is there evidence for alien abductions etc.?

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience Archive' started by duendy, Nov 2, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. glenn239 Registered Senior Member


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

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

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Gustav Banned Banned


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

    lets go back to school...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    you exhibit hostility. funny.
    Last edited: Nov 22, 2005
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Gustav Banned Banned

    i am suitably chastened.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    i deliberately misrepresented your post and for that i offer up my most abject apologies. it will never happen again

    i rather you come back and post

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  8. Balerion Banned Banned

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

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

    Then why use it in your argument?

    You got it, pal:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Not going to last, is it?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  10. Gustav Banned Banned

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

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

    Deal. Done. And thank you.
  12. Gustav Banned Banned

    excellent. thank you
  13. Balerion Banned Banned

    No! Mr. Anonymous is MY best friend!

    ...Great, whos that leave me with?

    ...Duendy? Whatcha doin this weekend?

  14. Not at all, my abolsute pleasure.

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

    Regards to y'both gents,


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  15. Balerion Banned Banned

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

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

  16. Stryder Keeper of "good" ideas. Valued Senior Member

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

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

    Imagine they might be the Bank Manager you want a loan from which you've just told are a complete woo-woo (bye bye loan!) or countless other scenarios involving you needing aid/courtesy from them putting them in a bad frame of mind for the day might give you a kick (in the arse, literally)
  17. Well, absolutely. Trick is isn't about winning, it's all about staying in the game...

    Speaking of which:

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

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

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

    Seriously, ta.

    Right, back on topic - wasn't someone calling me a psudopodia or something?
  18. duendy Registered Senior Member

    pseudosceptic darling...
  19. Meanwhile Banned Banned

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

    Be glad you have no seven seas to navigate through.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    It was an impression.

    I understand.

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

  20. duendy Registered Senior Member

    ok, let's look at 'sleep paralysis'

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Without names, places and times, it's far from being evidence.
  22. duendy Registered Senior Member

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

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

    Show me them.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page