is there evidence for alien abductions etc.?

that is like opening pandora's box.
allow me to reach in and grab something....looky here, an extra-dimensional et.
this is fun. must reach in again......whaddya know, a time traveling earther from a parallel universe.

fair? i mostly ignored these scenarios and yours because i wanted to keep stuff simple.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

ahh, i remember what i once said........occam is for dullards and simpletons

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

..., and overcomplicating things leads to an invasion of the saucer people, under the supervision of the reverse vampires who are in league with the Rand corporation.

Occam works. Overcomplicating matters doesn't.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

since these are all hypothetical postulations, i find it wise to consider all probable angles. discounting a viable hypothesis in favor of another simply because it is less complicated does not make it anymore valid than the first.

it all boils down to effort and imagination
on that score, we are all lacking

 

Some lack more than others.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

.... And I, on the other hand, mostly ignore them myself mainly because I wrote most of them. An often wise recourse I've often thought.

Nevertheless, the simple fact remains inescapable - any solution to the question of UFO's which dictates an ET scenario eludes any form of simplicity utterly.

There simply is nothing in the slightest either simple nor straightforward regarding the matter of interstellar travel on a viable basis.

Hence a tendency to avoid the use of the word Aliens in conjunction with the term UFO as often as physically possible. It just beggars more questions than one started out with in the first place.

 

This forum is evidence of alien life.

 

This reminded me of Occam's Beard!

Anyone who has studied ufology for any serious amount of time has come across Mr. Vallee.
A rather rational man for someone who believes the UFO phenomenon has more to it than ball lightning and weather balloons!

This quote applies perfectly to Occam's razor AND the ETH (extraterrestrial hypothesis) mentioned by Mr. Anonymous.

I'm sure a few of you came across my post in the "Why do people believe" thread. I referred to professional skeptics as having a completely biased approach, as well as $$$ interests in debunking the paranormal. Why do you think they ALWAYS have a scientific sounding answer for anything that appears mysterious, even when that scientific theory itself is a stretch of the imagination?
True to their constant references to Occam, some of their explanations are so outlandish (because they're so simplisitic) it has me convinced that sometimes they are merely insulting people!
Like the dummies at Roswell that were dropped from planes several years AFTER the fact, and being mistaken for little humanoids seen prior in connection with the 1947 "crash". I forget when those projects took place, but they were several years later, far too late for any normal person to have been confused by them, as far as I'm concerned.
I'm not a hardcore believer in the Roswell crash being an alien craft. I'm just using this as a perfect example of how silly some of these simplistic explanations can get.

And speaking of insulting, how bout the skeptic who referred to so-called alien abductees as "insignificant little nobodies" who are subconsciously craving attention, and apparently this drives them to fantasize these stories.
I can't remember who it was at this time.

 

Did you really mean 'probable'? Because the way the evidence stands at the moment, UFOs being ETIs isn't probable, because of relativity, and the sheer size of the Universe. If you'd said 'possible' I'd have less issue with your statement.

'Viable' hypothesis. Oh dear, here we go again. The current working cosmological models mean that an ETI hypothesis isn't very viable.

I think it just boils down to an over active imagination.

 

Angels carrying lamps is a less complicated version than mere gravity holding the planets in position? Please, that's absurd, and so is Vallee.

I've said something similar in the past, and I'm happy to say it again. Woowoos are often underachievers, and poorly educated, but have an ego they need to polish, so self aggrandize by involving themselves in some large scale conspiracy that only they know the 'truth' about. Some clever people sell them books and information, and profit from them. As for abductees, well, they all have some issue, be it, night terrors, hypnogogic dreams, sleep paralysis, temporal lobe epilepsy, day dreams, hallucinations, mental illness, or plain old lying. What value is there in travelling the vast distances across space, to anally probe some nutter? These aliens that have conquered the huge problems of travelling such vast distances, can't anaesthetise a human adequately? They have don't have an MRI machine, and need to perform intrusive inspections? They don't understand DNA and cloning, and don't just take a sample of DNA, clone it, and study the clone? How come these aliens are so good at physics, and so crap at biology?!

 

cause mr probing-phlo (you know yer fair bit about probin where yer not welcome dont you?)....these phenomena are here to confound our cokcsuredness--as dogmatized by the religion of mscientists.....

 

why imagine et must originate from the furthest possible spot? are there not a few star systems with planets that are fairly close to ours? ones that even humans could probably explore with current tech?

i understand. "viable" indicates that the hypothesis is validated by actual evidence. allow me to reword...discounting a working hypothesis in favor of another simply because it is less complicated does not make it anymore valid than the first.

 

Even the nearest stars are unreachable with our current technology. We are talking LIGHT YEARS away, you understand what a light year, is, yes?

The fastest man made object is Voyager~1, and if it were;

"traveling towards our closest star Proxima Centauri that lies about 4.2 light years away. If Voyager 1 were headed in that direction, however, it would still take the vehicle over 73,000 years to get there!"

(http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/spacecraft/q0225.shtml)

so, no, the closest stars are not feasible with "current tech"! Check the longevity of the power plants on these probes, btw, they would be long dead before reaching such a goal, and then, not powerful enough to transmit any data back home, once at that distance.

Of course, the closest star would have to have a planet that was hospitable to life, if they were launching probes at us, and that may not be the case, so a further distance may be required, means more time, and more engineering problems. A vehicle that lasts in space around 100,000 years is incredibly advanced technology, and then, if it takes that long, can you guarantee that the civilisation that built it will surive long enough to reap the benefit of any data? More speed or warping space is the only answer. Warping space and wormholes are incredibly energetic events, and we just don't detect those, so it's unlikely ETs are using that technology.

 

lets look at a famous media skeptic... micheal shermer

history

*Much of his writing concerns the personal experiences that shaped his worldview. He once tried to enhance his athletic abilities with various New Age techniques, such as iridology, rolfing, and mega-vitamins. He even kept a pyramid in his living room to increase energy. His skepticism developed in reaction to his earlier credulity.

tactics

*For example, in his "Skeptic" column in Scientific American in March, 2003, he cited a research study published in the Lancet, a leading medical journal, by Pim van Lommel and colleagues. He asserted this study "delivered a blow" to the idea that the mind and the brain could separate. Yet the researchers argued the exact opposite, and showed that conscious experience outside the body took place during a period of clinical death when the brain was flatlined. As Jay Ingram, of the Canadian Discovery Channel, commented: "His use of this study to bolster his point is bogus… He could have said, 'The authors think there's a mystery, but I choose to interpret their findings differently'. But he didn't. I find that very disappointing" (Toronto Star, March 16, 2003).

look at how the pseudos conduct themselves

pathetic, ja?

 

nice.
now what about future tech? do you see us getting close to light speeds? what would it take?

 

Just as believers, predictably reject such alternative explanation's you predictably reject that there is any evidence for alien abduction's. So I suppose it's even.

If you were a fair and serious investigator into the evidence of ETI abductions you would know that scars are reported by abductee's as a result of some kind of exam. The scars and implants could be evidence of abduction's. If you can't see that potential then you really are blinded by skeptiscm.

Could it be because In 1958, the American Medical Association approved a report on the medical uses of hypnosis. It encouraged research on hypnosis? Hypnosis is a major tool in uncovering hidden memories and I feel is the single most important reason why the Alien Abduction stories took off. Ironically because hypnosis allows some means to collect evidence. Under hypnosis details and procedures - all strikingly similar are reported.

But if you wish to believe that these movies, The Outer Limits and The X-Files are causing mass delusion than enjoy your delusion.

 

We currently have secret technology which has: Tesla coils mounted on the inside of metal, often clich'e spherical or saucer shaped hulls. Since all matter is made of electric charges, the tesla coil imparts synthesized momentum. The key is that the flying machine (electropropulsive) contains at least 2 tesla coils. One high voltage AC in tuning and the second in high voltage DC tuning.... Its the truth, take it or leave it.

 

It is interesting to note that alien abduction cases did not take off untill Hypnosis was widely used.

Why?

The abductee's somehow have their conscience memory of the event erased.

So, before Hypnosis was widely used we did not have any means to abstract those memories.

 

Might as well say the same for past life regression. Both these simply cast doubt on the capabilities of hypnosis as a way of really getting at real memories.

Innocent people have been convicted of child abuse based on unsupported evidence of "suppressed memories" supposedly retrieved by hynosis.

 

Oh, and by the way, Robert, you let your nasafiles site die. Not enough of us on the forums, I guess.