Quotes From Prominent Officials Implying An Extraterrestrial Presence On Earth

a reply to: Gianfar

Ahhh...thank you. I think we got past whatever block were having. I posted the video of Vallee's presentation earlier which I thought was an excellent way to approach the subject. I am still somewhat critical of Mack but I think he offered some really good insights. I am also fascinated by his approach with his subjects. I think that he did uncover a phenomenon but it was somewhat murky and was later distorted by others. Those two are not easily dismissed.

Sometimes I wonder if scientists like Vallée and Hynek realized so much more of the phenomenon, and just decided not to reveal it.

Trying to put it into the context of actually discovering something, that turned out to be truly amazing but troubling, at the same time. You would have to decide if you really wanted to be the one that pushed that button. Perhaps the humanity side of them decided that they did not want to be the ones that revealed, what they had discovered.

Gives me chills, because it is a real world possibility.

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: Gianfar

Ahhh...thank you. I think we got past whatever block were having. I posted the video of Vallee's presentation earlier which I thought was an excellent way to approach the subject. I am still somewhat critical of Mack but I think he offered some really good insights. I am also fascinated by his approach with his subjects. I think that he did uncover a phenomenon but it was somewhat murky and was later distorted by others. Those two are not easily dismissed.

Dr Mack is sort of a special case. I'm sure you know that during the couple of years or so that he regressed several hundred subjects, some of his colleagues attempted to have him censured or removed from his position as head of the Harvard Psychiatric Dept. It was unsuccessful, but it must have caused him to think about his professional reputation and consider the consequences of his research. His book is very good, but its quite obvious that he would never commit to any sort of conclusive opinion regarding whether the high strangeness of these particular cases were the result of extraterrestrials or actual beings as we know them. He would never commit to the specifics of abduction experiences that we ufologists are hungry for.

Nevertheless, its my opinion that he privately avoided the utmost disdain and ridicule of his colleagues by simply reporting patients' internal perceptions and interpretations. He referred to the patient's experiences as perceptional, as I understood him. I've seen interviews of Dr Mack and heard him say he wasn't ready to believe in ETs, but did believe that people he regressed had what he described as experiences with deep "psycho-spiritual effects" that were life altering. He did also mention that he thought there was some kind of intelligence involved.

a reply to: Gianfar

You must be talking about another Dr. Mack, not the one involved in abduction research.

The Dr. John E. Mack involved in abduction research certainly believed in ET's, for god's sake he wrote a book entitled "Passport to the Cosmos - Human Transformation And Alien Encounters".

Of course before he entered the field his beliefs were the same as most of us who have bought into our social conditioning and the MSM propaganda about the subject of alien abductions - he scoffed at it. But when he saw there were serious academicians researching the field and decided to do some research himself - he changed his mind, like most that do, because the facts are overwhelming.

However, he was open minded about the aliens, and didn't necessarily think they were from Zeta Reticuli or some other nearby system, and was open to the idea they may be from another dimension or reality. That some non-human intelligence was abducting people was a firm conclusion of his though.

Dr. John E. Mack articles and videos

a reply to: PlanetXisHERE

The Dr. John E. Mack involved in abduction research certainly believed in ET's, for god's sake he wrote a book entitled "Passport to the Cosmos - Human Transformation And Alien Encounters".

Yes, that's the title of his book but what does he say inside it? I could never find a definitive quote on his view. I do know that he has been criticized by the pro ET people for his views. He is usually put into the same camp as Vallee, who I learned is a disinfo agent in this very thread. I personally am not opposed to Mack's views so that might give you cause for concern.

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: PlanetXisHERE

The Dr. John E. Mack involved in abduction research certainly believed in ET's, for god's sake he wrote a book entitled "Passport to the Cosmos - Human Transformation And Alien Encounters".

Yes, that's the title of his book but what does he say inside it? I could never find a definitive quote on his view. I do know that he has been criticized by the pro ET people for his views. He is usually put into the same camp as Vallee, who I learned is a disinfo agent in this very thread. I personally am not apposed to Mack's views so that might give you cause for concern.

Here is what I stated above about Dr. Mack's views, I think it is rather clear:

However, he was open minded about the aliens, and didn't necessarily think they were from Zeta Reticuli or some other nearby system, and was open to the idea they may be from another dimension or reality. That some non-human intelligence was abducting people was a firm conclusion of his though.

Dr. John E. Mack articles and videos

Here are the differences between Dr. Mack and Vallee, in simple terms:

Vallee - rules out that there are any aliens

Dr. Mack - open to all possibilities; including interdimensional beings, beings from another reality, or just plain ole aliens

a reply to: PlanetXisHERE

Here is what I stated above about Dr. Mack's views, I think it is rather clear:

That is not what I asked for, but thanks for YOUR interpretation.

originally posted by: PlanetXisHERE
a reply to: Gianfar

You must be talking about another Dr. Mack, not the one involved in abduction research.

The Dr. John E. Mack involved in abduction research certainly believed in ET's, for god's sake he wrote a book entitled "Passport to the Cosmos - Human Transformation And Alien Encounters".

Of course before he entered the field his beliefs were the same as most of us who have bought into our social conditioning and the MSM propaganda about the subject of alien abductions - he scoffed at it. But when he saw there were serious academicians researching the field and decided to do some research himself - he changed his mind, like most that do, because the facts are overwhelming.

However, he was open minded about the aliens, and didn't necessarily think they were from Zeta Reticuli or some other nearby system, and was open to the idea they may be from another dimension or reality. That some non-human intelligence was abducting people was a firm conclusion of his though.

Dr. John E. Mack articles and videos

From what I gleaned of his research, he didn't personally believe that his particular study group of subjects were being physically abducted, but that their experiences were contacts more along the lines of psychic and mental or as he said, "psycho-spiritual", with some type of unidentified intelligences. The way I interpreted the implications of his professional research suggested beings operating from an alternate universe. That doesn't preclude carbon based human beings who are essentially like the humans we are familiar with. But is doesn't mean physical contact either. While self declared ufologists with no particular expertise investigate such stories from the exterior, people like Dr. Mack work from the central core of thought. It comes from different perspective than what the average person might bear. And due to the nature of such matters, it would come as no surprise that even those who call themselves abductees may be misinterpreting their experiences as physical.

a reply to: Gianfar

it would come as no surprise that even those who call themselves abductees may be misinterpreting their experiences as physical.

So if Travis Walton's abduction was not physical, how come the five men he was with saw him get struck by an energy beam from a flying saucer?

Why did they see Walton's "psycho-spiritual" mental contact?

And if it was mental contact and not physical, then where was Walton's physical body for the days he claimed he was aboard an alien ship?

a reply to: Scdfa

So if Travis Walton's abduction was not physical, how come the five men he was with saw him get struck by an energy beam from a flying saucer?

Not sure why you are bringing up the Walton case. Was he interviewed by Mack? The polygraph test that you keep bringing up that 4 of the 5 passed didn't include a question about an energy beam. Only that they saw a UFO and the one guy said it looked like it was some lights a hunter rigged up.

Why did they see Walton's "psycho-spiritual" mental contact?

huh?

And if it was mental contact and not physical, then where was Walton's physical body for the days he claimed he was aboard an alien ship?

On Earth? the case has a lot of holes and if wasn't real, it was a hoax. but we were talking about Mack. What is your take on Mack's views?

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: Scdfa

So if Travis Walton's abduction was not physical, how come the five men he was with saw him get struck by an energy beam from a flying saucer?

Not sure why you are bringing up the Walton case. Was he interviewed by Mack? The polygraph test that you keep bringing up that 4 of the 5 passed didn't include a question about an energy beam. Only that they saw a UFO and the one guy said it looked like it was some lights a hunter rigged up.

Why did they see Walton's "psycho-spiritual" mental contact?

huh?

And if it was mental contact and not physical, then where was Walton's physical body for the days he claimed he was aboard an alien ship?

On Earth? the case has a lot of holes and if wasn't real, it was a hoax. but we were talking about Mack. What is your take on Mack's views?

It should be pretty clear why I brought up the Walton case.

Because abduction cases where there are witnesses involved pretty much negate Mack's theory that abductions are not physical events.

Not to mention the thousands of abductions that involve physical evidence. It's pretty open and shut.

Budd Hopkins did his best to teach John Mack about abductions, but Mack only got it half right. I do like Mack, though. Thanks for asking me my opinion.

a reply to: Scdfa

It should be pretty clear why I brought up the Walton case.

Not really since its an entirely unique "abduction" case and I was inquiring specifically on Mack's views. According to Mack, none of his subjects had any evidence of physical contact. That doesn't mean that it has never occurred, just that his subjects didn't have any evidence of it.

Budd Hopkins did his best to teach John Mack about abductions, but Mack only got it half right. I do like Mack, though .[/quote ] Well, Hopkins being an artist and Mack being a Harvard Psychiatrist.... There is plenty of reason to doubt Hopkins anyway.

The hypothesis that some purported UFO aircraft may actually be experimental aircraft is a valid one, though it can't explain all of the UFO sightings. The biggest problem is that of performance, some of the best UFO cases report solid objects:

1. That can accelerate from 0 to out of sight (1000's mph) in under 1 second
2. That can make sharp stops from 1000's mph to 0 mph and sharp 90 or even 180 turns at 1000's mph without slowing down.
3. They can accelerate faster than the local speed of sound with no sonic boom.

The key word here is "solid" that is the word that really upsets the military and the secret spy agencies.

These 3 characteristics are very difficult if not impossible for our most publicly known modern aircraft to perform, let alone aircraft from the late 40's and early 50's.

Not to mention, how often do experimental aircraft repeatedly fly over the white house, without permission, to the point where the military gives out orders to shoot them down (as the air force did in 1952)? How many experimental aircraft appear in broad daylight in public, often flying dangerously close to passenger aircraft both on the ground and in the air?

Also, there have been reports of these craft landing and most of the time the occupants don't look anything like human test pilots.

I remember that certain governing bodies at Harvard accused John Mack of conducting research that supposedly lacked scientific rigor, I wonder if he was allowed to remain at Harvard if he publicly stated that what he was studying was a purely psychological phenomenon?

As long as the objects are deemed as psychological or immaterial then it is of little concern to the power elite BUT, if the objects are deemed solid or material, then the power elite start to worry.

a reply to: ZetaRediculian

Well, Hopkins being an artist and Mack being a Harvard Psychiatrist.... There is plenty of reason to doubt Hopkins anyway.

In most circumstances I will agree with you, that the opinion of a highly credentialed person might bear more weight than someone less credentialed. But Mack's profession gave him no edge on alien abductions, not after they ruled out mental illness as the root cause.

Rather, for whatever reasons, Hopkins had the advantage.

First; if it wasn't for Budd Hopkins, John Mack would not have researched alien abductions, and we wouldn't even be discussing him.

Second; when Budd Hopkins convinced Mack to investigate abductions, John Mack was convinced that abductees were lying or mentally ill. It took Mack years of research to understand that Budd Hopkins was correct, abductees were telling the truth.

Is that despite Mack's lofty credentials? Or because of them?

Either way, Budd Hopkins was right and Mack was wrong.

In fact, Mack was still wrong until the time of his death, stuck in his psychiatrist dogma, by believing that abductions were a mental phenomenon and not a physical one.

Whereas Budd Hopkins understood abductions to be physical events. He knew it, and I know it, first-hand.

a reply to: deloprator20000

Well said, very insightful. Couldn't agree more, thanks for the post.

a reply to: Scdfa

wasn't for Budd Hopkins, John Mack would not have researched alien abductions, and we wouldn't even be discussing him.

That could be true but Mack made it legitimate.

Second; when Budd Hopkins convinced Mack to investigate abductions, the "brilliant" John Mack was convinced that abductees were lying or mentally ill. It took Mack years of research to understand that Budd Hopkins was correct, abductees were telling the truth.

Any Psychiatrist at the time would have thought that since that would have been the common understanding of the time. There is a long list of things like that. Homosexuality was thought to be a mental illness at one time. With this type of thing, it should take many years of research to understand it. Maybe Hopkins did discover something but his research methods were not very good from what I understand. An amateur bird watcher could discover a new species of bird but not really know how to research it properly.

a reply to: deloprator20000

I remember that certain governing bodies at Harvard accused John Mack of conducting research that supposedly lacked scientific rigor, I wonder if he was allowed to remain at Harvard if he publicly stated that what he was studying was a purely psychological phenomenon?

en.wikipedia.org...
Upon the public revelation of the existence of the committee (inadvertently revealed during the solicitation of witnesses for Mack's defense, ten months into the process), questions arose from the academic community (including Harvard Professor of Law Alan Dershowitz) regarding the validity of an investigation of a tenured professor who was not suspected of ethics violations or professional misconduct. Concluding the fourteen-month investigation, Harvard then issued a statement stating that the Dean had "reaffirmed Dr. Mack's academic freedom to study what he wishes and to state his opinions without impediment," concluding "Dr. Mack remains a member in good standing of the Harvard Faculty of Medicine." (Mack was censured in the committee's report for what they believed were methodological errors, but Dean Tosteson took no action based on the committee's assessment.)

I am not so sure Hopkins or Jacobs would have been able to go through such an inquiry. Jacobs would have been destroyed since there was gross misconduct on his part. Hopkins too.

a reply to: Scdfa

But Mack's profession gave him no edge on alien abductions, not after they ruled out mental illness as the root cause.

Hopkins was an artist and had no idea how to conduct research which is evident. Once you rule out "Mental illness", then there still may be rather normal psychological functioning which seems to be what is commonly thought to be the case now. Though there are plenty of mentally ill people that suffer from delusions, Its really a case by case thing, its just not the exclusive domain of "mental illness" any more.

a reply to: ZetaRediculian

I agree with what you say up until this :

Maybe Hopkins did discover something but his research methods were not very good from what I understand. An amateur bird watcher could discover a new species of bird but not really know how to research it properly.

I disagree, Whatever methods he used, Budd Hopkins yielded a far greater understanding of these aliens and abductions than Mack ever did. As I said, Mack went to his grave believing abductions were not physical, how he could ignore so much evidence is beyond me. It makes no sense. You'd have to go to the length of ignoring even Kenneth Arnold's sighting, to make the case that people are being abducted, but only on a psycho- spiritual level.

Budd Hopkins was right on the money.

a reply to: Scdfa
What do you think of the Strassman study? That's another credentialed psychiatrist that believed his research subjects saw real non physical beings that seem to be identical to what abductees describe. So its something to think about either way