How to stop alien abductions

hey buddy!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

eek
where is mr a?

/pops champagne/swats flies/home sweet home

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

nice!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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

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'.

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 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.

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...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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.

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.

 

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:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

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

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

hehehe

 

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

 

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

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

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?

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?

 

link? whats bibelot?

 

Everyone is always deceived or deceiving, then? And the skeptical non-observers are ALWAYS all-seeing and truthful???

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".

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.'

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

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

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.

 

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.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

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.

Show me something of merit then.

 

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?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!