Who here has been adbucted?

[RobAce]

I specifically asked people to keep the fucking around in this thread to a minimum, so I hope you two are done...

I will be editing the one post. My apologies, I did not see that request.

Rob

 

[cabalist]

You mentioned how most Hollywood depictions of abduction scenarios are ludicrous, and I would tend to agree. Have you seen the X-Files at all? I ask because that show more than any other seems to have brought some serious thought to this topic, without the smirky camp normally associated with it.

Although I've never watched it myself (I haven't watched anything on TV to speak of for years, partly because I consider it 98% BS), while it may or may not have brought some "serious thought" to the subject, there may be some question as to how seriously the show took itself, so to speak, at least acccording to one reviewer:

The X-Files was not a documentary, of course-it was fiction. (At the same time, or so the show's producers claimed, it was "inspired" by "documented accounts.") It didn't lecture to us a paranormalist or a conspiratorial (or a populist) point of view. In fact, my guess is, its creators and producers adopted a tongue-in-cheek attitude toward the occult events it depicted. For most of us, the events it depicted were just a bit too fantastical to be taken seriously as fact. [See also "The X-Files Meets the Skeptics," Skeptical Inquirer, January/February 1997.]

There's also a late night radio show called Coast To Coast with George Nori. They deal not only with alien abduction but people with a wide range of paranormal experiences. I'd be curious to know if you've an opinion to offer on that as well.

I don't believe I've ever heard this radio show either. Do they ever have skeptical guests for the sake of a balanced presentation, or is it just basically people telling stories about purportedly "paranormal" personal experiences?

 

[an_abductee]

You mentioned how most Hollywood depictions of abduction scenarios are ludicrous, and I would tend to agree. Have you seen the X-Files at all? I ask because that show more than any other seems to have brought some serious thought to this topic, without the smirky camp normally associated with it.

There's also a late night radio show called Coast To Coast with George Nori. They deal not only with alien abduction but people with a wide range of paranormal experiences. I'd be curious to know if you've an opinion to offer on that as well.

Not a big Files fan I have to say, although the theme music is quite cool.

I caught one or two episodes (one of which was vaguely to do with something alienesque - but not really abduction). Didn't really like it and didn't continue watching it. To be honest I had a negative opinion of it until reading your post Drew. I haven't really seen enough episodes of it to justify thinking it's crap, so maybe I should consider changing my opinion.

Coast to Coast... I think I might have caught an episode of that broken up into little bits on Youtube. If that is the one, then it seemed quite serious and not into the whole ridicule and general smug bastardy type thing that other radio presenters have been known to.

 

[an_abductee]

Well, if one takes the original question at face value, the overwhelmingly most likely true answer to the question, based on the best evidence, is "probably no one". Which, of course, would make for a rather short thread. Assuming we're talking about extraterrestrial "aliens", of course, as opposed to, say, illegal immigrants.

However if one interprets the question to mean, who believes they've been abducted by "aliens", or who believes others have been, or may have been, so abducted...well, I guess people will believe whatever they want to believe...and the wild fantasies might know no bounds. Although I think it might be a bit of a stretch to expect fully rational people to take such outlandish and completely unfounded claims too seriously.

Legitimate points, but it is quite difficult not to take yourself too seriously when this is in your life though. Perhaps for me it is easier, because I've known about it since childhood and my whole adult personality and id developed with knowledge of it. I imagine someone who discovers it in their life once they're fully grown experiences personality problems that are more severe.

"Outlandish" can be defined as being different to the conditioned norm and shows like The X-Files, firmly placed as science fiction, totally establish abduction as being out of it. "Unfounded" however? What would you consider the definition of that? What is categorically true is that cases have been found proven and defendants been found guilty in a court of law on less evidence than exists to substantiate the reality of the abduction phenomena.

I believe more solid evidence exists to substantiate it than exists to substantiate the reality as described by The Bible. Indeed, many scientific investigations directly contradict the Bible’s version of history. How many millions believe in Salvation through the Christ?

Why the discrepancy?

Because (in my opinion) for them, the religion is part of the “conditioned norm”.

The stories of abduction are no more outlandish and from the point of view of a scientific society (which we purport to be) they are considerably more grounded in acceptable theory. Take Drake’s Equation for instance: this says that our galaxy contains a hundred billion stars or more. If you took one in every million of those stars and said they had planets, then took one in every million of the ones that had planets and said they had life, then took one in every million of the ones that have life and said they had life developed to the status of a civilisation, we would have millions of civilisations in the Milky Way galaxy alone and we know of the existence of billions of galaxies outside ours.

This is more likely than a story based on the supernatural that says an all-powerful God created the universe as he wanted, then X-thousands of years later decided a change was needed, but instead of just saying,
“Let there be Change”,
He decided that he had to impregnate a human woman with a divine child who would grow up specifically so his blood could be spilt and this would redeem the sins of man and shatter the Devil’s power forever? Why could God not just snap his fingers and create a metaphysical dichotomy that changed the way the cosmos worked if he wanted mankind to be brought closer to Him? Why the whole messy process of needing someone to die on the cross in hideous pain?

I’m not saying that didn’t happen, I’m just asking which one sounds more outlandish to a scientific society: 1/ That one of the many millions of civilisations in our galaxy is sufficiently advanced enough to do what the beings are alleged to, or 2/ that the God who could create the sun, earth and heavens just by willing them into existence would chose to go through an elaborate and quixotic piece of real life theater to break the power of sin, instead of just saying,
“Let sin’s ass be Kicked!”

So what is outlandish and what is realistic? And what do large numbers of people who believe in it then mean? Conversely, what do small numbers of people believing in something also mean?

As Gandhi once said,
“Even if you are in a minority of one, the truth is still the truth.”

I guess you could say it's out there. 😉

 

[an_abductee]

Okay, I'll bite. Have you had your medication today?


Sorry...I had to ask. 😉

You'll notice I used the word "serious"?

 

[cabalist]

Not a big Files fan I have to say, although the theme music is quite cool.

I caught one or two episodes (one of which was vaguely to do with something alienesque - but not really abduction). Didn't really like it and didn't continue watching it. To be honest I had a negative opinion of it until reading your post Drew. I haven't really seen enough episodes of it to justify thinking it's crap, so maybe I should consider changing my opinion.

Coast to Coast... I think I might have caught an episode of that broken up into little bits on Youtube. If that is the one, then it seemed quite serious and not into the whole ridicule and general smug bastardy type thing that other radio presenters have been known to.

You may consider it "smug", but as it's been said that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and as to the best of my knowledge there's never been any truly compelling evidence of any kind for any sort of extraterrestrial "alien visitation", with or without abductions, I'm not sure it's unreasonable to expect any such claims, which according all the best available evidence appear ridiculous on the face of them, to be met with ridicule.

Aside from the lack of credible evidence, I've yet to hear a particularly convincing explanation as to why such "visitors", should they exist, would be motivated to keep their presence a secret from most of our species, but only rationales which might seem thinly contrived to "explain away" the overwhelming lack of real evidence.

But although I admit to not watching or listening to such shows for quite awhile now, when I did watch shows dealing in the so-called "paranormal" etc. in the past, if anything it always seemed to me that the anecdotal "stories" never had any shortage of air time, but most often it was a balanced presentation which was most lacking. And from what I've heard from others who keep up with the popular media better than I do myself lately, I haven't heard much to convince me that that has changed very much.

 

[cabalist]

You'll notice I used the word "serious"?

Actually, it was serious...and tongue-in-cheek at the same time, if one can conceive of reconciling the two...as it appears that the X-Files program might as well be characterized as both. In this case, serious, if not necessarily literal.

Edit: My ancient computer is crawling at the moment (a problem for which I have yet to find a supernatural or paranormal solution), and I have a lot of "issues" to deal with at present, but I'll respond ("seriously") to your longer post later if/when I can get the time.

 

[an_abductee]

Actually, it was serious...and tongue-in-cheek at the same time, if one can conceive of reconciling the two...as it appears that the X-Files program might as well be characterized as both. In this case, serious, if not necessarily literal.

My reference to "serious" was when asked if I had taken my meds. Judging from the post, I assumed it was a joke.

Edit: My ancient computer is crawling at the moment (a problem for which I have yet to find a supernatural or paranormal solution), and I have a lot of "issues" to deal with at present, but I'll respond ("seriously") to your longer post later if/when I can get the time.

No problem. Will look forward to it. 🙂

 

[an_abductee]

You may consider it "smug", but as it's been said that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and as to the best of my knowledge there's never been any truly compelling evidence of any kind for any sort of extraterrestrial "alien visitation", with or without abductions, I'm not sure it's unreasonable to expect any such claims, which according all the best available evidence appear ridiculous on the face of them, to be met with ridicule.

It is entirely unreasonable, as every church and religious organisation in the world demands that claims far less scientific and far less provable in the court-of-law sense be taken entirely literally. And I certainly dispute that the best available evidence makes anything about this look ridiculous.

I said that certain presenters of certain TV and radio shows were smug and inclined to ridicule in quite a cruel manner. Given that I have felt extremely traumatised because of this in the past, I have little patience or time for people who find the whole thing a joke and discuss it only to provide their flagging ratings with a little light comedy relief.

I do not regard anyone who approaches this subject with a serious and respectful mind as being smug or anything else negative. Someone who looks at everything seriously, then decides it's not literally true is someone to be respected. Everyone is entitled to make up their own mind, that’s the essence of free will. It’s how one does so I form my opinion on, not what conclusion one arrives at. Feel free to disagree with me if you do so amicably. I’m cool with that.

Someone who laughs, makes fun of the people involved and sneers on live media is a cretin. Someone who’s had this experience will very likely suffer at least from PTSD and at worst from serious depression and suicidal tendencies. They are either someone who has suffered something so bizarre and outlandish that the world can never understand their psychological and emotional trauma, or they are someone who is so extremely deluded that the world can never understand their psychological and emotional trauma. Either way, to laugh at an abductee is not only unreasonable, it’s extremely cruel and entirely pathetic. How would you feel if you were an abuse victim who was laughed at? Not entirely parallel cases I grant you, but the feeling of the victim is exactly the same. Possibly worse in some abductee cases, because not only do they feel physically abused, but the psychological trauma is worse, because it’s happening in what are utterly bizarre circumstances.

Aside from the lack of credible evidence, I've yet to hear a particularly convincing explanation as to why such "visitors", should they exist, would be motivated to keep their presence a secret from most of our species, but only rationales which might seem thinly contrived to "explain away" the overwhelming lack of real evidence.

If the very presence of such visitors is not convincing (or even plausible) to you, then no explanation or theory of their motives will even come close to being, will it?

Why are they secretive? Haven’t got a clue. They aren’t big on explanations and reasons. Why don’t they land on the Whitehouse lawn? Because they’re not total dumbfucks. If you took any one of the many possible explanations for their presence here, being so open would be detrimental to all of them. Whatever it is they’re up to and whatever the reasons for doing it, doing it completely in the open would be stupid beyond belief.

But although I admit to not watching or listening to such shows for quite awhile now, when I did watch shows dealing in the so-called "paranormal" etc. in the past, if anything it always seemed to me that the anecdotal "stories" never had any shortage of air time, but most often it was a balanced presentation which was most lacking. And from what I've heard from others who keep up with the popular media better than I do myself lately, I haven't heard much to convince me that that has changed very much.

One thing that really pisses me off is that people who get airtime are very often totally “out there”. I’ve been to one or two conferences in the past decade or so and it annoys me that people from my own side of the fence sometimes come across just like someone in a trance of religious fervor or as someone with absolutely no critical faculty.

I know for a fact that there are more rational people out there and I, like yourself, would like to see them getting more airtime.

 

[Moses25]

Abducted by aliens...

Need I say more?

It was on this forum that I learned that I was going to be abducted. It was on this forum that I learned about the Kurii. It was on this forum that I learned that freedom is an illusion. It was on this forum that I learned that my life has been scripted...presumably b/c the powers that be view me as a loose cannon...

One day I will summon the strength to demand a "free and open" society, which Canada purports to be in order to lure new immigrants to our country, and I will also demand that these freakin' aliens respect our right to privacy, no matter who we are and what are bloodlines are.

One day I will also summon the strength and courage to crush the 88's once and for all...with my pen and my sword.

Ok, maybe not, but it's a nice idea nonetheless. It's not that I really have anything against them...they do guard us while we sleep, but I don't think they should have drawn "first blood" with me, that's all.

So, ya, I've been abducted b/c of my bloodline, been punished for revealing some truths about Canada...so what. Life goes on.

Let's all be happy and gay...er, you know what I mean.

I just wish I knew who are truly my friends on this forum.

Cheers. 😀

 

[an_abductee]

Seriously Moses, you've been abducted? Or are you just having a joke?

 

[Moses25]

Yes, I've been abducted bro, much to my chagrin. And I hope I never get abducted again. I also think they implanted me with something, namely b/c they don't trust my behaviour...and I can't really blame them for that, but I don't want to be followed around for the rest of my life, see.

Cheers. 🙂

 

[badreligion]

ive never been abducted but there are docs out there that have people who claimed they have

most famous is Barney and Betty Hill

 

[cabalist]

ive never been abducted but there are docs out there that have people who claimed they have

As there are 'docs' somewhere for just about anything anyone wants to believe. Credible evidence, of course, may be another matter.

most famous is Barney and Betty Hill

It's been a few years now since I've studied this and other "weird" claims somewhat thoroughly, so the details are pretty hazy in memory, to say the least, but of course the names immediately "rang a bell". To the best of my knowledge, all the most famous and "compelling" cases have been studied pretty thoroughly by now and, as far as I know without exception, all are either lacking in any particularly compelling evidence or long thoroughly discredited by now, and this famous case is no exception. Having no specific current sources immediately to hand, I just did a quick Google search and came up with a few links to somewhat detailed discussions of the case. A search at skepdic.com turned up no fewer than nine articles discussing the case which can be found listed here

Following is an excerpt from a discussion on this page.

The bottom line is that the main evidence for this abduction comes from the testimony of the Hills that comes from a combination of nightmares and accounts given under hypnotic regression. They came across as sincere and truthful people to everyone who interviewed and met them. Though this was undermined by Betty's many subsequent claims of psychic events, and sightings of hundreds of UFOs many of which could be easily explained.

There are also several inconsistencies in their abduction story. They showed extreme anxiety when recounting the incident, yet Betty said to the 'leader' alien as she was leaving the spaceship: 'This is the most wonderful experience of my life. I hope you'll come back. I got a lot of friends who would love to meet you.' (9) Other inconsistencies occur in the description of the aliens. Betty at first described them as having Jimmy Durante noses but this was dropped in later recollections. Barney said they communicated via some form of telepathy whilst Betty's aliens spoke to her in English. The aliens also seemed to have selected areas of knowledge and ignorance. For example, they were puzzled by Barney's false teeth yet had an otherwise good knowledge of human anatomy.

There are several fantasy or folkloric elements to the encounter. Like visitors to the fairy otherworld Betty is not allowed to take away a souvenir as physical proof of her experience. And, the Kalendrier des bergiers, a fifteenth century French calendar shows demons torturing people by inserting long needles into their stomachs.

Barney was intensely aware of his racial background and it is significant that he thought he saw an evil Nazi alien looking at him when he originally viewed the UFO through binoculars. On these slim grounds this has led some to speculate that this proved their encounter was with a craft built under an alliance of the CIA, Nazis and the aliens.

Martin Kottmeyer and Peter Rogerson in their many contributions to Magonia magazine have looked in detail at how science fiction films and television, UFO literature and beliefs, combined with the Hills' own psychological stresses and the 'mood' of the time (fears generated by the Cold War, atomic doom, civil unrest, the Space Race) all helped shape the Hill abduction experience.

 

[badreligion]

As there are 'docs' somewhere for just about anything anyone wants to believe. Credible evidence, of course, may be another matter.



It's been a few years now since I've studied this and other "weird" claims somewhat thoroughly, so the details are pretty hazy in memory, to say the least, but of course the names immediately "rang a bell". To the best of my knowledge, all the most famous and "compelling" cases have been studied pretty thoroughly by now and, as far as I know without exception, all are either lacking in any particularly compelling evidence or long thoroughly discredited by now, and this famous case is no exception. Having no specific current sources immediately to hand, I just did a quick Google search and came up with a few links to somewhat detailed discussions of the case. A search at skepdic.com turned up no fewer than nine articles discussing the case which can be found listed here

Following is an excerpt from a discussion on this page.

hey i never said they got abducted i just said it was a famous case

 

[cabalist]

hey i never said they got abducted i just said it was a famous case

Yes, I know. Sorry if you had the impression that I was holding you "accountable" for the claim, which wasn't my intention. It just seemed that it might be reasonable to show a little analysis of one of the more compelling cases representing some of the "hype" which has contributed to the alien abduction folklore.

 

[badreligion]

lol no biggie i believe in alien life because there is no way in hell that the Earth is the only place with life on it because the human race is hardly intelligent

 

[cabalist]

Legitimate points, but it is quite difficult not to take yourself too seriously when this is in your life though. Perhaps for me it is easier, because I've known about it since childhood and my whole adult personality and id developed with knowledge of it. I imagine someone who discovers it in their life once they're fully grown experiences personality problems that are more severe.

"Outlandish" can be defined as being different to the conditioned norm and shows like The X-Files, firmly placed as science fiction, totally establish abduction as being out of it. "Unfounded" however? What would you consider the definition of that? What is categorically true is that cases have been found proven and defendants been found guilty in a court of law on less evidence than exists to substantiate the reality of the abduction phenomena.

Perhaps "unfounded" wasn't the best choice of words. But what I meant by it was unsubstantiated by any particularly compelling evidence to the best of my knowledge.You've suggested here that there is overwhelming evidence, but I've thus far seen you offer no references for same, except for your own personal experience, which, while it may be overwhelmingly convincing to you, hardly represents the kind of objective evidence which might be compelling in a court of law, never mind the possibly more demanding criteria of the "court of science."

I believe more solid evidence exists to substantiate it than exists to substantiate the reality as described by The Bible. Indeed, many scientific investigations directly contradict the Bible’s version of history. How many millions believe in Salvation through the Christ?

Why the discrepancy?

Which is why I have no greater faith in biblical miracles than I do in the real occurrence of alien abductions, since I've seen no more compelling evidence for one than the other.

Because (in my opinion) for them, the religion is part of the “conditioned norm”.

The stories of abduction are no more outlandish and from the point of view of a scientific society (which we purport to be) they are considerably more grounded in acceptable theory. Take Drake’s Equation for instance: this says that our galaxy contains a hundred billion stars or more. If you took one in every million of those stars and said they had planets, then took one in every million of the ones that had planets and said they had life, then took one in every million of the ones that have life and said they had life developed to the status of a civilisation, we would have millions of civilisations in the Milky Way galaxy alone and we know of the existence of billions of galaxies outside ours.

This is more likely than a story based on the supernatural that says an all-powerful God created the universe as he wanted, then X-thousands of years later decided a change was needed, but instead of just saying,
“Let there be Change”,
He decided that he had to impregnate a human woman with a divine child who would grow up specifically so his blood could be spilt and this would redeem the sins of man and shatter the Devil’s power forever? Why could God not just snap his fingers and create a metaphysical dichotomy that changed the way the cosmos worked if he wanted mankind to be brought closer to Him? Why the whole messy process of needing someone to die on the cross in hideous pain?

I’m not saying that didn’t happen, I’m just asking which one sounds more outlandish to a scientific society: 1/ That one of the many millions of civilisations in our galaxy is sufficiently advanced enough to do what the beings are alleged to, or 2/ that the God who could create the sun, earth and heavens just by willing them into existence would chose to go through an elaborate and quixotic piece of real life theater to break the power of sin, instead of just saying,
“Let sin’s ass be Kicked!”

So what is outlandish and what is realistic?

What is "outlandish", to me, are claims which make little sense on the face of them and, to the best of my knowledge, have no compelling evidence in support of them. Therefore, in my opinion, you might have found little better to compare the claims of alien abduction with than "far out" religious claims. In fact, the entire "alien" folklore resembles religious folklore very much to me.

And what do large numbers of people who believe in it then mean? Conversely, what do small numbers of people believing in something also mean?

The "numbers", in and of themselves, "mean" nothing. From a scientific standpoint all that matters is the evidence.

As Gandhi once said,
“Even if you are in a minority of one, the truth is still the truth.”

I couldn't agree with this quote more. It's not a matter of whether one person or thousands have claimed to be abducted, or believe in such abductions, which determines the "truth". But the best guide we have to the truth is the evidence. And, to date, I have seen no compelling evidence to support the claims of alien abduction.

I guess you could say it's out there. 😉

I guess you could say anything.

 

[cabalist]

lol no biggie i believe in alien life because there is no way in hell that the Earth is the only place with life on it because the human race is hardly intelligent

Although of course I could be wrong, at a "gut level" I'm inclined to believe that the universe as a whole may be teeming with life, including "intelligent" life, indeed perhaps some far more intelligent than our species. But I don't consider it even remotely likely (note, I didn't say "impossible", just not remotely likely) that anyone on this planet has ever been abducted by any of them. Or that anyone likely ever will be for that matter.

 

[cabalist]

It is entirely unreasonable, as every church and religious organisation in the world demands that claims far less scientific and far less provable in the court-of-law sense be taken entirely literally. And I certainly dispute that the best available evidence makes anything about this look ridiculous.

Again, I haven't seen even a shred of evidence. Where is it?

I said that certain presenters of certain TV and radio shows were smug and inclined to ridicule in quite a cruel manner. Given that I have felt extremely traumatised because of this in the past, I have little patience or time for people who find the whole thing a joke and discuss it only to provide their flagging ratings with a little light comedy relief.

I won't attempt to generalize too much about the present, since as I've already admitted, I've hardly watched TV, or listened to the radio very much beyond music and brief hourly news programs, for some years now. That is, I don't often watch/listen to "talk" shows lately. Although I do clearly recall being convinced in the not-too-distant past that many shows presented very "lopsided", one-sided, presentations of subjects like aliens, the paranormal, etc., with little represented of them other than those making fantastic, yet completely unsubstantiated claims. Personally, I doubt very much that those running such shows would complain about high ratings regardless of whether it was for ridiculing the claims (which I still feel may often be "fair enough" when the claims themselves seem ridiculous enough to warrant it) or because large segments of the viewing audience believe, or want to believe, the claims being made.

However, you might want to consider that when people ridicule such claims, that it may be mainly the claims they're ridiculing, it's not necessarily meant to ridicule you or others "personally", although I'll concede that it might indeed be difficult not to take ridicule of your claims personally. But again, however it may offend or disturb you, I don't think it should surprise you when people ridicule claims which they consider "ridiculous" for what they may feel are good, and rational, reasons.

I do not regard anyone who approaches this subject with a serious and respectful mind as being smug or anything else negative. Someone who looks at everything seriously, then decides it's not literally true is someone to be respected. Everyone is entitled to make up their own mind, that’s the essence of free will. It’s how one does so I form my opinion on, not what conclusion one arrives at. Feel free to disagree with me if you do so amicably. I’m cool with that.

Someone who laughs, makes fun of the people involved and sneers on live media is a cretin.

I'm afraid I have to disagree in that, while they may be a "cretin", it may be that they make fun of it and "sneer" at it based on what may have been serious consideration of the merit of the claim and/or the the credibility of the claimant. If indeed someone has laughed at, made fun of, or sneered, solely on the basis of a belief being a "minority" one, without ever bothering to consider its possible merit, then he/she could be a cretin. But I'm sorry, I still have to say that if claims are ridiculous enough, they may well be "courting" ridicule -- in which case the claimant may have no one to blame more than him/herself for being ridiculed. Or for feeling as though he/she is being ridiculed because his/her claims or ideas appear "ridiculous".

Someone who’s had this experience will very likely suffer at least from PTSD and at worst from serious depression and suicidal tendencies. They are either someone who has suffered something so bizarre and outlandish that the world can never understand their psychological and emotional trauma, or they are someone who is so extremely deluded that the world can never understand their psychological and emotional trauma. Either way, to laugh at an abductee is not only unreasonable, it’s extremely cruel and entirely pathetic. How would you feel if you were an abuse victim who was laughed at? Not entirely parallel cases I grant you, but the feeling of the victim is exactly the same. Possibly worse in some abductee cases, because not only do they feel physically abused, but the psychological trauma is worse, because it’s happening in what are utterly bizarre circumstances.

If it's done with cruel intent, then it's cruel, or if with insensitivity, then it may be insensitive.

If the very presence of such visitors is not convincing (or even plausible) to you, then no explanation or theory of their motives will even come close to being, will it?

Actually, either a reasonable-sounding explanation and/or real evidence would likely convince me. So far I've seen neither.

Why are they secretive? Haven’t got a clue. They aren’t big on explanations and reasons. Why don’t they land on the Whitehouse lawn? Because they’re not total dumbfucks. If you took any one of the many possible explanations for their presence here, being so open would be detrimental to all of them. Whatever it is they’re up to and whatever the reasons for doing it, doing it completely in the open would be stupid beyond belief.

Well, they're not too much "total dumbfucks" to have found a way to have transported themselves across interstellar space, apparently. As such, it's unfathomable to me why they would feel the need to hide from us, after going to all that trouble, any more than we might fear presenting ourselves openly to some technologically primitive people we might discover in the middle of the ocean somewhere tomorrow. What could we possibly have to fear about them? I mean, we may approach cautiously initially, of course, but "hide" from them for years? I can't imagine any reason for it or likelihood of it.

One thing that really pisses me off is that people who get airtime are very often totally “out there”. I’ve been to one or two conferences in the past decade or so and it annoys me that people from my own side of the fence sometimes come across just like someone in a trance of religious fervor or as someone with absolutely no critical faculty.

I know for a fact that there are more rational people out there and I, like yourself, would like to see them getting more airtime.

I'm waiting for any truly compelling evidence to support the claims. Which I don't expect to ever see, for the reason I believe I haven't seen any yet. That is, because it ain't ever really happened. Not saying you're necessarily lying. Of course, you could be. Or you may truly believe that the experiences you've spoken of are real. I don't. Again, mainly for the simple reason that I haven't yet seen even a shred of compelling evidence. Nor have I seen you or anyone else present any here.

 

[an_abductee]

Perhaps "unfounded" wasn't the best choice of words. But what I meant by it was unsubstantiated by any particularly compelling evidence to the best of my knowledge.You've suggested here that there is overwhelming evidence, but I've thus far seen you offer no references for same, except for your own personal experience, which, while it may be overwhelmingly convincing to you, hardly represents the kind of objective evidence which might be compelling in a court of law, never mind the possibly more demanding criteria of the "court of science."

I refer to no specific case, but my remark about courts of law refer to the fact that people have been convicted of crimes and sentenced to the death penalty on the basis of eyewitness testimony, when given by people who are considered reliable and of good character. Eyewitness testimony in these cases has come from lawyers, engineers, members and former members of the air force, police officers and many other walks of life that are generally considered the domains of more reliable than fanciful or deluded characters.

There have been, to my knowledge, two investigators who are extremely eminent academics (on of whom was an M.D. professor of psychiatry at Harvard) and a handful of other “reliable” occupations who came round to the idea of this experience being real.

You say I have presented no evidence of my own encounters. No, I haven’t. I was never aware I was asked to, nor do I have any particular compunction to. While I’m happy to talk about most of my experiences here (if anyone wants to ask about them), I really am not at all bothered about trying to present credible evidence of them (I don’t have any that I could present in this medium anyway), nor am I bothered if someone (you in this case) doesn’t believe me. You aren’t sneering or making fun of me, that’s all I give a damn about. When it comes to conclusions, you sound as if your mind is open to future judgment changes if you see evidence you haven’t already. You’ll make up your own mind in the fullness of time, which is how it should be.

Which is why I have no greater faith in biblical miracles than I do in the real occurrence of alien abductions, since I've seen no more compelling evidence for one than the other.

Good for you, I’m of exactly the same mind.

What is "outlandish", to me, are claims which make little sense on the face of them and, to the best of my knowledge, have no compelling evidence in support of them. Therefore, in my opinion, you might have found little better to compare the claims of alien abduction with than "far out" religious claims. In fact, the entire "alien" folklore resembles religious folklore very much to me.

What would you consider “compelling”?

The "numbers", in and of themselves, "mean" nothing. From a scientific standpoint all that matters is the evidence.

Indeed, that was the point I was trying to make.

I couldn't agree with this quote more. It's not a matter of whether one person or thousands have claimed to be abducted, or believe in such abductions, which determines the "truth". But the best guide we have to the truth is the evidence. And, to date, I have seen no compelling evidence to support the claims of alien abduction.

What sort of evidence would you consider compelling exactly? A photograph of an abductee and an alien with their arms round each other and a scribbled note,
“Thanks for all the memories, regards from Zorg”?

If you define what you would consider compelling evidence, then I’ll dredge my hazy memory and try and think of something that fits that description.

I guess you could say anything.

I was actually trying to be lighthearted.

Meh.

 

[an_abductee]

Again, I haven't seen even a shred of evidence. Where is it?

Have you actually tried looking for it, or are you just waiting to see it pass before you?

I won't attempt to generalize too much about the present, since as I've already admitted, I've hardly watched TV, or listened to the radio very much beyond music and brief hourly news programs, for some years now. That is, I don't often watch/listen to "talk" shows lately. Although I do clearly recall being convinced in the not-too-distant past that many shows presented very "lopsided", one-sided, presentations of subjects like aliens, the paranormal, etc., with little represented of them other than those making fantastic, yet completely unsubstantiated claims. Personally, I doubt very much that those running such shows would complain about high ratings regardless of whether it was for ridiculing the claims (which I still feel may often be "fair enough" when the claims themselves seem ridiculous enough to warrant it) or because large segments of the viewing audience believe, or want to believe, the claims being made.

Yep, the shows are very often little more than opinion slots, which is both annoying and boring.

I also doubt that producers would give a flying fuck at a rolling doughnut.

Ridiculing someone who is upset about what has happened to them is just plain asshole behaviour, no matter how ridiculous the claim. It’s the journalistic equivalent of bear-baiting.

However, you might want to consider that when people ridicule such claims, that it may be mainly the claims they're ridiculing, it's not necessarily meant to ridicule you or others "personally", although I'll concede that it might indeed be difficult not to take ridicule of your claims personally. But again, however it may offend or disturb you, I don't think it should surprise you when people ridicule claims which they consider "ridiculous" for what they may feel are good, and rational, reasons.

If someone speaks against the claims and laughs at the logic used to make them, then they’re not being personal. Fair game.

If someone makes personal remarks and openly derides someone who has been brave enough to stand up and be counted, then they’re a ****, pure and simple. You can disagree with someone’s perception, their logic and their beliefs and even do so vociferously without being personal and without making snide attacks. You’ve done so yourself in this thread. I have no problem with that.

I'm afraid I have to disagree in that, while they may be a "cretin", it may be that they make fun of it and "sneer" at it based on what may have been serious consideration of the merit of the claim and/or the the credibility of the claimant. If indeed someone has laughed at, made fun of, or sneered, solely on the basis of a belief being a "minority" one, without ever bothering to consider its possible merit, then he/she could be a cretin. But I'm sorry, I still have to say that if claims are ridiculous enough, they may well be "courting" ridicule -- in which case the claimant may have no one to blame more than him/herself for being ridiculed. Or for feeling as though he/she is being ridiculed because his/her claims or ideas appear "ridiculous".

I wouldn’t necessarily say that if the claims appear ridiculous they deserve to be ridiculed, because “ridiculous” and “credible” are abstract concepts based on a conditioned view of reality. A pharaoh (can’t remember which one) once decided slavery was immoral and tried to outlaw it. Egypt was overrun with rioting slaves, extremely pissed off that their livelihood was being threatened. They considered having a bad master as being better than having no master and Egypt’s society and economy couldn’t cope with emancipation at the time. From their point of view slavery was honourable, sanctioned by the gods and sanctified by long useage. From our point of view it’s inhumane and demeaning.

I once saw a TV programme on Indigo Children, a concept I believe in for reasons I won’t go into here.

There were several sets of parents there who were getting extremely emotional about the whole thing and it was quite obvious to me that the dumb fuckwits were projecting their own sense of worthlessness into trying and having their kids labeled as superhuman. The adults were so obviously lacking in mental and emotional maturity that it made me cringe to think they could be trusted with being parents at all.

I could understand, and would do it myself, if those parents were derided for their actions (without getting demeaning – although I obviously have been here – but hey, they’re not present to be insulted, so fuck it!), but I would be extremely aggrieved is some smartass, self-important prick on a radio or TV show just sought to take the piss and make fun of anyone who believed in the whole concept.

If it's done with cruel intent, then it's cruel, or if with insensitivity, then it may be insensitive.

Yeah, it would.

Actually, either a reasonable-sounding explanation and/or real evidence would likely convince me. So far I've seen neither.

If the whole thing sounds unreasonable, infeasible and unlikely to you, why would any explanation, no matter how scientific, sound anything close to being reasonable?

Well, they're not too much "total dumbfucks" to have found a way to have transported themselves across interstellar space, apparently. As such, it's unfathomable to me why they would feel the need to hide from us, after going to all that trouble, any more than we might fear presenting ourselves openly to some technologically primitive people we might discover in the middle of the ocean somewhere tomorrow. What could we possibly have to fear about them? I mean, we may approach cautiously initially, of course, but "hide" from them for years? I can't imagine any reason for it or likelihood of it.

Don't make the mistake of thinking intellectual capacity and good sense go hand in hand. Just remember Nazi Germany.

Any civilisation, no matter how advanced, would be cautious about approaching a population as big as ours and as capable of destruction. If they were remotely ecologically minded (and one can safely assume they would be, as they survived their own technological adolescence without obliterating themselves) they wouldn’t want to land on the White House lawn in case we decided to go nuclear. I kind of liken it to a wildlife presenter staying in the safety of their Landrover with a telephoto lens, rather than going wandering into a herd of wild buffalo.

I'm waiting for any truly compelling evidence to support the claims. Which I don't expect to ever see, for the reason I believe I haven't seen any yet. That is, because it ain't ever really happened. Not saying you're necessarily lying. Of course, you could be. Or you may truly believe that the experiences you've spoken of are real. I don't. Again, mainly for the simple reason that I haven't yet seen even a shred of compelling evidence. Nor have I seen you or anyone else present any here.

I’m not going to attempt to try and convince you of my own personal accounts for two reasons: 1/ I really don’t care, and 2/ My accounts have never been chronicled. There are books out there written by personages I would consider more scientific than your average, “Whoa, they’re all down to aliens dude!” type. Go to a public library and borrow one of them for a fortnight. Books like that were written to provide evidence that has been scientifically gathered. I am not an author and really don’t give enough of a shit to do the same. If you don’t care enough to feel the need to see if what I’m saying is true by reading such material, I don’t care about that either. Your choice.

 

[TMF Jeff]

Let's be careful not to let things get out of hand. If you can't agree with each other, don't keep circling the same points.

 

[an_abductee]

What the hell, I may as well post what it was that proved to me that I wasn't just having some psychotic delusion. None of this could be described as empirical proof, because I can't present it, but the only person that matters to me is me. 😀

One of the first memories that came back to me at age 12 that was more than a snapshot, was of being flat on my back on a table and having a being push a long, thin instrument up my right nostril, while a slightly taller one that was in charge held my head still (unusually I had some movement above the neck at the time). This was shoved in not quite as far as the handle, whereupon it made a rather disgusting crunching noise inside my skull.

The end of this needle thing, unlike your atypical syringe, was small and rounded, like a ball-bearing. Many years later (I would have been 19 or 20) I started talking to people in the UFO community and discovered the concept of the “implant”. Quite a few people had had this done to them, but they had noticed that when the needle was withdrawn the weeny BB-type object on the end had gone, implying that it had been left inside their head. Now I hadn’t seen this, because when it crunched the pain had been unimaginably bad and I’d closed my eyes and started crying, so I didn’t think about it till I heard from others. However…

Between the ages of 13 and 15 I suffered constantly from what my doctor called “acute sinusitis”, which involved mainly debilitating headaches around my eyes and nose and lots of congestion.

Eventually I was referred to an ENT specialist and had scans of my head which revealed that my natural sinus drainage was blocked and that I had an encysted foreign object in my right-hand sinal cavity. I was another four or five years from learning about the possibility of implants at this stage, so nothing suggested itself at the time.

I was eventually given an operation I believe is called a “bi-lateral intra-nasal antroscopy” in which new drainage holes were drilled in my sinuses and the linings of them were stripped out and disposed of, along with whatever it was the cyst had formed around.

There have been other things that have happened to me: such as waking up with bruising and scars that disappear within a day or two, a permanent scar in the shape of a triangle that’s a souvenir of an encounter when I was four or five, and a mark on the bridge of my nose that only appears after I’ve had a hot bath that was the result of something that was put on my forehead during an episode.

The nose needle encounter however, is the one that made me come to the conclusion that I was remembering something that had physically happened.
1/ I remembered it several years before finding out that it was a very common procedure.
2/ The equipment used was identical to stuff I’ve subsequently heard of that is used in this procedure.
3/ I didn’t know it was an implant because my eyes were closed when they took it out of my nose, but I subsequently experienced health problems that were dealt with by a medical professional, who noted that there was a foreign object encysted in the right-hand sinus canal. The same side of my head as the nostril that the needle was pushed up incidentally. The operation took place two years or so after I remembered that particular memory.

All of the little interconnecting details I learned some years after the event and all matched cases that had been documented by researchers and of which I didn’t learn until I was nearly in my twenties.

So, somewhat long-windedly, that is the biggest reason I came to the conclusion that what I was remembering was something that had actually happened to me and not some daydream that I had mistaken for reality. Given both the memories and the subsequent health problems, who wouldn’t have come to the same conclusion?

 

[cabalist]

Sorry it's taken me awhile to respond, but contrary to vicious rumors, I wasn't abducted by aliens, but have merely been busy. 😉

I refer to no specific case, but my remark about courts of law refer to the fact that people have been convicted of crimes and sentenced to the death penalty on the basis of eyewitness testimony, when given by people who are considered reliable and of good character. Eyewitness testimony in these cases has come from lawyers, engineers, members and former members of the air force, police officers and many other walks of life that are generally considered the domains of more reliable than fanciful or deluded characters.

People have probably been wrongly convicted, likely even wrongly executed, on the basis of little but eyewitness accounts from what seemed like highly credible witnesses. The problem is, human observation and memory are notoriously unreliable, as recent research has proven more the case than had long been assumed. Personally I think eyewitness testimony without fairly substantial corroborating evidence can be a very dangerous thing legally, nor is it adequate by itself to regard as conclusive scientific evidence, regardless of the credentials of the witness. In fact, all human beings are both subjective and fantasy-prone, these being fundamental characteristics of our species.

There have been, to my knowledge, two investigators who are extremely eminent academics (on of whom was an M.D. professor of psychiatry at Harvard) and a handful of other “reliable” occupations who came round to the idea of this experience being real.

The Harvard prof you're talking about was probably John Mack, about whom one author had this to say (here):

Another alien enthusiast was the Harvard psychiatrist Dr. John Mack (1929-2004), who wrote books about patients who claim to have been abducted by aliens. Many of Mack’s patients had been referred to him by Hopkins. Dr. Mack claimed that his psychiatric patients were not mentally ill (then why was he treating them?) and that he could think of no better explanation for their stories than that they were true. However, until someone produces physical evidence that abductions have occurred, it seems more reasonable to believe that Dr. Mack and his patients were deluded or frauds. Of course, the good doctor could hide behind academic freedom and the doctor/patient privacy privilege. He could make all the claims he wanted and refuse to back any of them up on the grounds that to do so would be to violate his patients' rights. He could then publish his stories and dare anyone to take away his academic freedom. He was in the position any cheat would envy: he could lie without fear of being caught.

The same source has this to say about Budd Hopkins, the alien abduction researcher referred to above who had referred patients to Dr. Mack:

Hopkins demonstrated his sincerity and investigative incompetence on the public television program Nova ("Alien Abductions," first shown on February 27, 1996). The camera followed Hopkins through session after session with a very agitated, highly emotional "patient". Then Nova followed Hopkins to Florida where he cheerfully helped a visibly unstable mother inculcate in her children the belief that they had been abducted by aliens. In between more sessions with more of Hopkins' "patients", the viewer heard him repeatedly give plugs for his books and his reasons for showing no skepticism at all regarding the very bizarre claims he was eliciting from his "patients". Dr. Elizabeth Loftus [a well-known and respected author and researcher in the area of human memory] was asked by Nova to evaluate Hopkins' method of "counseling" the children whose mother was encouraging them to believe they had been abducted by aliens. From the little that Nova showed us of Hopkins at work, it was apparent that Mr. Hopkins encouraged the creation of memories, though Hopkins claims he is uncovering repressed memories. Dr. Loftus noted that Hopkins did much encouraging of his "patients" to remember more details, as well as giving many verbal rewards when new details were brought forth. Dr. Loftus characterized the procedure as "risky" because we do not know what effect this "counseling" will have on the children. It seems we can safely predict one effect: they will grow up thinking they've been abducted by aliens. This belief will be so embedded in their memory that it will be difficult to get them to consider that the "experience" was planted by their mother and cultivated by alien enthusiasts like Hopkins.

Back to your post.

What sort of evidence would you consider compelling exactly? A photograph of an abductee and an alien with their arms round each other and a scribbled note, “Thanks for all the memories, regards from Zorg”?

You may or may not be aware that photography can be a rather "tricky" form of evidence/proof, as it's notoriously easily faked, something which "spritualists" and other frauds have attempted to exploit from the time the medium was invented. And with today's sophisticated special effects well-known, of course film/video would be highly suspect, at least, if that was the best, or only, evidence with nothing further to corroborate its authenticity.

If you define what you would consider compelling evidence, then I’ll dredge my hazy memory and try and think of something that fits that description..

Even a "smidgen" of real physical evidence might be a good start. As one of the foremost researchers in this area for decades, the late Philip J. Klass, put it:

...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."

Short of some sort of real physical evidence, if the best we have is personal accounts with no corroborating physical evidence, then it seems to me that the evidence for these abductions is about as good as the claims of religious miracles, both biblical and modern, or, for that matter, for the existence of fairies.

With regard to the role of television as alluded to above, Klass has claimed that "Network television documentaries about UFOs have willfully ignored evidence that contradicts the pro-aliens theme", as discussed at some length in his article That's Entertainment! TV's UFO Coverup. Despite the wild claims about government coverups of alien landings, etc., this may be the biggest real coverup ever connected with this subject, of course TV's most primary role long being to achieve ratings which sell products, etc. and purportedly true stories about alien "invasion" and abductions apparently draw viewers in larger numbers than do plain ordinary boring facts.