is there evidence for alien abductions etc.?

Glenn:

Obviously, he wouldn't have been lying if had reported such a thing, or told someone about it. He swore it was a UFO.

I don't mean to speak for Skin here, but didn't he just do that? Did he not just say what it really was? His account remains the same, yet the explanation is different, and more importantly, correct.

Nobody seems to realize that to scream "UFO" is easy. Skin saw a Harrier jet, and would have sworn on a bible (I'm assuming) that it was a UFO. Because he had the privilage of watching a Harrier jet in person (of course, I'm assuming) he finally realized that what he saw was not, in fact, a UFO. How many people get the chance to see a Harrier jet in person? I haven't.

People aren't always lying when the claim a UFO experience, be it abduction or sighting. It's the difference between knowledge and a glaring lack thereof that seperates the UFO believer and the nonbeliever.

How about the mass UFO sighting at the solar eclipse in Mexico in 1991? I saw a special on History channel on that one yesterday, and it made me laugh out loud, because the whole f'n nation thought it was a UFO, yet out of the hundreds of professional astrologers and astronomers who brought their high-powered telescopes to the event saw absolutely nothing out of the ordinary!

That is proof positive that ignorance regarding certain things like a planet coming into plain view during a full solar eclipse would lead thousands of people across a nation to believe they saw a UFO, when in fact they did not.

Regarding abductions, the same applies. Certain things can attribute (may attribute) to having an abduction-like dream or experience, and science has proven that it is possible. But the people who experience it don't know that, and they believe what they saw.

Sometimes people BS about this stuff, adn that's a fact. But that doesn't mean that the people who aren't lying are really being abducted.

JD

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I think it’s a given that he did not lie, and that he did correct his testimony upon discovering a better answer. As such his personal experience will go against the point he is trying to make about witnesses.

Just so long as he didn’t fudge the details, location, or date, then in theory if the military in Great Britain (?) had looked into it in more detail they’d have noticed his story could be explained by routine Harrier exercises which were undergoing in the area and during the day in question. That is his interpretation was irrelevant; just as long as he doesn’t lie about what he saw, it could be analyzed by experts and discarded as a possible sighting.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

A question regarding "acceptable evidence" of the phenomenon.
What are the requirements of the reviewers ( professional bodies, scientists, press, governments, etc. ) regarding testimonial evidence by multiple witnesses of UFO events .
Are they required to be specialists in any field , servicemen and women, or police ?
Do they have to swear on oath ?
Are their any special circumstances which must occur during the event?
And so on....

Awdsci

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I wouldn't say that a specialist in any field would be required for a sighting to be believable. The problem doesn't even neccissarily occur in the sighting, it is the assumption that the lights or crafts seen are extraterrestrial in origin.

If five people witness a murder, then most likely the defendant is going to be found guilty in court. If five people witness a strange object in the sky, we will most likely believe they saw something strange in the sky.

If five people claim that the object they saw was extraterrestrial, it would be the very same as if the five people who witnessed a murder claimed the victim went to heaven.

Regarding the specialists witnessing an event, I would say that an astrologist or astronomer witnessing a UFO would be more credible than Joe Nobody from Kentucky, but there happens to a glorious absence of these testimonies. The mass sighting in Mexico, possibly the most celebrated UFO sighting in history, is widely believed by UFO "experts" to be the genuine article. None of those believers, however, are probably even aware of the fact that there were hundreds of professional skywatchers and astronomers in the region that day, and not a one of them accounted for a single strange occurance.

What they all saw that day in 1991 was Venus, but of course every UFO believer who has access to television and print claimed the thing to be metalic and from Outter Space!

It's the assumptions that bother people, and the lack of interest in finding a cause that isn't alien. It's all cover-ups and conspricies to these people, and when the actual explanation is given, it's considered a lie by the believers.

There are credible sightings and accounts, such as the landing and hovering of a UFOs at the Rendlesham Air Force Base, but even then, there is no real way to know exactly what happened or where the object came from. It could have been a top secret project that these men weren't aware of, or even possibly an elaborate hoax.

I suppose the only way to really be sure that anything or anyone from another planet is visiting us is for the UFO to land and greet us, or maybe a crash where we can test and study the remains.

JD

 

This is one of the simplest, and consequently the most eloquent, expression of the sceptic's position on 'sightings' I have seen.

 

Aw, shucks, Ophi...*blushes*

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

i am not suprised. simple shit for simpletons

jdawg

consider your analogy again carefully
in both cases, ask "why" of the 5 people
will you modify or let it stand?

 

I think there’s “ample” evidence in support of many absurdities.

We live in the era of “evidence” and information.
You can find an expert claiming just about anything these days. The very concept of “expertise” has become meaningless, in many ways.

The problem lies in determining reliable information from unreliable information.
We humans usually do this by evaluating the sources past success and constancy, in the same way we evaluate pretty much everything.

Our ‘logic’ being a rulebook made up of consistent predictability.

Now since the source’s reliability can rarely be evaluated directly in these times of information overload and multiplicity, its evaluation is also reliant on third party evidence…and so it goes.

In the end faith is what we use. A faith based on psychological needs and cultural infections.

Sometimes some people use a simpler method. They take their own experiences, compare them to third party evidence and come up with a degree of probability. If no emotional factors cloud this process, the mind determines the validity of a possibility by its own experiences with reality.

 

I'm not surprised either...someone who can't spell "surprised" calling others simpletons. Drop the name calling, Gustav. I thought we were passed that.

I'm not surprised you don't get my analogy. But I'll humor you.

Remember, these people are saying that the UFO in question is extraterrestrial.

I'd ask them why, and they might say something along the lines of "Because it moved in a way that defies the laws of physics," or "Because it's nothing that could have been man-made."

I can't tell you how many sightings I've seen or heard of in which the person or people reporting it said simply "We know this thing ain't from Earth."

Now, asking the five people who witnessed the murder, they would say at the least "Because that's where good people go when they die," or "Because that's what it says in the Bible" or something to that effect.

The point of it all is that it is based on faith, ignorance, imagination, and sometimes flat-out lies. Nobody is questioning that the people saw something very strange in the sky, but there are explanations for them. Again, there is no problem with the claims, until they go into the realm of the object being of alien origin.

Now let me ask you...of these people making this claim, how do they know the thing is alien?

JD

PS: My position stands.

 

I deduce from your response JDawg that A Vast Gut is posting nonsense again. I have found the Ignore function to be effective for dealing with the non-entity. I recommend it.

 

Good call, bro. Commencing cockblock...now.

 

mmm
what a good little follower you are, jdawg
hup hup

5 people are in a meeting in the white house. they consist of the president and joint chiefs of staff. they observe a craft and report back an et ufo

5 people are in a meeting in the white house. they consist of the president and joint chiefs of staff. one of them drop dead. the rest report an ascendancy to heaven

now tweak the scenarios using some imagination
what do you do?

bottom line is, as i endlessly repeat
claims of tribbles is not equivalent to a claim of et
one is clearly grounded in nothing but fantasy while the other, statistical probability

now, if anyone wants to educate me as to why this is erroneous do so now

 

it was directed at ophiolite the punk
i see no reason why you need to get drawn into disputes not your own
let go of those drawstrings and stand up on your own two feet

however, if you insist.........

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

There is no proof of aliens on earth, or any alien abductions. But there are millions of witnesses who claim to have seen flying saucers in the night sky. I will openly admit I have seen them in the skies above Utah, USA. I know many others who have seen them, but ironically, none of them have ever been abducted. My sciforums name expains.

 

have been noticing a lot about UFos etc on SKY channel.........kinda suspicious about that. ainly cause SKY/Murdoch is so....Illuminati, and theres is theory that 'UFOs/Aliens' is gonna be their'Big Enemy Number One' which they is gonna make out is fo real so as to accure more power points over the world's populace

anway this programme the othe night which i briefly watched. one of the experts said there was a difference between reported URFOs......some 'could' be explained as secret technology, by the way it moves, whilst others seem to defy te laws of physics

so, playin with tis, what we got here? a combination of manmade UFOs and phony aliens, and REAl UFos and aliens?

 

Man, the Illuminati really come into a lot of things don't they?

 

...so do you...

 

The ones that appear to break the Laws of Physics, the so called "real UFO's" as you put it, can equally be explained in terms of conventional physics as conforming to eyewitness testimony - it just means the object in question wouldn't physically be doing what it actually appears to be doing at the time. It's a terribly easy misidentification to make, thing of it being it doesn't dictate aliens.

It's truer to say it doesn't out rule the possibility, but it doesn't dictate that outcome as an inescapable absolute.

 

It does for Duendy, though.

For her, if it walks and quacks like a duck - it clearly must be a cat!!!

 

Actually, I think you'll find it's an Illuminati plot concerning the development of the perfect Stealth Duck, but that's neither here nor there...

If we can conceive at least that both life and technology originating somewhere out there could both develop and overcome the physical problems associated with interstellar travel - we can't at all out-rule the possibility that what we presume to be alien in origin actually isn't the product of human development subsequent to our own generations tenure here on Earth.

If, as we would hope, our civilisation both continues and endures as we would like we live in the expectation that the physical constraints associated with further space space exploration remain finite and ultimately soluble.

Should that infact transpire to actually be the case we develop time travel as an inescapable consequence - y'don't go gadding around the Galaxy anytime at all without it taking place, not on a viable basis at anyrate, and the entire notion of extraterrestrial visitation dictates interstellar travel on a tenably viable basis must in fact be possible by implication - no doing the star trek thing, no ET's full stop.

One can hardly accept the idea of visiting aliens without accepting that time travel is not only possible, but happens.

That being the case we rule in the likelihood of mankind equally as much, if not slightly more likely, than ET's if we insist on believing that UFO's are in fact evidence and, in some curious fashion, proof of extraterrestrials...

So even in proving the existence of UFO's as inexplicable in terms of current technology and all the rest it doesn't dictate aliens. Ones own descendants remain exactly as likely as ET.