Make your own THOUGHT SCREEN HELMET. Instructions here:

http://www.stopabductions.com/

Not just indispensible protection, but a great fashion accessory too!

:runaway:

wow...I kind of thought James R. as a serious discusser...

alien abductions...
thought helmets...
protection from aliens...

from you James R?

so
dilemma
unless

jamesr

you probably are aware of the issues pertaining to et. i believe some fundamental ones would involve.... actual existence and local presence. indulge please with your opinion on these. ;)

an aside...and this (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=74405)

these helmet wearers should go outside when its lightning...to get zapped for some alien voltage contact

http://www.stopabductions.com/hat.jpg

I'm wearing mine now.

Make your own THOUGHT SCREEN HELMET. Instructions here:

http://www.stopabductions.com/

Not just indispensible protection, but a great fashion accessory too!

:runaway:

Ah, reminds me of the Schwa (http://www.answers.com/topic/schwa-art?cat=technology) stuff, in the 90's, Alien Abduction Insurance was available, and little credit card sized UFO silhouette cards, so you could compare the outline and know if it was a Zeta-Reticulan coming to get you.

just be fucking glad the forum aint called ufology
you fucks would then be spammers and trolls

ahm so do i put my order in for say ten
only trouble is no aliens come near me i kung foo their arses
and i think i like the ones that wear g strings they kinda cute all males of course
only if they were frigin real i havent seen a dam alien its like weird

Who abducted the aliens ????

just be fucking glad the forum aint called ufology
you fucks would then be spammers and trolls

:o

That's the problem with this particular branch of the forum. It's called "Pseudoscience" and unfortunately most of the ufo topics, serious or not so serious all seem to end up here, probably for several reasons...

I consider ufology a real and valid study, as valid as psychology and any other -ology...
To merely dismiss it as a pseudoscience is to deny and ridicule the study and analysis of ANY phenomenon of ANY origin. Ufology does not necessarily imply theories or conclusions that embrace the notion of extraterrestrials and their vehicles visiting the Earth as a fact, though it can and does, and I think that is the reason some skeptics self-righteously deride the notion of ufology as valid and viable science, thinking they've done something clever and incapable of being argued against.

They are of course, only fooling the fools when they say these things. AND insulting real, intelligent scientists like Stanton Friedman, Jacques Vallee, and many others, etc. not to mention the field investigators who have actually taken it upon themselves to compile and study all the data, interview witnesses, and try to make sense of it. They, those who skeptics erroneously mislabel as "pseudos" , actually keep the study alive and thriving. If it were up to the skeptics, UFO encounters would be relegated most likely to trashbins or other undesirable places by people who confuse ridicule, dismissal, debunking, and ad hominem attacks as valid methods of investigation and debate, which none of those things truly are. ;)

OMG!!! James R Thanks!
My husband is gonna be so surprised when he opens his xmas present.

[QUOTE=Giambattista;1652647...insulting real, intelligent scientists like Stanton Friedman, Jacques Vallee, and many others, etc. not to mention the field investigators who have actually taken it upon themselves to compile and study all the data, interview witnesses, and try to make sense of it.[/QUOTE]

Now, here is your problem. Real scientists verify each other's work, and when people make a claim that isn't true the paper gets critiqued and rejected.

When UFOlogists listen to people's claims, they write it all down and say 'thankyou'. UFOlogists show no discernment. Now, when I hear a UFOlogist debunking another UFOlogist, you may get the field losing the 'Pseudo' prefix. Until then, ......

So chaps, has Disclosure happened yet? Four years ago I was told it would happen "very soon"!

I've already supplemented my zombie apocalypse survival kit with 100' of tinfoil, that cost nearly $5! I'd be very disappointed if the aliens didn't attack.

I never thought of supplementing my zombie survival kit to include abduction protection as well. Good idea man...very good idea.

Just stop hanging out with the fuckers. They can't abduct you then, can they?

Just stop hanging out with the fuckers. They can't abduct you then, can they?

But then they talk about you behind your back :(

Is there any way I can encourage alien abduction--because I'm getting bored sitting at my desk at work,

Its a good thing those alien thought reading beams only access your brain through the top of your head....I guess the aliens don't try to scan through your face.

Mac! ssshhhhhh, don't ruin it with logic!

Now, when I hear a UFOlogist debunking another UFOlogist, you may get the field losing the 'Pseudo' prefix. Until then, ......


thoughts? (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1647793&postcount=5)

porf's gone so........

So chaps

hey buddy! :)

:o

eek
where is mr a?

/pops champagne/swats flies/home sweet home

Who abducted the aliens ????

nice!

Now, here is your problem.

I have a problem? Your response presents several potential problems which I shall attempt to point out.

When UFOlogists listen to people's claims, they write it all down and say 'thankyou'. UFOlogists show no discernment.

Is that so? No discernment? No ufologist shows discernment of any kind?
I have heard Stanton Friedman, who is arguably one of the most well-known ufologists in North America, refer multiple times to his "gray box", a metaphorical container for ufological stories and claims which, in reference to the name, reside in a gray area where not enough is known about the case to give serious credence, but not necessarily exclude it from possibility.
This may be so for various reasons, one of which is whether it is a single witness, or if there are multiple witnesses.
I don't know of any serious researcher (that I half-way respect, that is!) who accepts any and all encounters as being genuine extraterrestrial encounters. You seem to imply here that there is no method whatsoever employed in the investigation of UFO sightings, and that any story is accepted verbatim with a simple thank-you.
BTW, I think it's only proper to write it all down and say 'thankyou'.

Now, when I hear a UFOlogist debunking another UFOlogist, you may get the field losing the 'Pseudo' prefix. Until then, ......

When YOU hear a ufologist debunking another ufologist, then the field loses the "pseudo" prefix? Hopefully you don't really think it hinges on your personal feelings towards it? Perhaps only as far as you are concerned?

Ufologists debunking other ufologists. It is quite apparent that you are not very aware of controversies between ufologists. I have heard more than twice that ufology's worst enemy is ufology itself.
Examples

Roswell. Several ufologists, notably Mr. Friedman, are supporters of the idea that Roswell involved the crash of alien spacecraft. However, self-avowed ufologist, the LATE Karl Pflock (http://www.ufoevidence.org/researchers/detail105.htm) begs to differ, as does close associate James Moseley, who publishes the infamous "Saucer Smear" newsletter. Or last time I checked, they did!
http://www.forteantimes.com/strangedays/obituaries/378/karl_t_pflock.html

Nick Redfern, UK ufologist, has a completely different take on Roswell, Body Snatchers in the Desert.

The Ed Walters case from Gulf Breeze, Florida. Bruce Maccabee stood by Walters' photos as authentic, while, if I remember correctly, MUFON or other similar organizations branded them a hoax.

Some ufologists, such as Dr. Vallee, assert that there is more than simple extraterrestrials at work in the UFO phenomenon. He embraces instead a theory that involves theoretically multi-dimensional beings, or ultra-terrestrials I have heard them called.


Real scientists verify each other's work, and when people make a claim that isn't true the paper gets critiqued and rejected.

When you speak of "real" scientists, to whom are you referring? Scientists who work in a laboratory, or those who observe things in a field? While I regard psychology as a "soft" science, it is nonetheless a serious study with serious merit. Ufology is very much the same way. It involves mostly observations and analysis, with the occasional physical effect or evidence to be examined. You don't simply say UFOs don't exist because they won't land where you want them to, or submit blood or fecal samples for your convenience.
Ufology depends mostly on observation, as do other sciences, notably psychology.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journal_of_Scientific_Exploration
JSE, Journal of Scientific Exploration. A peer-reviewed journal, as they pat themselves on the back...

thoughts? (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1647793&postcount=5)

I have thoughts.

It's all too convenient that ufology mostly gets mention when something wrong and absurd happens. Religious cult + ufos = bad things. But the mass media, that poor old girl, she's disoriented.



porf's gone so........

Wha?!?!?
Who's porf???

porfiry/davew is the founder and former admin of sciforums

poor phlog
the deja vu never ends
perhaps he forgets that the crackpots own this forum

This is what I heard—and don't ask me to explain anything, least of all prove it! Ha.—The only way to arrest an abduction in its tracks is by another/different ET group's interception.

And—as I learnt recently—to stop a thread about ETs and abductions is to post an actual and marvelous albeit impractical bibelot about it and watch the interested parties, skeptic and sympathizers alike, squirm where the fun don't shine. Boring lot.

Its a good thing those alien thought reading beams only access your brain through the top of your head....I guess the aliens don't try to scan through your face.

Actually it's more sense to go through the Eye sockets or Ears. Initial Mind Control... cough cough, Cybernetic Brain Interfacing systems had a problem that the particular frequencies that were being used couldn't get passed the 'Blood brain barrier'.

However there have been various 'publically' acknowledged Mind Control.. Cybernetic Brain Interfacing systems that might be found on the internet.

Sometime in the history of the C.I.A.s that US government office that doesn't really exist, they came up with plans to make Radiological Cybernetic interfaces for Biological entities. In short, they came up with the Listening Kitty. They basically interfaced with a cat, that would listen to it's surroundings and interpret what it heard for the mind control system cybernetic augmentation unit back in the confines of what ever listening post was being used. Apparently the project was short lived as during a mission test run, The cat that was being used got run over by a car retired.

One was dubbed 'The Love Rat', it was a story about how scientists had hooked a rodent up for crawling through tight places like Cave-ins or building collapses, the rodent had a small camera mounted on it's head and through neurological impulses that it's collar gave it would run in the directions it's masters/controllers pilots intended. The reason for the 'love' part was what made the rodent decide on turning a specific direction was based upon 'sexual favours', where it's brain would be stimulated if it went the right way.

D.A.R.P.A. another one of those US government departments that probably doesn't exist, built a number of technologies classified as 'Non-Lethal weapons'. One particular one was termed as being useful for crowd dispersion, at one level it could augment a audible voice into a persons head while not broadcasting to everyone telling people to move on or that they were entering a restricted area. Another version actually went a little further as to generate physical pain to anyone subjected to it, making them move away from the area.

I wish I could find working links for all these, however following these up is at your own discrepancy and not recommended without first applying your 'Freewill' hat.

She's cute:

http://www.stopabductions.com/Austria.jpg

And from her expression, I know what she's thinking... :D

hehehe

i say!
she's hot
what, baby?
do u hard and fast?

She is hot...too bad she's a nut-job. :)

Ufology depends mostly on observation, as do other sciences, notably psychology.

Of actual UFOs? Because I've never seen any recorded observation that had merit. We get served up blobs of light without context, we get told people were abducted in their sleep. But despite the volume of reports, the hard data is elusive. Why is that, do you think?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journal_of_Scientific_Exploration
JSE, Journal of Scientific Exploration. A peer-reviewed journal, as they pat themselves on the back...

At least, for balance that article includes the criticism by the editor of 'The Skeptical Enquirer', and so it should, the JSE hardly seems scientific considering it's subject matter, including reincarnation and astrology. Is that the best you can offer as a 'peer reviewed' publication?

And—as I learnt recently—to stop a thread about ETs and abductions is to post an actual and marvelous albeit impractical bibelot about it and watch the interested parties, skeptic and sympathizers alike, squirm where the fun don't shine. Boring lot.

link? whats bibelot?

Because I've never seen any recorded observation that had merit.
Everyone is always deceived or deceiving, then? And the skeptical non-observers are ALWAYS all-seeing and truthful???

We get served up blobs of light without context

Or reporting mere "blobs of light"? You really are mischaracterizing things here, like many skeptics often do. I can think of several reports that have nothing to do with vague "blobs of light".


At least, for balance that article includes the criticism by the editor of 'The Skeptical Enquirer', and so it should
And the Skeptical lnquirer, mouthpiece of CSICOP, is an open-minded, unbiased journal with no motives to debunk or disbelieve? Well, that's what they tell people, and perhaps their claim of unbiased investigation is the only anecdotal evidence you'd ever consider as valid?

This is the same CSICOP of whom ex-member Marcello Truzzi said 'They tend to block honest inquiry, in my opinion. Most of them are not agnostic toward claims of the paranormal; they are out to knock them. When an experiment of the paranormal meets their requirements, then they move the goal posts. Then, if the experiment is reputable, they say it's a mere anomaly.'


the JSE hardly seems scientific considering it's subject matter, including reincarnation and astrology.

It seems non-scientific because of its subject matter... observations can be deceiving though, right? ;)

Is that the best you can offer as a 'peer reviewed' publication?

I've heard skeptics make a world of noise about peer-review, academic credentials, and the "proper" this and that of inquiry. The 'pat on the back' quote was sarcasm. It doesn't really matter to me what you or anyone considers its status to be. The Skeptical Inquirer can no more lay claim to the title than the Journal of Scientific Exploration.
And one mustn't think that other scientific publications would give a fair treatment to any paranormal subject in the first place.

Of actual UFOs? Because I've never seen any recorded observation that had merit. We get served up blobs of light without context, we get told people were abducted in their sleep. But despite the volume of reports, the hard data is elusive. Why is that, do you think?


Let me just add this thought that I neglected to in the previous post:
Who are you, one man, to decide the merit of every single case? And judging by your blobs statement and your apparent lack of appropriate knowledge on the subject of ufos, perhaps you're not qualified to judge the merits of most ufo cases. :o

Let me just add this thought that I neglected to in the previous post:
Who are you, one man, to decide the merit of every single case?

Who am I? Just some guy who is not convinced by the evidence offered. I'm just a guy that knows enough science, and it rational enough to be a skeptic. I'm not gullible, prone to fantasy, nor do I want to believe. That's who I am.

And judging by your blobs statement and your apparent lack of appropriate knowledge on the subject of ufos, perhaps you're not qualified to judge the merits of most ufo cases. :o

Show me something of merit then.

Or reporting mere "blobs of light"? You really are mischaracterizing things here, like many skeptics often do. I can think of several reports that have nothing to do with vague "blobs of light".

So some reports don't feature blobs of light. So what? What is your point here, it seems you are desperate to open a crack in my argument by abstracting to absurdity.

Evidence for UFOs is lacking in quality, and most often is just 'eye witness' reports. That is not satisfactory, and you know it.

UFOLogy far falls short of being a serious study, and has more akin to a religion.

If there were aliens and they could read thoughts then they wouldn't get

much information from most people because most people don't think about

much allot other than everday goings on. So I'd say let them read away if

they want for nothing will be learned and they will leave. Strange that by

now, after visiting here so long, they haven't learned anything and need to

keep coming back. Why don't they just set up a portable listening deviceand

have it transmit back to their home world? :D;)

If there were aliens and they could read thoughts then they wouldn't get much information from most people because most people don't think about much allot other than everday goings on. So I'd say let them read away if they want for nothing will be learned and they will leave. Strange that by now, after visiting here so long, they haven't learned anything and need to keep coming back. Why don't they just set up a portable listening device and have it transmit back to their home world? :D;)

No, Cosmos, the idea for wearing the caps is to prevent aliens from homing in on a triggered "beacon" that would isolate and incapacitate a person in a semi-conscious/unconscious state, which is how a subject is "prepared" for transport prior to abduction—it has nothing to do with preventing aliens from reading thoughts. Needless to say, this "invention" is just as ridiculed in the UFO community.

Show me something of merit then.

I doubt that anything I present would be considered as having merit.

So some reports don't feature blobs of light. So what? What is your point here, it seems you are desperate to open a crack in my argument by abstracting to absurdity.
I'M abstracting to absurdity, eh? Well, then, what are you doing by minimizing your former statement about light and all that?

Evidence for UFOs is lacking in quality, and most often is just 'eye witness' reports. That is not satisfactory, and you know it.
No, I don't know it.

I actually talked to it's inventor through e-mail, he explained he had no idea how it worked but that obviously the material he uses somehow blocks the telepathic signals coming from these Greys. He wanted to have the stuff tested for some possible clues why it works but said it was to expensive so gave up :-(

I believe it does work and that it is a useful thing.

I'M abstracting to absurdity, eh? Well, then, what are you doing by minimizing your former statement about light and all that?

Show me some footage of a UFO that ws taken during the day, that is in focus, and isn't a blob of light, then you may have a point. But, no, that's not your angle, you are trying to prove that UFOlogy has merit because you think you have found a crack in a counter argument. That is really desperate.


No, I don't know it.

Then you just have low standards, or are gullible.

Show me some footage of a UFO that ws taken during the day, that is in focus, and isn't a blob of light, then you may have a point. But, no, that's not your angle, you are trying to prove that UFOlogy has merit because you think you have found a crack in a counter argument. That is really desperate.

I don't think the study of a phenomenon seen and reported by thousands and thousands of people over the years that has a core of very good and unexplained cases constitutes a waste of time. Not really sorry that you disagree, and not really surprised.

The UFO phenomenon has resisted biased debunkery thus far. I don't see that changing anytime soon, and I don't merely think that I have merit because of flaws in any counter argument. Those perceived flaws could easily be ascribed to your own approach (or more likely, non-approach) to the subject.

Then you just have low standards, or are gullible.
That is really desperate. :p

I don't think the study of a phenomenon seen and reported by thousands and thousands of people over the years that has a core of very good and unexplained cases constitutes a waste of time.

'A core of very good ... cases', but not one shred of hard evidence.

The UFO phenomenon has resisted biased debunkery thus far.

Here we get into semantics. UFO's, well, yes, people see stuff they cannot identify. Often planets that are brighter than usual, aircraft, meteorites, satellites, etc etc. Does that make Venus a UFO? No. Many of the reported sightings do not actually exhibit the 'F', flying, mostly footage shows no controlled flight, but camera shake, and sometimes deliberate manual panning.

Some people hide behind the term UFO to soften their opinion, when they really mean extra terrestrial vehicles. Are you doing that?

It's telling that you think debunking UFO's is biased. Show me one case where there is not contention, where the evidence is truly inexplicable by mundane means, and maybe you can make a case that debunking in the light of this is biased. But while there are mundane explanations, there is no mystery.


That is really desperate. :p

No, just true. You seem to have a lower standard of what constitutes evidence. You seem to think that you can convolve disparate pieces of poor evidence into something larger and more reliable. I however think each piece must stand on it's own.

No, evidence, show me some of this 'core' of good cases.

what constitutes hard evidence?
be very specific and cover all angles

i shall see if i can satisfy some or all of your criteria
also understand that no one here is gonna mail you shit
i insist on honesty

'A core of very good ... cases', but not one shred of hard evidence.

I'll have to quote Gusto here...
what constitutes hard evidence?


You seem to be going by a very strict definition of not only "evidence" but the entire method of ascertaining what qualifies as valid evidence.
If I remember correctly, my current dialogue with you started when I dared to state that ufology was a mere valid study of a currently unexplained phenomenon, one that I believe remains inadequately explained today.

Here we get into semantics. Yes, don't we EVER?!?!?

UFO's, well, yes, people see stuff they cannot identify. Often planets that are brighter than usual, aircraft, meteorites, satellites, etc etc. Does that make Venus a UFO? No. Many of the reported sightings do not actually exhibit the 'F', flying, mostly footage shows no controlled flight, but camera shake, and sometimes deliberate manual panning.
P. Klass would be proud. :rolleyes:

Some people hide behind the term UFO to soften their opinion, when they really mean extra terrestrial vehicles. Are you doing that?
Not a whole lot, no. ETV???
I believe very sincerely that the possibility of non-humans being responsible for at least some of the UFO sightings in the history of those recorded sightings is extremely high.
And you obviously strongly believe in the opposite direction, so it looks like we're pretty even.

It's telling that you think debunking UFO's is biased.
It's also quite telling that you think this sentence proves me wrong in some way. Who said that having a skeptical mind when confronting the UFO question was wrong? Maybe I was talking about specific instances?
However, I have never been convinced by so-called skeptics in every case.

Show me one case where there is not contention, where the evidence is truly inexplicable by mundane means, and maybe you can make a case that debunking in the light of this is biased. But while there are mundane explanations, there is no mystery.

Contention is entirely subjective, as you well know. There are always those who have a theory and an answer for this and that, mundane explanation or otherwise.





That is really desperate.
No, just true. You seem to have a lower standard of what constitutes evidence. You seem to think that you can convolve disparate pieces of poor evidence into something larger and more reliable.
I don't think that every incidence is as poor as you describe. I at least realise that fallible or not, humans can and do see things and events accurately, and that they aren't making observations of Venus or what have you into visions of motherships.

I however think each piece must stand on it's own.

Is this "think" on YOUR part imperative to the scientific method?
Just wondering.
I think that each case should stand on its own, but that they should also be examined as a whole. Repeating patterns and all that. You don't just segregate similar incidents for the sake of segregation. Or maybe YOU do. I however say, that if someone says they saw this, and another person reports the same thing, one shouldn't automatically conclude that they saw completely separate things, or that neither saw anything of note at all.

No, evidence, show me some of this 'core' of good cases.
I don't think you'll ever accept anything as valid evidence (other than your own insistence that it doesn't exist) but I shall endeavour to post things that I consider to be good evidence.

http://www.ahajokes.com/cartoon/alienshrink2.jpg

"...despite the fact that we humans are great collectors of souvenirs, not one of these persons [claiming to have been aboard a flying saucer] has brought back so much as an extraterrestrial tool or artifact, which could, once and for all, resolve the UFO mystery." Philip Klass

OK, hard evidence; something physical that can be examined, or some solid data from radar, or some good footage on film. A mass sighting where there is good agreement about what was witnessed.

Not a light in the sky. Not an abduction report, but something that can actually be investigated.

So, you got that, or not?

hmm
fair enough
lemme google some terms and see if the crackpots got anything worthwhile

oh phlog
do you not know of any spacefaring creatures in this universe?

oh phlog
do you not know of any spacefaring creatures in this universe?

yeah you.

fuck off bitch
shouldda nuked you russkies long time ago

fuck off bitch

that kind of language will tear you apart.

http://img503.imageshack.us/img503/4559/youngboydisfiguredyc4.jpg

dragon after nukeattack

/happy/exults

/lobs rotten eggs

dragon after nukeattack

/happy/exults

suffering of others makes you happy?
Are you suffering yourself of such?

http://img503.imageshack.us/img503/4559/youngboydisfiguredyc4.jpg

dragon after nukeattack

/happy/exults

A Type C Gray if I've ever seen one. Cute!

A Type C Gray if I've ever seen one. Cute!

its a human who has suffered nuclear burning of skin and deteoration of body.

suffering of others makes you happy?
Are you suffering yourself of such?

/smashes pie in irradiated face

'A core of very good ... cases', but not one shred of hard evidence. [...] No, evidence, show me some of this 'core' of good cases.

Sometimes I'm rather surprised at people's naiveté. In a world that has recently been utterly fooled by the impudence of a Bush Administration's Iraqi "evidence", seemingly treating the process of lying, even as barefaced as they did in the UN, as business as usual, one would think that government intelligence is as clandestine as it wishes it to be. Now, considering the volatility of an extraterrestrial admission—far more explosive than anything governments would have to deal with from the politics of internal or foreign policy—who do you imagine would seek to control and hide an evidence of a global magnitude, the evidence of an extraterrestrial presence?

Any "evidence" of this magnitude you would hope to analyze would firstly be thoroughly dissected not by any inquisitive science lab with direct access to the mainstream press, but by the deft labs of a cunning and ruthless government/military that knows its way around the mainstream press.

Any "evidence" of this magnitude you would hope to analyze would firstly be thoroughly dissected not by any inquisitive science lab with direct access to the mainstream press, but by the deft labs of a cunning and ruthless government/military that knows its way around the mainstream press.


Flawed argument I am afraid. World govts have only recently (Since WWII) had radar capable of tracking any aerial vehicles, and similarly only had fast jet aircraft to arrive anywhere in good time.

Any occurence leaving behind hard evidence before would have been witnessed and investigated by locals, with the authorities too slow to respond and stifle evidence.

More recently, with the prevalence of digital cameras, camcorders, and cellphones having cameras, plus the Internet as a medium for dispersal, it would be impossible to stifle photographic evidence.

So that effectively gives world govts (and why would they all agree to stifle this, they don't agree about everything else, imagine the political mileage claiming knowledge of, or alliance with an advanced civilisation!) a window of 50 years, that has now ended, where they had the technology required to conspire.

That period is over, so where is the recent evidence? Where is the pre WWII evidence? Oh, there is none, ....

Well, I wouldn't know the precise involvement for the management of tracking aircraft, but I would assume that since the Cold War both governments and their respective allies have upped the ante to the tilt with a sophisticated surveillance system to monitor the skies 24/7. And I would also suppose that all air traffic control towers have direct hotlines with their respective air forces and militaries. Add to that contraption the more sleek and wider scope surveillance of countless satellites orbiting the planet.

So I wouldn't be surprised that if anything out of the ordinary "materialized" over Whoville, government agents would become quite aware of it, thank you very much.

Now, considering amateur pedestrian photographers (amateur porn is sooo ghastly...), if nothing else fails to debunk the blurry pics, then ah, it's Photoshop's fault.

But the evidence I'm sure you want, is the sort of tangible evidence that ordinary pedestrians won't get their hands on — even if it means silencing the evidence...

Well, I wouldn't know the precise involvement for the management of tracking aircraft, but I would assume that since the Cold War both governments and their respective allies have upped the ante to the tilt with a sophisticated surveillance system to monitor the skies 24/7. And I would also suppose that all air traffic control towers have direct hotlines with their respective air forces and militaries. Add to that contraption the more sleek and wider scope surveillance of countless satellites orbiting the planet.

Yes indeed, it's hard not to get noticed these days, wih RADAR, satellite imaging and early warning systems monitoring the Earth. Similarly, citizens are equally well equipped to record events, but we don't see quality recordings.

So I wouldn't be surprised that if anything out of the ordinary "materialized" over Whoville, government agents would become quite aware of it, thank you very much.

As would citizens, and unless the govt agents are MIB with mind zappers, how are tey going to stop all those camera phones clicking away and uploading those pic to the Internet?

Any "evidence" of this magnitude you would hope to analyze would firstly be thoroughly dissected not by any inquisitive science lab with direct access to the mainstream press, but by the deft labs of a cunning and ruthless government/military that knows its way around the mainstream press.

AH! The myth of benevolent, altruistic government and their unwavering pursuit of truth and justice for us, the lowly, unwashed masses.

I see you have properly attacked the myth! As you should. As is proper.

But the evidence I'm sure you want, is the sort of tangible evidence that ordinary pedestrians won't get their hands on — even if it means silencing the evidence...

The self-interests of the military-industrial elite would hide something from the public... who would DARE think such a thing??? :p

Yes indeed, it's hard not to get noticed these days, wih RADAR, satellite imaging and early warning systems monitoring the Earth. Similarly, citizens are equally well equipped to record events, but we don't see quality recordings.
Why is the word "radar" capitalized?
Surely stealth technology, at least that which is publicized, throws a wrench into the workings of radar detection? Given that, what would the stealth technology of a far more advanced race be able to accomplish?


As would citizens, and unless the govt agents are MIB with mind zappers, how are tey going to stop all those camera phones clicking away and uploading those pic to the Internet?

Appealing to the mythological MIBs, I see... to ridicule somebody?
Camera phones are THE best tool to capture the UFO phenomenon and blow a hole in the coverup. :rolleyes:

Garsh! If only I were so cool!

Why is the word "radar" capitalized?

Because I'm old enough to recognise it is an acronym for Radio Detection and Ranging, and acronyms should be capitalised. Although the term has fallen into common usage and the word is now considered a regular noun, and written as 'radar', I am old school!

Surely stealth technology, at least that which is publicized, throws a wrench into the workings of radar detection? Given that, what would the stealth technology of a far more advanced race be able to accomplish?

Well yeah, sure it does, but then how come regular people see UFOs? Stealth aircraft have no problem not being seen by people, they paint them black, turn off the running lights, and at Mach 2 are gone before you hear them. So How come UFOs get seen by regular people?


Appealing to the mythological MIBs, I see... to ridicule somebody?

Not entirely, the term MIB was coined before the films.

Camera phones are THE best tool to capture the UFO phenomenon and blow a hole in the coverup. :rolleyes:

Garsh! If only I were so cool!

They are ubiquitous, that's the power of them. No more need for mere eye witness descriptions, these days, I expect pictures too. Camera in my phone is a decent 2Mp, and my other half has a 5Mp camera in her phone, with a half decent set of optics too. They are simple to use and and quick, and for impromptu photos absolutely fine, and mine is always in my pocket.

BTW camera phones being cool is a bit three years ago. Now to be cool your phone has to take video, and have GPS. Mine does! Not only could I snap pics of those UFOs, I could pinpoint the exact location it occurred, and video it shooting off over the horizon, ... if only I'd ever seen a UFO, ....

The self-interests of the military-industrial elite would hide something from the public... who would DARE think such a thing??? :p


OK, but read my reply to Ripley, the Govt have only recently had the organisation and technology to detect and arrive at any incident fairly recently. Now technology has moved on, the public have the power to disseminate information faster than the the Govt could stifle it.

So why didn't we have recorded data before this period, and why none now?

They exist & I'm going to prove it!

Just put some powerful magnet balls in your ass, they will mess up all alien anal probes.

Just put some powerful magnet balls in your ass, they will mess up all alien anal probes.

LMAO!! Why have you tried it? :eek:

Works like a charm! Haven't seen any aliens with anal probes around me. :D

As would citizens, and unless the govt agents are MIB with mind zappers, how are they going to stop all those camera phones clicking away and uploading those pic to the Internet?There might be a couple of reasons for a lack of photographic evidence en masse. Firstly, one would need be looking upwards and be lucky enough to do so on the spot—but most people buzz around with their noses obscuring the landscape. Honestly, this is something I've noticed a long time ago: people aren't very observant outside the periphery of their immediate concerns. I mean, how many times have I noticed people gazing up at the sky? —It's amazing how introverted people become when outside in the open. And when they're at home relaxing, the cellphone isn't something people lug around, unless it's to order pizza from the back porch. And any camera is usually tucked away in a drawer. Besides, most sightings are at night—as goes the legend. And at night, most fly-overs are nothing more than blinking lights that look too much like aircraft, hence, if shot, easily debunked. Also consider that ordinary people are not your typical UFO enthusiasts, and wouldn't know where exactly to upload their pics on the net, let alone how. So, perhaps they might try the local newspaper or television station? But they'll think them crazy because everyone knows UFOs aren't for real, so why bother. The police? Yeah, right; too much of a bother. —Hey! The pizza's here! Yummy. Na—probably just a satellite, anyway.

Given that, what would the stealth technology of a far more advanced race be able to accomplish?Surprisingly—and I've never bothered looking into the details of this newer phenomenon—but recently, alleged pictures of UFOs end up being captured haphazardly and unwittingly when they were never actually observed to be present. It was only after the film had been developed or the pics downloaded that the UFOs appear to have been in the vicinity, unbeknownst to anyone.

Well yeah, sure it does, but then how come regular people see UFOs? Stealth aircraft have no problem not being seen by people, they paint them black, turn off the running lights, and at Mach 2 are gone before you hear them. So How come UFOs get seen by regular people?In a different thread I proposed that evidently it seems they don't really care whether or not they are seen because it's their game to be seen or not, not ours.

Because I'm old enough to recognise it is an acronym for Radio Detection and Ranging, and acronyms should be capitalised.
Yes, yes. I am aware that it is in fact an acronym, but how often do you actually see it in all capitals? I only ever see it used as simply a regular word. Not important either way!

Well yeah, sure it does, but then how come regular people see UFOs? Stealth aircraft have no problem not being seen by people, they paint them black, turn off the running lights, and at Mach 2 are gone before you hear them. So How come UFOs get seen by regular people?

Regular people don't see stealth aircraft? Not the pilots? Not the other people who work at airbases? Not the people who designed and built them? No civilian ever sees a stealth aircraft and identifies it as such?
By Mach 2, you must be referring to the recently developed F-22.
What exactly is your point about "regular" people seeing UFOs, and supposedly NOT stealth aircraft???
Your points here are a little difficult to understand.

Not entirely, the term MIB was coined before the films.

I am aware of the MIB phenomenon. Never seen the film(s), and don't care to. :D

Camera phones are THE best tool to capture the UFO phenomenon and blow a hole in the coverup.

Garsh! If only I were so cool!

They are ubiquitous, that's the power of them. No more need for mere eye witness descriptions, these days, I expect pictures too. Camera in my phone is a decent 2Mp, and my other half has a 5Mp camera in her phone, with a half decent set of optics too. They are simple to use and and quick, and for impromptu photos absolutely fine, and mine is always in my pocket.

BTW camera phones being cool is a bit three years ago. Now to be cool your phone has to take video, and have GPS. Mine does! Not only could I snap pics of those UFOs, I could pinpoint the exact location it occurred, and video it shooting off over the horizon, ... if only I'd ever seen a UFO, ....


You seem to be quite skilled at tossing red herrings! Congratulations!
Your camera, its quality, ubiquitous nature, and abiding presence in your pocket describes mainly you, and not other people. I did see a supposed UFO video taken with a cellphone, as well as a now somewhat well-known video of an "alien" taken by some boys in Mexico while they were playing soccer in the street. The quality was not that great in either case.
Most people I know have cellphones (I don't). I have seen the photos, and even in good conditions alot of them aren't very hi-res. In fact, even good digital cameras (non-phone) aren't the greatest in dim or nighttime settings, so that kind of rules out cellphones in those circumstances.

So all the alleged photos and videos of UFOs documented to this date are useless and bunk, but the potential UFO photos and videos that you anticipate from cellphones at the present time miraculously hold such great promise that no other medium to this date ever has???
There goes another one of those funny red fish!

Just put some powerful magnet balls in your ass, they will mess up all alien anal probes.

You Eastern Europeans are so f**n enlightened! :truce:

Surprisingly—and I've never bothered looking into the details of this newer phenomenon—but recently, alleged pictures of UFOs end up being captured haphazardly and unwittingly when they were never actually observed to be present. It was only after the film had been developed or the pics downloaded that the UFOs appear to have been in the vicinity, unbeknownst to anyone.



Sorry to burst your bubble, dude, but it's not a newer phenomenon! This has been around for quite some time. There's a picture from decades ago of a little girl at a picnic (believe it was in the UK) and there's someone in the background who appears to be wearing a spacesuit. No one knew anyone else was there, or in the background, until the photo was developed. I think I have that on my comp somewhere. Maybe I'll look into it.

Also, in the Valentich airplane case in Australia, I believe, someone photo'd an object off the coast near where he disappeared.

OK, but read my reply to Ripley, the Govt have only recently had the organisation and technology to detect and arrive at any incident fairly recently. Now technology has moved on, the public have the power to disseminate information faster than the the Govt could stifle it.

So why didn't we have recorded data before this period, and why none now?

What kind of recorded data are you talking about? Radar? Excuse me, RADAR...
Pilot sightings?
You're so sure there's never been any? This is frustrating discussing this topic with someone as poorly informed about UFOs as you.
Infamous Japan Airlines Flight over Alaska:
6:26 PM: ZAN contacted the Military Regional Operations Control Center (ROCC), and asked if they were receiving any radar returns near the position of JAL1628. The ROCC advised that they were receiving a primary radar return in JAL1628's 10 o'clock (left-front) position at 8 miles [13 km.].

6:27 PM: The ROCC contacted ZAN to advise they were no longer receiving any radar returns in the vicinity of JAL1628.

...

The FAA investigated the incident and found the crew to be "normal, professional and rational". US Federal Aviation Administration authorities admitted that the objects were tracked on radar. However they were not registered on the radar tapes.
After the incident, the authorities also tried to attribute the radar targets to weather effects.
"We are accepting the descriptions of the crew, but are unable to support what they saw," an FAA spokeman said.

Brief radar confirmation during a visual sighting of considerable duration.
http://www.ufoarea.com/events_jal1628.html

One must also not discount the many accounts of pilots being intimidated or reprimanded for reporting such things. Or those who simply are too scared to report anything in the first place.

Ah, Jupiter! Venus! Mars! My favourite UFOs!!!!

JAL1628 incident was probably a military cover up of spying over Soviet Union.

JAL1628 incident was probably a military cover up of spying over Soviet Union.

You're so awesome!

What, pray tell, would be so interesting in the Soviet Union anyway, to have to invent such a fabulous tale?

You're into fabulous things, aren't you? :o

You're into fabulous things, aren't you? :o

Over an hour. The silence speaks volumes. :shh:

pseudo's default status is one where et and spaceships are acknowledged
the battle has been won by the crackpots
and i do not forget
ja
persistent medium and all that

Your points here are a little difficult to understand.

I'm trying to keep it simple. I was questioning why people can see UFOs when they can't see stealth aircraft. Now, in this application of the term UFO I am taking the extra terrestrial origin option, because I think that is where you are assuming UFOs originate. (please correct this if it is inaccurate).

When I said 'regular' people, that meant civilians on the ground, not the pilots, obviously. Your pedantry there does you a disservice, because it applies equally to UFOs of extra terrrestrial origin!

My point about cellphones was also quite simple. There are millions of the things out there. In the UK, about 30million, and the sales are strong, meaning that many are quite current and have cameras on them. So, if something weird was happening, and witnessed, there is a good chance of it being recorded by a camera phone, in fact, on more than one, we should see some corroborative evidence from multiple sources. But generally what we see, are blurry videos taken from camcorders, ... something that people carry far less often, and often, multiple sightings from the same person (check out the posts made here by 'Orion's Stargirl' (Paula Thorneycroft) who had a a selection of blurry video, and was hawking her UFO book on Sciforums.

Basically, woowoos with camcorders set out to find UFO footage, and take bad video of lights in the sky repeatedly. Open minded individuals seldom actually witness strange events and record them. On your point of not looking around, and not reacting to any happening quickly enough to capture it on a camera phone, well, that point has been made on SF before, and I debunked it with some footage I took of Geese flying over head. I was out walking my dogs, when I saw the flock approaching, took my phone out of my pocket, and managed to capture the video before the event was over. I'm sure many of the millions of camera phone owners out there could do the same, should there be something worth recording.

My point about cellphones was also quite simple. There are millions of the things out there. In the UK, about 30million, and the sales are strong, meaning that many are quite current and have cameras on them. So, if something weird was happening, and witnessed, there is a good chance of it being recorded by a camera phone, in fact, on more than one, we should see some corroborative evidence from multiple sources.Your account was so inspiring that I ran to my window expecting to see a traffic jam of flying saucers lining the skies from East to West.

pseudo's default status is one where et and spaceships are acknowledged
the battle has been won by the crackpots
and i do not forget
ja
persistent medium and all that

Begging your pardon, Gustavus, care to elaborate slightly on all of this? I know it's your style, but sometimes you're exceedingly cryptic. You make more sense to yourself than others, I think. Or perhaps you prefer to keep it that way? :runaway:

I'm trying to keep it simple. I was questioning why people can see UFOs when they can't see stealth aircraft. Now, in this application of the term UFO I am taking the extra terrestrial origin option, because I think that is where you are assuming UFOs originate. (please correct this if it is inaccurate).

UFOs vs. IFOs. One is identified, the other not. If it has a certain set of characteristics, I might assume it is an extraterrestrial craft, but UFO means many things to many people.

When I said 'regular' people, that meant civilians on the ground, not the pilots, obviously. Your pedantry there does you a disservice, because it applies equally to UFOs of extra terrrestrial origin!

Never seen a picture or a video of a stealth aircraft? I have. I'm not a pilot. Stealth aircraft don't necessarily "cloak" like a Klingon Bird of Prey.

As I stated before, whether or not ordinary people can see stealth bombers has nothing to do with whether or not ordinary people can see UFOs, or to be more specific, flying discs and other anomalies. There are cases of UFOs and visual invisibility, as well as transiting between visible and invisible, and apparent shapeshifting. Who's to say that these craft can't manipulate their surroundings and only show themselves when they want? After all, dynamic electronic camouflage is already developed by us humans. To again reiterate a former statement about stealth: if this is the state of our technology on Earth, what would the state of technology be with possible ET visitors who are hundreds or thousands of years ahead of us?
We have no way of knowing how many craft have been overlooked because of their possible invisibility.


My point about cellphones was also quite simple.
Simple, yes. And slightly diversionary, I feel.

There are millions of the things out there. In the UK, about 30million, and the sales are strong, meaning that many are quite current and have cameras on them.

Like I said before, to this date, most of the camera phone pictures I have seen weren't that great. I can't imagine why at this stage one would expect them to be the frontline weapon in the gathering of evidence of things flying through the sky. Either way, your cellphone diversion does nothing to subtract from the video, photo, and eyewitness accounts we already have, from the distant past to the present. The only thing they will change is the future, and that's yet to be seen.

Basically, woowoos
How sexy.

with camcorders set out to find UFO footage, and take bad video of lights in the sky repeatedly.
Okay.

Open minded individuals seldom actually witness strange events and record them.
Instead, open-minded individuals get on forums like this and ridicule those who DO witness, record, or report strange events? I'll keep that bit of knowledge close to my heart, I assure you.:thumbsup:

I was out walking my dogs, when I saw the flock approaching, took my phone out of my pocket, and managed to capture the video before the event was over. I'm sure many of the millions of camera phone owners out there could do the same, should there be something worth recording.

Congratulations on your flock of geese! The riddle of the UFO is finally solved!

Your account was so inspiring that I ran to my window expecting to see a traffic jam of flying saucers lining the skies from East to West.
Hermes, Messenger of the Gods! :poke:

what would the state of technology be with possible ET visitors who are hundreds or thousands of years ahead of us?

Exactly. So these super advanced ET's have some rather amazing technology that does stuff that we think breaks the laws of physics. They then use it to cross the vast distance across space, come to Earth, buzz around a bit and draw attention to themselves, abduct people, and anally probe them. They repeatedly do this to the same individuals, for some reason. Despite having incredibly advanced technology, they cannot abduct people without the subject knowing, and need invasive procedures, seems they have no MRI machines on board, ...


We have no way of knowing how many craft have been overlooked because of their possible invisibility.


Inferring they exist, because we cannot see them? Er, that's silly.

Begging your pardon, Gustavus, care to elaborate slightly on all of this?

sure
the pseudo skeptics sole point of contention is that while there is a decent likelihood of et at the wheel as a valid extrapolation or inference, they simply are not in our neighborhood. it is some what irrational given the preponderance of anecdotal evidence and the smattering of....

just understand or remember histories. my cryptic statements always have references in sci. it would be crass to do so otherwise. disrespectful too.

phlogs #91 is utter garbage
i can easily rebut using quotes dating back years
some never learn
i refuse to go back to square one
this forum has made progress and we should resume not start afresh
ja
especially so when one finds the usual suspects playing

To prevent alien abductions just send money to me and I'll protect you all

from them. Your money back if your ever abducted and never return! :D

in any case, battista
you have serious skills
gimme a good show

/bow

phlogs #91 is utter garbage
i can easily rebut using quotes dating back years

Quotes?

All you have is anecdotal evidence? How about some real data?

Quotes?

All you have is anecdotal evidence? How about some real data?

ja
my point stands
neither have i affirmed with absolute certainty that et slums around earth
you are welcome to differ with citations

disingenuous pseudos
i outta....

i will
bid farewell to loved ones and prepare for armageddon

...prepare for armageddon

??? How do you prepare?

??? How do you prepare?

i recommend a quickie
hurry!

i refuse to go back to square one
this forum has made progress and we should resume not start afresh
But every time an attempt—and often times an interesting attempt—is made, guess who shows up at the threshold branding spit straws? The problem is that skeptics are afraid of speculation, plausibility, and validity, hence these are never approached with a ten foot pole; never within the periphery of postulation. Instead they whine about uncertainty, incredibility, and ineffectiveness before anything can come of it.

pathology
plain and simple

i recommend a quickie
hurry!

guess I'm taking a long lunch today....or maybe a short lunch;)

Exactly. So these super advanced ET's have some rather amazing technology that does stuff that we think breaks the laws of physics.
The words "think" and "laws" to me sound awfully subjective. Don't they to you? :wave:

They then use it to cross the vast distance across space, come to Earth, buzz around a bit and draw attention to themselves, abduct people, and anally probe them.
Supposedly, yes, according to the right accounts. Glad you didn't forget the part about the anal probe! No mockingly imperfect description of the alien abduction phenomenon would be complete without a reference to anal probing!

They repeatedly do this to the same individuals, for some reason. Despite having incredibly advanced technology, they cannot abduct people without the subject knowing, and need invasive procedures, seems they have no MRI machines on board, ...


I'm not going to be drawn in to a game where I emphatically, and perhaps gullibly, state or posit the intentions of the supposed abductors. Skeptics of your mindset seem very adept at doing that yourselves. I try to only infer intention based on available data. Speaking of infer...

Inferring they exist, because we cannot see them? Er, that's silly.

Let us see. :scratchin: No.
Based on the human technology I referenced, namel that of dynamic camouflage which is able to change it's output based on background light spectrums and whatnot, and certain characteristics of peculiar aerial craft sighted and reported throughout the last few decades, and even before...

NO.
Not that silly.

And BTW, I wasn't saying they exist because we cannot see them. People see them all the time. I was merely inferring that we can't always see them, though they may be there.

sure

Ti ringrazio, signore! ;)

the pseudo skeptics sole point of contention is that while there is a decent likelihood of et at the wheel as a valid extrapolation or inference, they simply are not in our neighborhood.

At this point, I simply must ask if you ever heard the debate between Stanton Friedman and Seth Shostak, of SETI, on Coast to Coast AM?

Friedman has referred to SETI as Silly Effort To Investigate. That makes me laugh, I will confess! :D Why? Because what you just mentioned is the entire modus operandi of SETI: the search of the heavens using radio telescopes for signals (very anthropo-techno-centric), and the utter ignorance of UFO cases and studies on Earth.
Mr. Shostak's ignorance of UFOs was very apparent in that debate.

I'm positive you are well aware of all that, though. But a mention nonetheless, for the enlightenment of others, perhaps???

it is some what irrational given the preponderance of anecdotal evidence and the smattering of....
Preponderance is probably an understatement.

Their protestation over anecdotal evidence is peculiar to their own approach. Science doesn't demand it. They do, however. And they are probably aware of that.

just understand or remember histories. my cryptic statements always have references in sci. it would be crass to do so otherwise. disrespectful too.

Disrespectful? Nonetheless, carry on.

in any case, battista
you have serious skills
gimme a good show

Thou expectest something grand? :shrug:

/bow

I am flattered!
To you as well, sir! ;)

But every time an attempt—and often times an interesting attempt—is made, guess who shows up at the threshold branding spit straws?
MIBs?


The problem is that skeptics are afraid of speculation, plausibility, and validity,

Skeptics have problems with all those, for sure, but validity seems to be the one with the most difficulty. They cry "Invalid" at whim. And they think they are impeccable. Au contraire, mon frere!

hence these are never approached with a ten foot pole; never within the periphery of postulation. Instead they whine about uncertainty, incredibility, and ineffectiveness before anything can come of it.

Sfortunamente! :(
Whine all they want, I know at least one person who isn't hindered by their own hindrances. Perhaps more...

The words "think" and "laws" to me sound awfully subjective. Don't they to you?

No, they sound like well tested and supported theories, with sound experimental evidence to back them up. Predictions are made from them, new things inferred from them, and new things discovered.

Supposedly, yes, according to the right accounts. Glad you didn't forget the part about the anal probe! No mockingly imperfect description of the alien abduction phenomenon would be complete without a reference to anal probing!

So what do you think of the accounts that mention anal probing? Are these accounts fakes? What about surgery? What about that guy (Rael/ Claude Vorilhon) who claims to have made love to alien females to repopulate their race? All have merit? Or, are you actually going to show some discernment and discount the more ludicrous stuff? Then all we are left debating is what crosses the line of 'ludicrous', aren't we?

I'm not going to be drawn in to a game where I emphatically, and perhaps gullibly, state or posit the intentions of the supposed abductors. Skeptics of your mindset seem very adept at doing that yourselves. I try to only infer intention based on available data. Speaking of infer...

Because the reports do not fit a motive, that's why. Don't cop out and say we cannot think like Aliens, intelligence is intelligence, no matter what creature possesses it. Abducting the same weirdo yank over and over again gets them what, exactly? Oh, you won't be drawn, because you don't have an answer, and you don't have an aswer because it would grate with the theories.

Let us see. No.
Based on the human technology I referenced, namel that of dynamic camouflage which is able to change it's output based on background light spectrums and whatnot, and certain characteristics of peculiar aerial craft sighted and reported throughout the last few decades, and even before...

So are these things invisible, or not? You seem to be contradicting yourself.

And BTW, I wasn't saying they exist because we cannot see them. People see them all the time. I was merely inferring that we can't always see them, though they may be there.

So they are invisible, but some people can see them? You aren't sounding very rational at this point, btw.

No, they sound like well tested and supported theories, with sound experimental evidence to back them up. Predictions are made from them, new things inferred from them, and new things discovered.


I will admit that the word "law" doesn't imply something that's contestable, but for this subject, especially as regards physics, time, and the nature of space and gravity, it very well may be. I support the possibility of human understanding of the universe (and other things) as being deficient. That's just my opinion, but I think it's unreasonable to assume that our models of the nature of the universe are complete and infallible. That's an understatement, actually. It would be foolish and arrogant to say we've gone as far as we can go. I'm sure I could find several examples of Science and experts making absolute pronouncements on various subjects, and having them turn out to be completely wrong.

So what do you think of the accounts that mention anal probing? Are these accounts fakes?
I must confess that I don't hear that much about anal probing. First I ever heard about it was from Whitley Strieber. Apparently it happens to other people, but mostly I hear references ad nauseam as a cheap joke. It's not foremost in my mind.

What about surgery?

Eh? Explanation, please?

What about that guy (Rael/ Claude Vorilhon) who claims to have made love to alien females to repopulate their race?

Mr. Vorilhon is indeed interesting. I am familiar with his pseudo-religious organization. I might call it a cult, judging by what I have seen of him and his followers. He may well have had an encounter in the Alps or whatever he originally claimed, meeting with "Jehovah" and all that. I honestly don't really care about them. I have a personal rule of taking charismatic sect leaders with several grains of salt.

All have merit? Or, are you actually going to show some discernment and discount the more ludicrous stuff?
Since when did I ever advise to throw discernment to the wind? Did I ever say that?:mad:
Remember that way back on the first or second page of this thread, I stated that ufology was a legitimate subject worthy of study. You immediately implied that the very notion was crazy, and now you seem to be saying that ufology requires belief in all manner of this and that and that it's just a crazy melting pot.
Why do I have to apologize for anyone and every thing that claims UFOs and/or aliens as their mantles?
I can't wait to hear what insulting madness you'll come up with to shove in my face.

Then all we are left debating is what crosses the line of 'ludicrous', aren't we?
:thumbsup: You're so cool!

Because the reports do not fit a motive, that's why. Don't cop out and say we cannot think like Aliens, intelligence is intelligence, no matter what creature possesses it.

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

Yeah. Intelligence is intelligence. Really. :wtf:

Abducting the same weirdo yank over and over again gets them what, exactly?

Yank as in YANKEE? As in American?

Oh, you won't be drawn, because you don't have an answer, and you don't have an aswer because it would grate with the theories.

And you have an answer I'm sure. Does it have to do with intelligence = intelligence?
Grate with what theories?

So they are invisible, but some people can see them? You aren't sounding very rational at this point, btw.

I'm only saying it's very possible that they can hide themselves completely when they feel like it, based on my own knowledge of UFOs.

Your definition of rational is...

i refuse to go back to square one
this forum has made progress and we should resume not start afresh

I for one don't mind covering old ground when making a post (here or anywhere) if need be, though you've been around much longer and have posted many more things on this topic...

I like to think there's at least two people at any one time that might benefit from something I post. That makes it worthwhile. :m:

ja
especially so when one finds the usual suspects playing
:wallbang:
One of them hasn't surfaced in awhile. Not in here anyway.

...you seem to be saying that ufology requires belief in all manner of this and that and that it's just a crazy melting pot.

I will acknowledge that to some it IS a melting pot, and that is unfortunate. I, however, am willing and able to distinguish the serious and well-reasoned research from the tabloid fodder, the latter of which gets undue attention.
Undue...

guess I'm taking a long lunch today....or maybe a short lunch;)

pfft!
me...... love you long long time

/caress

How to stop alien abductions

Tell them your very sick and have a hiighly contagious disease that will kill

them if they come near you! :D


You could also explain that if you don't show up for dinner at home your

wife/husband will come after them and kill them.

well heres a thought on ufo or aliens
when i was in the states the social sevices in maryland cumberland alegany county
taught me everything bout ufo's and how they seem to get the humans they think they are real
they told me things bout occults what to look for and watch out for and how it works
i also was trained in demins stuff by one of the doctors for the govtment
so i been pretty well trained only by americans though
my intelligence on chain reaction was only taught by the usa govtment not by my own
doing i didnt know a thing bout nothing i am not even smart
but i do know how to use things that would be weird to normal people and i know what to look for in a person when they have been trully abducted or not
yep i been fully trained for things i dunno why
i know how to make a whole group believe in a pretend disease and yeah it does work
think its like an american thing dunno if they do it to everyone or not

well yeah i guess no one know what im saying but
i can honestly say if fear is in your heart then critical mass can happen
i have been taught how to do this
so usa does know more than they let on after the lessons i was given anything i wanted
and yes they did keep to their bargain even today
so join yur govtment on their little conspiracy thingy join in their learnings maybe if they let you

well heres a thought on ufo or aliens
when i was in the states the social sevices in maryland cumberland alegany county
taught me everything bout ufo's and how they seem to get the humans they think they are real
they told me things bout occults what to look for and watch out for and how it works
i also was trained in demins stuff by one of the doctors for the govtment
so i been pretty well trained only by americans though
my intelligence on chain reaction was only taught by the usa govtment not by my own
doing i didnt know a thing bout nothing i am not even smart
but i do know how to use things that would be weird to normal people and i know what to look for in a person when they have been trully abducted or not
yep i been fully trained for things i dunno why
i know how to make a whole group believe in a pretend disease and yeah it does work
think its like an american thing dunno if they do it to everyone or not

well yeah i guess no one know what im saying but
i can honestly say if fear is in your heart then critical mass can happen
i have been taught how to do this
so usa does know more than they let on after the lessons i was given anything i wanted
and yes they did keep to their bargain even today
so join yur govtment on their little conspiracy thingy join in their learnings maybe if they let you

Please expound on the above in more intelligible, coherent English!

Where'd you go, Phlogistician?

You suddenly expressed a disinterest in any further conversation with me, judging by your silence in this thread.

Problems??? :p



;)

Love,

Giambattista

Where'd you go, Phlogistician?

You suddenly expressed a disinterest in any further conversation with me, judging by your silence in this thread.



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

You haven't therefore, managed to support that UFOlogy is a legitimate subject. I'll debate you on facts, but the rhetoric is getting a bit tiresome.

i read sumwhere that aliens abduct people when there asleep cause the mind is weaker or sumthing to that effect
sumhow that dont make sence to me
when were asleep the brain still functions
sumhgow i dont believe in abductions just no touch no smell just one person seems to have a dream and then many more end up having the same one
seems like a commune thing to me and when the mind believes so much it can very possibly make it true to happen
i dont believe in ufo's i have seen ufo's but i dont believe thay are real

i have strong thoughts of different beings that enter the mind
to help say like heal people or bring the dead back to life
but abductions no way

i suppose everyone has a different view of how they think aliens or what evers out there reacts to our life

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

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

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

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

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

I'll debate you on facts, but the rhetoric is getting a bit tiresome.
Rhetoric, eh? Something YOU never indulge in, I suppose? Like the part about rectal probes? Or the part about alien logic?
Reminder needed?

Don't cop out and say we cannot think like Aliens, intelligence is intelligence, no matter what creature possesses it.
Cop out, eh?
All intelligence is intelligence?
All humans think like all other humans? All humans eat meat? All humans listen to the same music? Laugh at the same jokes? Find the same people attractive? Find the opposite sex attractive? Vote for the same politicians? Hold the same political ideals and doctrines? All Americans love football? Ice cream? Ronald McDonald?
All people care about what goes on above our heads? Care about UFOs, and all other paranormal subjects?
Everyone is interested in what everyone else is interested in? No one has independent thought? No one ever plots against other people, while telling those people that it's all in their own best interest?

Yeah. Intelligence is intelligence. Really.

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

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

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

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

It got debunked, so what's to discuss?

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

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

Or the part about alien logic?
Reminder needed?

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


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


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

I could understand an alien race abducting humans for scientific research, but cannot see the value in repeatedly abducting the same subject. Scientists prefer a large sample size as it improves statistics, so why waste time with the same subject over and over? Alien intelligence is going to come up with a different answer is it? Alien maths and statistics differ somehow? Taking the contrary position to this is dishnonest, it's like the 'God of gaps' argument, ie, flawed, and debunked.Well, on the other hand, instead of setting up a criterion for validity, then speculating by assuming that the subject is faulty because the criteria is not satisfied, why not pick up what's already demonstrated, and speculate from there? If single people are repeatedly abducted, what can be inferred? Of course, this wouldn't be evidence, but at least it would exercise a more sweeping perspective and readiness for filling in the gaps—the "thinking outside the box" argument.

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

No, I looked it up, but there was a mundane explanation, and I didn't want to get into a tangential discussion about it.
So you didn't mention it because it was mundane? Mundane according to who? Why is discussing the matter so bothersome to you, if it can easily be categorized as explainable?

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

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

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

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

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

Scientists prefer a large sample size as it improves statistics, so why waste time with the same subject over and over? Alien intelligence is going to come up with a different answer is it? Alien maths and statistics differ somehow?
You're assuming things about motives from your own perspective, as I noted in the previous paragraph. You're assuming that they're interested only in samples and studies and statistics (the 3 S's, I call them, starting now :p).
Certainly, when one reads various abduction accounts, studying and tagging is not always the centerpiece of the encounters.
Just because you see no value or logic in their actions does not mean there is not a purpose, assuming that they are indeed happening.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Offer more then rhetoric, please.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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