tricked you, that would still mean aliens exist. The problem is that you're still asserting the specifics you believe. My entire point there is that even if aliens do exists and visit Earth, that still isn't good reason to believe all of the specifics you do.

    Well you've not managed that and you've still failed to demonstrate any evidence you've actually studied yourself.

    I'm not going to buy a book to convince me of your beliefs, especially when you can't even convince me that you're clear on what they are. You've posted nothing to shift my belief here; I don't believe any aliens have visited Earth due to the absence of any conclusive evidence (which isn't the same as denying the possibility). You certainly haven't convinced me of any of the specific details you've asserted.
     
  12. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    31,246
    Likes Received:
    16,930
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Hold it right there, you've been pushing that bogus narrative for a number of comments now.

    And you've just posted incontrovertible proof that I'm correct in my assertion you have misunderstood me, completely.

    First, I will quote myself, and explain where you are misunderstanding me.

    1. Abductees are basically telling the same story.

    2. Abductees are seeing different types of aliens.

    Now, where you misunderstanding is that 'different types of aliens' equals' disagreeing with each other on the different types of aliens.

    NO, 1. Abductees are basically telling the same story, which includes agreeing on the different types of aliens they saw, aliens X, W, Y, and Z.

    2. The different aliens they see are agreed upon by abductees, i.e., X. W, Y, Z.

    Now, the fact that I didn't articulate it well enough to prevent that misunderstanding, I might be guilty of that, but that doesn't mean I'm being inconsistent.

    You are trying to pin me down, that because I didn't articulate it well enough to prevent that misunderstanding, you claim I'm being inconsistent.

    But your tactic is known as lawyering the argument. What is that? That is treating your opponent like a hostile witness, whereupon you are not interested in finding the truth, you are only interested in discrediting your opponent.

    That might work in a court of law, but here, you are merely being disingenuous insofar as your motive for being here, at least on this particular thread, with me.

    If you were courteous, sincere in wanting to contribute to the light hearted nature of this thread, you would have given me the benefit of the doubt and asked for clarification.

    But you did not do that.

    However, it seems your purpose here is disingenuous, because I posted this OP in the nature of discussion, I wasn't out to prove anything, and in that light, only to discuss, had you been genuinely sincere in contributing to this thread, out of courtesy, you would have asked for clarification before you made the accusation.

    Not only did you not do that, you have been continuing on with that delusion for a number of posts now, wasting my time. We are not discussing the subject at hand, we are debating only the fact of your misunderstanding, and the thread has thus been pettifogged.

    You are not hear to discuss anything, you are not here to continue in a discussion of the OP,
    you are sitting on some lofty perch and come here to pick fights, to prove to others you are superior. if not to others, then to yourself.

    Unfortunately, my patience has worn thin and now I'm resigned to pull your covers, and expose you for what you really are.

    A self-righteous person with a chip on his shoulder

    That doesn't sound like an Honest Joe, to me.

    As for:

    I'm not going to buy a book to convince me of your beliefs, especially when you can't even convince me that you're clear on what they are. You've posted nothing to shift my belief here; I don't believe any aliens have visited Earth due to the absence of any conclusive evidence (which isn't the same as denying the possibility). You certainly haven't convinced me of any of the specific details you've asserted

    I didn't suggest the book to 'convince you of my beliefs'. You inquired as to find out why I believe what I believe, which I explained was due to a journey, no one thing did it. I suggested that if you want to sojourn that journey, I recommend that book as a starting point, reminding you that your assumptions about the book are completely off the mark.

    Frankly, I don't care if you believe me or not, or understand why I believe what I believe.

    But, if you are curious as to why I believe what I believe, noting that you did raise that point, then it will take a journey to get you there, and that book is a good place to start.

    Whether you are curious enough to take that journey, that is up to you.

    My gut feeling is that you are not curious enough to take that journey, and only want to be that guy with a chip on his shoulder and prey on the less than articulate persons in a CT forum, where such persons are probably more likely to frequent than the science forum.

    That appears to be who you really are.

    Correct? I thought so.
     
    Last edited: Jun 5, 2022
  13. HonestJoe

    HonestJoe Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Messages:
    14,839
    Likes Received:
    4,815
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So you are saying all abductees report seeing multiple different aliens? Or are you saying abductees report entirely consistent stories other than encountering completely different aliens?

    The former isn't consistent with the reports I'm aware of and the latter raises questions about calling all the experiences consistent. Again, this is why specific examples of reports or transcripts would help clarify your interpretations and conclusions.

    Some of the statements you have made are literally inconsistent - that is why I asked about them. I'm perfectly willing to accept that there could be a definitive consistent set of beliefs but I then question whether that could then be consistent with all of the evidence.

    This is a common problem with beliefs, as believers are committed to them and so if anything does come up to challenge them, the beliefs tend to get fudged to try to make everything fit, rather than an acceptance that the beliefs might not be entirely complete and accurate. That is why I suggested a formal hypothesis earlier; Working in a stricter and more formal structure and make it clearer when a belief isn't as firm or complete as adherents might like to believe but can help establish which elements of truth there inevitably are within it.

    How can we find the truth if we're not even clear on the specifics of your claims? If you're going to present you beliefs to specifically discuss with people who don't share them, you have to accept that they're going to be questioned, challenged or even dismissed. I think I've been infinitely more reasonable and respectful than most people are on the topic.

    I am discussing the OP topic, you just don't like my answers.

    You asked whether other people believe in alien visitors to Earth and I said no, explaining that I don't think there is evidence supporting such a hypothesis.
    You explained that you believe there is sufficient evidence, not only for the general idea but for very specific details you have listed.
    I've explained why I don't think your evidence is convincing, due to the non-scientific approach and the resultant lack of clarity and consistency.
    You flatly reject a scientific approach and haven't yet be able to resolve the questions and issues I have with the details of your beliefs but you just want to repeat the same beliefs and promote the route by which you got to them.

    It is what you expect though. You think that anyone taking the same journey you did will reach the same destination.

    The fact is that I have read books like this (though I don't think this specific one) but haven't been convinced by any of them. And in the context of this thread, I would expect your posts to take the place of such books, establishing the ideas and raising the curiosity that can lead to further investigation and study of the evidence myself. They very fact I'm still posting here suggests I'm happy to take that next step (though I admit I would take a lot of convincing) but you've been unwilling or unable to explain what the next step of the journey is after reading the books. You've not yet convinced me that there are actually any more steps.

    I am more curious that you are. You've reached a definitive conclusion (even if you're not willing to call it that) and are unwilling to consider any possibility which would move away from that. I'm still asking questions and seeking answers. You've not presented any answers that could convince anyone who doesn't already hold the same belief as you.
     
    Last edited: Jun 6, 2022
  14. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    31,246
    Likes Received:
    16,930
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    There are four, sometimes five, basic description of different aliens, which are common to the vast majority of abductees encountered in the hypnotherapy sessions experienced from abductees from all walks of life, spanning decades, given in the testimonies by Prof John Mack, Bud Hopkins, and Dr. David Jacobs, which are, as follows:

    1. The short 'greys', which are three to four feeth in height. They have big heads, no hair, big almond shaped eyes, skinny torso, spindly arms and legs.
    2. THe above but taller, whereby the shorter ones seem to be the 'grunts' do all the work, helping abductees get on tables, off of them, cleaning up after them, and the taller ones seem to me more like 'doctors' given orders, peforming the actual procedures on subjects.
    3 The "nordics', these are human like, with male and female, over 6 feet, blond hair, striking good looks, uniformed.
    4. the "reptoids' or 'reptilians'. These are humanoid aliens with reptile-like skin. They are not lizards, they are humanoid, it's their scaly skin that they are described as 'reptilian' or 'reptoid'. they are about 5- 6 feet tall, sometimes taller, there have been variants of these reaching some 8-9 feet, in some cases.
    5. The 'Mantids', who look similar to a preying mantis, or insectoids, but humanoid, extremely tall ( taller than 9 feet ), who seem to be in charge of everything.

    The consensus is that these aliens communicate via telepathy.

    These are the main types common to the vast majority of abductees. Are there others? yes, but too few to really be worth talking about.

    It is also notable that aliens have the ability to put 'screen memories' into the subjects, make themselves appear to be something they are not. For example, and alien can appear as a beautiful, voluptuous, woman, which they might do if they perceive such outwardly appearance can be used to control you. Not that they don't actually become a voluptuous woman, jsut appear to be one via a process known as 'screen memory". Much of how they appear depends on your own mind, they 'scan' minds, download human's content into their brains, which means they know all about is, all of our languages, etc. We learn by reading books, training, they learn by downloading mind content from humans. It isn't fool proof, they still have to learn things, and details of human life is beyond the 'downloading' capability.
    Never say 'all' we can say 'common to many'.
    Never say 'all' we can say 'common to many', I've read about these descriptions from numerous sources, Mack, Hopkins, Jacobs, Lamb, Smith, Dennett, and others. Are there other descriptions? Sure, remember, the 'other' could be because of screen memory. And there are other phenomeno, such as the small balls of light darting around, which some aliens apparently can turn into and fly away, but this si not the bulk of the descriptions I'm discussing here. There are no absolutes, please understand this.
    when I started, I had no beliefs about details whatsover. I had heard of UFOs, and my gut feeling was that, because of the plethora of them, there must be something to it. I didn't get into details until I started reading the books by the regressive hypnotherapists.
    I just explained it to you. What is in my mind is clear. Whether I've articulated it may be lacking, but bear with me, I will, one way or the other, convey what is in my mind on this subject, and taht doesn't vary, nor is it inconsistent. You appear to be looking for 'all' statements, and there is no 'all' or 'everyone says', there are common themes, central themes, and variances on the fringes.

    There are also other legs of the UFO phenomenon. I'm only dealing with the abduction leg of the phenomenon. For example, there are UFO sightings and Nuclear bases, and that is a different leg of the UFO phenomenon. There are UFOs pestering naval vessels during training runs and mock wars, etc.
    and these I suspect are not aliens, the word I got is that they are US Military black projects, but that hasn't been confirmed.

    Anything I say about abductions does not negate the other legs to the phenomenon, okay?
    You don't have answers. So I can't dislike them. You have made accusations, wrongfully, which, writ large, you can expect rejection.
    It's a good habit, a courteous habit, that whenever you claim someone says something, that you provide the exact quote. Okay?

    Because I do not recall putting such a question in that way, to you. My guess, therefore, you are misquoting me.
    I do recall you saying that much.
    I dont think I framed it that way, I think I framed it as 'an abundance of evidence', which I qualified as evidence, by virtue of it's abundance, and it's nature, that it would suggest to a degree greater than 50% certainty ( or similar description ) the idea that alien visitation is real, which would, by virtue of this fact, cause me to lean in favor of the belief.

    As for the specific details, those I"ve garnered from the works of the regressive hypnotheracists, primarily Dr. David Jacobs.
    This point is addressed in great detail, substance, and context, in Dr. David Jacob's two books, which is to say, if you allow that simplistic notion to control your decision not to read his books, you are making an assumption about what his book contains.

    Science is not interested in hypnotherapy, for reasons they assume, as you assume, aren't scientific. Maybe it isn't, and Dr. Jacob's basically agrees with this, but there are other stuff you are not aware of, which you would be, if you read the book The truth is a grey area, and grey areas scientists do not like. I understand that. But, I'm looking for material that is compelling. Why? Because I'm curious. Compelling is as good as it gets in UFOlogy, so if you are going to be like Avi Loeb, that's a good thing, we need guys like that, but it's a slow boat to China, and if one accepts things which are compelling, there is plenty of it, if one chooses to look. If you are looking for conclusive proof, as Loeb is, my view is that that will not be happening any time soon, and I have my reasons garnered from compelling evidence. No, not incontrovertible evidence, just compelling evidence, the kind from which one can base an opinion or belief on, one that is better than blind faith, though not absolute, as it is.

    But, absolute proof, though it would be nice to have, it isn't the point. The point is, is it compelling?

    Once you read the book, you will discover why it is compelling. I could try and explain it, but he does it so much better.
    I will concede on the clarity issue, but you are misconstruing lack of clarity as inconsistency. I am not inconsistent.
    You have a bad habit of making crap up. No, I never rejected a scientific approach. I welcome it. There are other approaches that
    arent as scientific, but they are compelling, so to reject the latter is to exclude compelling evidence. I won't do that.
    I only explained to you how I got to where I am once, you just keep pettifogging the issue and I have to keep reiterating my points on which you are not clear on, which you misunderstand.
    I said exactly the opposite. I said you might, but then, again, you might not. Apparently you are not paying attention.
    If you havne't read Jacob's books, then you haven't read books 'like this'. There are no books like his. He stands alone.
    So you conclude Jacob's books won't, either, but, you assume they are like the others. They are not.

    That's an assumption Now, again, if you read it, you might come closer to my way of thinking, or you might not, provided you read the entire thing and be honest about having read it.
    You should never expect that, as I've explained. My beliefs on this subject were not the result of any one thing, but a journey, and I can't possibly cover the field in it's entirety, the journey of which gave rise to my understanding and knowledge on the subject.
    If wouldn't take a lot of convincing if you were truly curious. But, since you've claimed you are more curious than me, and now you assert that you need a lot of convincing to engage in further investigation and study, you have thus committed an irrefutable, inconsistency.
    You make a lot of assumptions, and that is not a good quality for a researcher.

    What the next step in the journey will be will depend entirely of the feedback I get from you on Dr. Jacob's book I suggested.

    It's not like the yellow brick road is fixed in stone. And why should you be waiting fro me, or needing anything from me in the first place?

    I sure as hell didn't, my curiousity propelled me forward, effortlessly. I didn't need anyone to advice me on what to read. It was intuitive.
    If you were, you would have at least read Stanton friedman's books, J. Allen Hynek's books, the book by Edward Ruppelt, the Report On UFOs #14 (by Hynek) and maybe the book by Corso, and you would have at least watched this VIDEO, at the minimum, after all this, you'd might be ready to tackle the books by Jacobs, Mack, and Hopkins, and the books by Linda Moulton Howe.



    And this is only scratching the surface.
    I've considered every conceivable angle on this subject. Just listen to you, You are quick to judge, that you so willing to make a broad brush assessment betrays any notion that you are sincere in this endeavor, whatsoever.
    And so you think you are going to find it on a CT forum? IF that were true, you'd be elsewhere, indeed.
    It was never my intent, on this thread, to convince you of anything.

    You have spent more time pettifogging the debate with me on this forum than anything else. Curious people do not behave that way.
     
    Last edited: Jun 6, 2022
  15. HonestJoe

    HonestJoe Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Messages:
    14,839
    Likes Received:
    4,815
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You didn't answer my question; Does each abductee report seeing one (or maybe two) of these types of aliens or does every abductee report seeing them all? Don't you see how that distinction could significantly shift the resultant conclusions?

    Also, you can't say there are a few other examples but simply dismiss them out of hand to call the reports consistent. You need to account for the outliers somehow. Outliers are often very significant, if only in identifying imperfections in the recording or analysis of the data.

    So we can't actually have any idea what the aliens really look like at all? Again, wouldn't that have a major impact on the resultant conclusions (such as all the ideas about influenced evolution or hybrids)?

    You really need to get clear in you mind what you actually believe before talking about it (my emphasis);
    So you had a generic belief but were convinced by the specifics you now believe after simply reading the conclusions in these books? So have you assessed any actual evidence yourself, as you have implied? And have you assessed actual evidence with the intention of discovering the truth regardless of what it is or only to support your established beliefs?

    That is part of the problem. You are presenting a clear conclusion that is in your mind but not explaining how or why you reach that conclusion (and note that saying "read this book" isn't an explanation). That is why a somewhat more formal and scientific approach to such questions is much better. If you can't or won't take that approach, you're not really in such a strong position to present such specific and detailed beliefs with the level of confidence you infer. You're free to do it of course, but you can't object when other people question, challenge and don't accept your beliefs.

    They're also not necessarily related or caused by the same things. You're free to treat them separately but then you can't bring in those other "legs" to try to support your beliefs (as you have).

    My answer to your initial question was that I don't believe in alien visitors because I don't feel the actual evidence supports that. You presented your "evidence" and I explained why I don't consider that convincing, saying what kind of actual evidence could support your beliefs. You've been unwilling or unable to present such evidence and that is our sticking point.

    Literally the first line of your OP;
    Literally the first line of my first reply (emphasis added);
    That is just word play. You clearly believe that the "abundance of evidence" (your words) is "sufficient" (my word) to support your beliefs (which is fine in and of itself).

    I also see a bit of a contradiction between the evidence supporting a limited degree of certainty when at the same time you describe extremely definitive and specific details. I would suggest there needs to be a distinction between the evidence that supports the general idea of alien visitors and any claims about specific details. That might even help you where any of those details aren't as consistent as you might like to believe.

    Science is interested in everything by definition. Scientists have studied and researched hypnosis and hypnotherapy and it can be used in clinical contexts. That does also consider it's limitations, pitfalls and the aspect of it that we don't (yet) fully understand. It isn't the be-all and end-all you'd like to think it is.

    You should really review your previous posts before claiming not to have said things;
    I"m not a scientist, I don't do 'hypothesis'.[/quote]

    You keep promoting your journey and expecting me to blindly enter the same one yet you are dismissive of my journey, unwilling to even discuss the elements of that.

    If I read the book and still wasn't convinced, presenting to you the reasons for that, what would change? How would the conclusions in the book be any different to the conclusions you've presented here? Wouldn't there still be the lack of supporting evidence, since you've been unable to identify or reference any? You've not even tried to explain why this one book would convince me. This just feels like proselytisation at the moment.

    I'm curious about truth and reality. I'm not curious to be convinced of a singular predetermined conclusion. It shouldn't take much effort to convince anyone of any truth if the evidence is clear and distinct in supporting that conclusion. That is why I'm currently convinced that we don't (yet) know the answers (plural) to the various phenomena behind this whole topic, including the ones you're focusing on here.

    Maybe I'd be more willing to commit the time and effort if you were willing to explain what your next step was though? As I said, I'm still not yet convinced you really had one.
     
  16. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    31,246
    Likes Received:
    16,930
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I realize you are trying real hard to make me sound inconsistent, with your unwillingness to see the data I'm presenting in the light that I'm presenting it. But there really is no inconsistency, no matter how hard and often you insist there is.

    The short and tall greys then the most common, then reptoids and insectoids not as common, but common enough to make the that's all I know, and I don't see how that 'shifts the resultant conclusions'. They all make the list because they are common enough to make the list. There are probably more but not enough to make the common list.
    No, because when they appear as they really are it is obvious they are not inducing screen memories. Why? Because it has been established that screen memories are pulled from the subject's mind, which is far too varied to make the list and when it happens there are clues that make it obvious, such as when they appear as voluptuous women, or a wolf or an owl, usually a very earthly picture. Moreover, the screen memories fade, don't hold in place perfectly, revealing what the alien does look like behind the screen. Not all abductees get the screen memory treatment, it's just every so often. There descriptions on how they look I just gave you in the previous comment.

    Again, I realize you need desperately for me to be inconsistent, and try as you may, it's just not true.
    You really need to stop employing deceptive debate techniques. "Lawyering the argument" is a typical one you employ. That's when it is clear you are not interested in discussing, learning about the subject at hand, and your true motive is just to prove your opponent wrong for the sake of it, and the notion that I'm an 'opponent', when I never intended to put this OP up to prove anything, let alone you, in the first place.
    Watch the video I linked to, what you are addressing is addressed in the video.

    What you consistently do is make assumptions about what I'm trying to show you.
    There is no problem other than the one you are manufacturing. This is not a science project. I don't care if you believe what I'm saying or not.
    I really don't care how strong or weak you think my position is but of course, you really want it to be weak, this is obvious, you are not interested, really, in the subject, you just want to act like a lawyer cross examining a witness. Object away, I'll just remind of the aforementioned that we are, in fact, neither in a science lab or a courtroom, the two scenarios of which, you can't seem to make your mind on, noting that both are deceptive debate tricks. I didn't post this in the light of 'debate', but 'discussion', but you are consistent on one front, you really want to turn this into a debate.
    You make that sound like there is something wrong. There isn't. My response is simply 'So?'.
    Watch the video I linked to, it addresses your particular concern.
    Fine, you don't believe in them. Wonderful.
    So?
    You're nitpicking on 'degrees of certainty'. So what? Either you are curious and want to learn more about the subject, or you want to act like a lawyer cross examining a witness. It appears you fall into the latter category.
    That hasn't been my experience. My experience, over the years, is that they are not interested in 'aliens', on the whole.
    It's fair to ask you to quote me, when you make comments about what I said.
    This is what I mean. You conclude that equals 'rejecting science'. You made that statement without quoting me and it was fair to ask you for the quote, because I knew that if you had provided the quote, I would show you that your conclusion is wrong. Now that you finally provided me with the quote:

    You positively cannot interpret that quote as equaling 'rejecting science'. All it says is that I'm not a scientist, and not qualified to make 'hypothesis', that doesn't mean, nor can you possibly infer, that I mean I reject science.

    This is also more evidence that you are not interested in learning about the subject, your only interested in lawyering the argument.
    I do not expect you to blindly do anything, nor did I frame it that way. Again, this goes back to your incessant tendency to make crap up.

    I'm willing to discuss elements, but you will need to read a book, or listen to a video I provide. I'm not going to sit down and transcribe the thing just to cater to you.
    I follow, at all times, the more compelling argument. Anything is possible.
    You would at least know more, a little more, anyway, why I believe what I believe. Whether or not that affects your conclusions, I can't say.
    The truth is much more nuanced, which is what I want you to read the book, watch the video.
    Either you are curious enough to watch it, read it, or you are not.

    One thing I'm certain of, based on my observation in our conversation, you make **** up, you make assumptions.
    Who isn't. Whether you are actually curious depends, in my view, on your willingness to look, search, get beyond this forum.
    You're making assumptions again.
    How many times have I told you that absolute, incontrovertible, evidence does not exist?

    remember the analogy I gave you:

    If you had a thousand swaths of a color slightly darker than white, that color wouldn't be apparent by looking at one swath, but would become crystal clear if you saw 1000 of them stitched together and compared them to pure white swatchs of 1000 stitched together.

    The 'evidence' on aliens is similar to the analogy. If that state of affairs isn't to your liking, then quit wasting your time on the subject and move on to something else, because in Ufology, it doesn't get better than that.
    I'm not going to do your work for you. That I've gone through the effort to deal with all your concerns is the limit of it.


    As for the next step, the video I linked to is probably a better next step than to read Dr. Jacob's book. The premise of the video is Friedman debunking common counter arguments made by debunkers. he explains that he doesn't have time to address them all, just the salient ones. Friedman worked as physicist for several corporations in his younger days, but became fascinated on the subject of UFOs, and became a Ufologist, his passion.

     
    Last edited: Jun 7, 2022
  17. HonestJoe

    HonestJoe Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Messages:
    14,839
    Likes Received:
    4,815
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So that means different abductees can have differences in their experiences, despite your earlier statements that all of the experiences are consistent? You must understand how that can make one wonder if there are any other variations or differences that have also been brushed over?

    I'm really not, I'm trying to get you to accept that the information you have presented is not as clear or consistent as you'd like to imagine and nor does it in any way support your demonstrated confidence in all of the very specific details you have described.

    It's over an hour long. I've no idea when I'd get time to watch that.

    I'm not making assumptions, I'm asking question (this was in response to three questions from me). I'm asking you questions because you're being so evasive about the specifics of how you reached your belief position. Surely that must be relevant if you're suggesting I take a similar journey?

    The only way to effectively determine the truth of something is via some form of scientific method. If you want me to follow anything up (be it books, videos or even the elusive primary evidence), I'm going to review it in a scientific manner whether you like it or not. If you're not interested in that, the thread is pointless beyond your very first OP question and any direct responses to it (and you have my answer to that already). That is one of the reason I don't really want to commit time to reading a book - you would likely just dismiss my response to them because I'd base it on evidence rather than faith.

    I mentioned it because you presented a UFO sighting (the Maelstrom incident) and suggested it could be evidence for the existence of alien visitors, and thus supportive of your own beliefs. If they're truly separate, you can't use them in any way to support each other like that.

    You claimed you never asked that question and accused me of misrepresenting you when it was the opening question in your thread. An acknowledgement of your mistake and an apology would be nice (and maybe note that I'm not trying to misrepresent you but just trying to understand what you are actually writing).

    It isn't nit-picking, it is a key distinction. If I say I think John probably has some kind of car and it's definitively a red Ford Focus with a broken left headlight, that wouldn't make sense. If I'm certainly of the details about the car, I must be at least as certain about it's general existence. Similarly, if you're confident of all the details you've stated about alien visitors - what they look like, how they operate, what their motives are, etc. - you must be at least as confident about their general existence. You can't soften the degree of evidence you're basing your belief on the general existence of alien visitors without also softening the degree of evidence (and thus level of confidence) for your specific details.

    f you're not willing (or able) to present any kind of decent hypothesis for what you believe (you don't need to have created it yourself), you render it impossible to apply any kind of scientific rigour to your statements. That is certainly rejecting science as far as this entire thread goes.

    But you've still not even tried to explain what is in these books or videos that would be so vital for us to be able to have a discussion about your beliefs. Just saying "Read this book!" isn't an answer to anything. "Read this book because it explains X, Y and Z" might be.

    You don't want me to search further, you only want me to focus on a specific book and video (which just happen to support your established beliefs). You don't care about any of the other material I have seen (which, by my understanding of it, does not implicitly support your established beliefs).

    But I'm not trying to debunk anything here (not least because you haven't presented anything concrete enough to debunk). My sole conclusion at the moment remains that the plurality of evidence I have seen and heard doesn't support any definitive conclusion, and certainly not anything as detailed or specific as yours. Does the video address that at all?
     
  18. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    31,246
    Likes Received:
    16,930
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You are not paying attention. Please reread what I wrote. ANd what I wrote does not signify what you are trying to make it.

    The vast majority of descriptions of aliens fall into five categories, which I listed as 1. short greys, 2. taller greys, 3. reptoids. 4. insectoids. 5, 'nordics'.

    There are probably more, but they don't occur often enough to make the common list.

    There is nothing inconsistent in the above statement. It's a statement conveying an empirical fact. Nothing I've expressed thus far varies from this.

    Though I'm not certain on what the precise percentages are, for the sake of simplicity, let's say there is 95% uniformity allowing for a 5% variance/

    Since I have not varied on that empirical fact, though I'm estimating the percentages, you cannot accuse me of being inconsistent.

    Do you understand, now?

    That isn't the point. The point is stated above.
    Well, I think I was very clear. Whether you can understand it, that I have no control over.
    then why should I take you seriously? As I've stated, it's a journey, and one that cannot be achieved here.
    Did you not read what I wrote, and the analogy I gave? You assuming that all it takes for me to reach a conclusion is something specific which I should be able to present here. I've stated a number of times that that is now how it works. It's a journey, and due to the 16k character limit, putting the entire journey here won't work.

    I suggest that you endeavor a journey, if you want to learn more about the subject. Given how you express yourself on the subject, it is clear to me you have a long ways to go. I made a suggestion on where to start, but, it's just a suggestion.
    Stanton Friedman is a phsycist. Michael Kaku is a physicist, J. Allen Hynek is a PHD astronomer, John Mack is a PHD psychiatrist. Jacobs is a PHD historian, and though not a scientist, he is not stupid or a 'woo' believer.

    I've asked you to check them out, and you keep repeating
    Where do you get this idea I would ask you to do otherwise?
    Did I ever suggest to take it on faith?
    How many times do I have to tell you that I'm not basing my beliefs on any one thing? This is why I prefer not to give you any one thing.

    It goes back to my analogy:

    Take a small swath of off white color, slightly darker than white, which, by itself, just looks white.

    But, stitch it together with a 1000 similar swaths, and the fact that it not white because much clearer.

    This is why I would rather not give you 'swaths of evidence'. Why, Because that's as good as it will ever get, in Ufology.

    As far as you'll ever get in Ufology is seeing enough that leads one to lean more towards their visiting earth, than not visiting earth. Or maybe not. But, if that is the case, that's as good as it will ever get. And I only say that based on the evidence thus far presented over the last 70 years.

    You want me to hand you incontrovertible proof. I told you that none exists.

    Then you told me you would, indeed, accept less than conclusive proof.

    Okay, when I gave it to you, less than conclusive proof what did you do?

    you just now told me it's not conclusive.

    Make up your mind.

    I"m beginning to get the idea you are gaslighting me.
    You'll have to refer me ot the qoute, otherwize, I dont know what you are talking about. Understand that I'm posting to a lot of comments on PF, and I don't keep track of the through conversations, you must quote me, because I'm not going hunting.

    What is your problem with the opening question on the thread, this is what you are not making clear.
    I'm beginning to think that you really don't want to understand what I write, and you are gaslighting me?

    Is that what is happening here? Because, I find it utterly amazing you can't understand what I write.
    I reported how most abductees describe aliens, that there are 5 common types. There are probably more but Jacobs doesn't cover them because they are not as common, so I"m only going by his reportage, whose work I trust.

    I never spoke to 'motives', or rather, I never made a definite claim about motives or alien agenda ( though I might have addressed Jacob's opinion, which I do not share, necessarily).
    More so than not so.
    I can't fathom why you'd make such a statement. It's seems self-evident, a no brainer.
    I'm not a scientist. 'Willing' is therefore a moot point. I do the best I can, and whether that is science, you tell me. Whatever it is, it is what it is, and I don't really know what your problem is. If you want to be scientist about it, look for incontrovertible proof, you, like other scientists who are trying, for the last 70 years, given that the closest to the subject they have ever come, is to conclude:

    They are possible, but we just don't know.

    The only progress 'some' scientists have made, is to shift from 'we're certain alien visitation is false' to 'alien visitation is possible, but we are not sure'.

    Which scientists? Let us start with Physicist Michio Kaku on the Shift in the UFO Phenomenon, who explains the 'shift' in thinking on UFOs, from 'no way' to 'maybe' in scientific terms.



    There are others but he's a prominent one.

    I've explained it to the best of my ability, you are not paying attention.
    Feel free to offer it. Simon won't do, however, for my stated reasons.
    If your conclusion is a shift from the historical 'no, there cannot be aliens' to 'it's possible', you'll have gone as far as science will take you.

    However, if you are willing to cast aside the notion of requiring conclusive proof, to accepting a 'preponderance of evidence' , the caliber of which which might be typically offered in a civil suit, enough to get the jury to believe in the likelihood of the plaintiff's case to award damages, if that caliber of evidence will take you to a place where you are more inclined to believe in alien visitation, than not, if you are willing to consider that that level of confidence is acceptable, then you'll need to go on a journey, because that is as good as it will ever get. Trust me, I've surveyed 70 years of 'evidence' of that caliber. It will not get better than that. Oh, I suppose it could, but I've not seen it.

    But, like in a civil suit, when weighed as a whole, the 'preponderance of evidence' ( not conclusive evidence, suggestive evidence) it might allow you to be where I'm at. Or it might not. I don't know. I find the evidence I've looked at compelling. Maybe you won't.

    Start with Michio Kaku link, above. then the Stanton Friedman link, in a prior comment.

    Remember, these are steps on a journey, a couple of swaths of off white color. It will take a lot more swaths to see the actual color of the thing.

    Remember, what is the color of the thing? Let's not lose sight of it, I mean that place where you will lean more to believing in them than not. Why? Because this, in my view, is as good as it will ever get.

    After you've done that, watch the two videos, depending on your feedback, I'll make other suggestions. Or, you can just go about it in any way you choose.
     
    Last edited: Jun 8, 2022
  19. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    31,246
    Likes Received:
    16,930
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    And there are a are scientists agreeing with you, where they have shifted from 'there are no aliens' to 'it's possible, but there isn't conclusive proof'.
     
  20. modernpaladin

    modernpaladin Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2017
    Messages:
    27,705
    Likes Received:
    21,104
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Well thats good. The former isnt very scientific.
     
  21. HonestJoe

    HonestJoe Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Messages:
    14,839
    Likes Received:
    4,815
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I've always understood that, it is the consequences of this that I am getting to.

    Your core point here is that all of the abductee recollections are the same, which supports the specific detailed conclusions you have reached about them. You have now acknowledged that the recollections aren't the same, that different abductees actually report seeing entirely different types of alien. You're even admitting to simply throwing out any examples that don't fit your pre-defined conclusions.

    The destroys your conclusion based on consistency on it's own and obviously raises questions about whether the recollections actually vary on any of the other points you've settled on. The evidence you have described no longer fits the conclusions you have presented.

    It is exactly the point. If you're not being open and honest about the full extent of your evidence (or other people haven't been as open and honest about it to you), we have literally nothing here.

    You could summarise though. The original Star Wars trilogy was three full-length films but I could give a meaningful overview of the story in a couple of paragraphs or even a couple of lines.

    Dr Benjamin Simon was a psychiatrist but you dismissed him out of hand (despite referring to his work yourself). I'm a programmer and statistician but you don't accept any of my conclusions either. It doesn't seem like qualifications is your basis for accepting people's opinions, only whether they agree with you or not.

    If you're not taking any kind of scientific approach, what else is there?

    That isn't the issue here, it is the lack of consistency or clarity in your statements. You're jus picking at individual points or comments but in doing that you're responding in different ways to different points. In one reply you directly bring up a UFO sighting to support the idea of alien visitors but then in another you say anything other than abduction reports aren't relevant to your position. You need to address your belief as a whole with a complete and consistent explanation.

    Less than conclusive "proof" (or evidence) doesn't support a definitive conclusion by definition. Such evidence could support the possibility or even likelihood of alien visitors but not certainty and not the level of detail you go in to. I think you have evidence but not conclusive evidence and by assessing that evidence that could be explained. I suspect you don't want to present any evidence because you know it can't support your beliefs, hence the points about faith.

    You claimed you never asked whether people believe in alien visitors but it was the very first question of your thread! You were simply wrong. How much clearer can I be? It was a blatant example of how your statements throughout this thread aren't consistent.

    I guess you need me to actually provide your quotes for you to ignore again (my emphasis);
    You may well have tried to clarify these statements or retroactively apply conditions and limitations to them but you can't deny making them. They are your own words. You also said that I should treat everything you write here as "in your opinion" so if you're ever addressing someone else's opinion that you don't necessary share, wouldn't you need to make that clear at the time?

    Because you imply a confidence in the specificity of the details but you're not willing (or able) to support such confidence in the general concept of the existence of aliens.

    You don't need to be a scientist to present a casual hypothesis. It's the kind of thing we do all the time without even realising it. You also don't need to be a scientist to be evasive and fuzzy on the basis for beliefs you don't really want to be questioned or challenged.

    If you truly feel unable to present your ideas in any kind of meaningful or useful manner though, maybe you should have left it to all those who (think they) can?

    No decent scientist would dismiss any general idea out of hand. They might disagree with a specific idea if it is inconsistent with know evidence, but even then they'd be open to new (actual) evidence to support it (or indeed contradict it, the key part you're not open to). I've personally never thought anything other than "possible but unproven" and I suspect most scientists would say the same. This thread is all about you trying to push us further than that default without any solid reason to do so.

    There is no limit to what science can do (though there are limits to what humans can do with it at any given time or place). If something exists though, it is within the potential scope of science by definition. To suggest otherwise is trying to dismiss science on the topic, something you previously denied doing.

    That is still within the scope of science (indeed, is how most science works in practice). The fact remains that "preponderance of evidence" is never going to support the level of specificity and detail that you are promoting, especially if you consider all of the evidence, including any that doesn't entirely support your preferred conclusion.
     
    Last edited: Jun 9, 2022
  22. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    31,246
    Likes Received:
    16,930
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    FFS I would NEVER suggest anything in absolute terms. this goes to my point, you are lawyering the argument, nitpicking and pettifogging the purpose of this thread, NO, you are not interested in learning about tis subject at all, your primary focus is to come to the CT form on your lofty perch with a chip on your shoulder.
    YOu're lawyering the argument again. I didn't mention Simon in the link, my ONLY intent was for you to listen to the recordings. NOT his opinion, hell, I didn't even know who Simon was until you mentioned him. Why? Because all I was interested in were the actual recordings, themselves.

    But, you didn't ask for clarification on that, you, on your lofty perch with a chip on your shoulder, disingenuously not looking for a meeting of mind, but to nitpick and approach me with the intent of adversity, looking for a fight, jumped to conclusions and made allegations.

    You are proving my point in spades, over and over and over again.
    You conclusions aren't compelling. Your motives are questionable.
    In the field of Ufology, there is no such thing as 'authority' insofar as appealing to authority as the salient means to prove your point. THe only thing one can do is, in a series of arguments and evidence one would use to demonstrate one's point of view, an appeal to authority can only be made ot supplement one's point of view, NOT 'prove' one's point of view. But if appealing to authority is the salient basis for one's opinion, that is a logical fallacy. A thorough review of the Carl Sagan Baloney Detection Kit, and more studies on this issue, you would know this.
    You're making assumptions and I've addressed this point.
    I've addressed this point several times, too often, and now your failure to grasp my explanation on this point leads me to believe you are gaslighting me.
    I'll file that in the wishful thinking file.
    Unless you quote me on any accusation you make about what I wrote, your comment is dismissed. I do not keep logs of though conversations. You're not the only persons I'm having a debate with, conversation with.
    I've addressed this point thoroughly. Your failure to grasp it is beyond my control.
    I suspect you are gaslighting me.
    I've addressed and clarified this point. Your repeating it is gaslighting.
    You're repeating a false narrative, I clarified this point at the outset, you ignored my clarification and repeated the false narrative.

    That's gaslighting.
    Always quote me when you allege something about what I wrote. That way I can explain precisely what your misunderstanding is. I'm not going to guess at what you are referring to.

    But, since you do not do as I request, I can only conclude your motives are disingenuous.
    More proof you are disingenuous, and want solely to lawyer the argument, you are not interested in achieving a meeting of mind

    Yes, I clarified a point retroactively, as all clarifications do. Your point of 'not denying them' is a moot point if they are clarified.

    Therefore, the ONLY reason you insist "I can't deny them" is to gaslight me.

    I'm not promoting anything.

    You're not interested in the subject.

    You're not interested in reaching a meeting of mind.

    You're only interested in confrontation.

    My recommendation, therefore. is for you to go pester someone else.

    I've been very patient with you and I've reached the limit of my patience, therefore, henceforth, I'm placing you on my kill file ( the ignore function ).
     
    Last edited: Jun 9, 2022
  23. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What exactly is your point here? I've been following this discussion somewhat and I tend to agree with Patricio that you're being antagonistic just for the purpose of being antagonistic. You don't believe we've been visited by aliens? Fine but it seems to me it's more about trying to convince yourself defensively (as in cognitive dissonance) than taking a truly honest approach Mr. HonestJoe. Just my 2 cents.
     

Share This Page