You Have No Idea What Happened (We get many details wrong when recalling past memories)

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Nobody enjoys acknowledging memory troubles, the sorts from which we all suffer. This exercise is specific: it intends to add another level to the credibility gap of the sort I just described above. It invariably places the institutional man above the rest. I don't trust institutional people, none of them. I prefer the feverish and spotty account from my neighbor of some ufo, as something that approaches truth.

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

And buff is demeaning

a reply to: Reddaysun

It invariably places the institutional man above the rest. I don't trust institutional people, none of them.

What do you mean by "institutional man"?

I prefer the feverish and spotty account from my neighbor of some ufo, as something that approaches truth.

I think I would agree.

I believe there is some value in the discussion.

a reply to: ZetaRediculian

Name an institution. Those big slow moving agencies that define and dictate our modern world. Those who work for those institutions simply are not to be believed by me. They are at the service of agencies that, across the board, dismiss ET. Meanwhile, I know ET is here with us. I know then that our institutions are in the business of disinformation. So that full-bird colonel, that Governor from Az., that cop, that doctor, when he stands and pronounces truth, most people swoon in deference. Not me. The higher these men are in their institutions, the lower their credibility is.

originally posted by: Reddaysun
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Nobody enjoys acknowledging memory troubles, the sorts from which we all suffer. This exercise is specific: it intends to add another level to the credibility gap of the sort I just described above. It invariably places the institutional man above the rest. I don't trust institutional people, none of them. I prefer the feverish and spotty account from my neighbor of some ufo, as something that approaches truth.

Well, I don't like being unable to remember something, but it's a part of life. I am not sure to which exercise you refer, or what you mean by the "institutionalized" man. Do you mean people like police, official investigators, etc?

originally posted by: Reddaysun
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

And buff is demeaning

No, it isn't! I am a "buff" of many things. Star Trek, pirate movies, books by certain authors, 80's music, etc. It's sort of like a fan, but without the fanaticism. More an aficionado. Nothing demeaning about it.

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

George Carlin agrees with me. He did a bit where he says "well, he's a conspiracy buff!", with color on the word buff.
While I'm there, I want to give the new definition to an old important word, conspiracy. It now means crazy idea. A conspiracy theorist now means crazy person bent on a crazy idea.

a reply to: Reddaysun

Look it up, you researchers.

originally posted by: Reddaysun
Those who work for those institutions simply are not to be believed by me.

Biased much?

originally posted by: Reddaysun
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

And buff is demeaning

Wish I was buff. Used to be.

a reply to: AdmireTheDistance

Biased much?

Not intentionally. Confirmation bias is a very interesting topic.

In this view, conspiracy belief is not about believing in particular alternative theories, but in disbelieving in whatever the official story is. This tendency has been informally noted by Dean (2002), who described most conspiracy theories as “bits and pieces without a plot… [that] fail to delineate any conspiracy at all. They simply counter conventional narratives with suspicions and allegations that, more often than not, resist coherent emplotment” (p. 92). Likewise, Clarke (2007) observed that conspiracy theories are often extremely vague, particularly in the Internet age.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Combine that with the topic of this thread and what do you get?

a reply to: AdmireTheDistance

Doesn't begin to touch my contempt.

a reply to: Phage

Duly noted.

originally posted by: Aliensun
a reply to: Arbitrageur

I see nothing new in this thread except an effort to paint witness accounts of UFO experiences as faulty at the onset which then allows the denial of any aspect the "investigator" wishes to put forth. I've mentioned frequently of efforts to revise the historical context of UFOs by those that have a duty or need to deny them.

This particular method looks only at individual reports about the phenomena and is quick to cast doubt on the entire event. That is a vulnerable spot, of course, and makes it a likely point of attack if one wishes to use an outside, "scientific" parameter to attack the whole premise of ET UFOs without even touching the physical fact of the matter that something unworldly was apparently witnessed.

So what about the hard evidence of UFOs? Not too conducive to the manipulation of revisionism is it?

Very well said.
The deniers argument is so weak that they resort to claiming that people are just too stupid to remember anything right.

And the ubiquitous video clip of a Harvard professor telling us how faulty memory is. Gee, I wonder if that professor remembered where he parked. I bet he did. I'm sure everyone in the audience managed to find their way home, faulty memory and all.

And when innocent people are found guilty, the reason usually isn't eyewitness memory failure.
It's because they couldn't afford a lawyer expensive enough to get them off.

a reply to: Scdfa

The deniers argument is so weak that they resort to claiming that people are just to stupid to remember anything right.

I have not seem that claim made. Can you provide an example? Memory quirks have nothing to do with intelligence.

And when innocent people are found guilty, the reason usually isn't eyewitness memory failure.
It's because they couldn't afford a lawyer expensive enough to get them off.

So, bad lawyers are cause of bad convictions? Not bad witnesses? Bad witnesses say "He did it. No doubt." Years later DNA says, "No, He didn't." And you blame the lawyer?

a reply to: Arbitrageur

So whats the bottom line here...? There are no aliens visiting us ?

a reply to: Arbitrageur

My memory is that good i can still recall swimming around looking for that damn egg .

originally posted by: MarioOnTheFly
a reply to: Arbitrageur

So whats the bottom line here...? There are no aliens visiting us ?

How can I possibly know? I was thinking it would be cool if there were when I started researching UFOs, and I can't prove there aren't so I have to say "maybe".

Some people say "yes", but many of those people base their opinion on eyewitness accounts. Sadly my research on eyewitness accounts suggests that eyewitness perceptions, including my own, are likely to be flawed in some way, so if that's the basis for someone's belief, it's time to start researching this topic. Of course the research also shows that people won't believe you when you tell them their memories or perceptions are flawed.

It really depends on your standards of evidence. The standards of evidence for extraordinary claims for some people are quite low. If they are low enough, we already have this video of Stephen Greer summoning a spaceship, and the man in the video at 3 minutes says "there's a ship over there". Sounds like he believes there's a ship over there.



I can't prove there's not a ship over there, but I don't consider this good evidence.

The bottom line is, if they are visiting, there's no good evidence that I've found to support this idea. That doesn't mean it's not happening, it just means that to convince more people it's happening, better evidence is needed than what we have so far.

originally posted by: immoralist
a reply to: MystikMushroom
IN the instance of the UFO sighting/missing time my wife and I experienced, our experiences matched up with one another almost exactly upon comparison.

I believe you. People remember just fine, especially events that are important or out of the ordinary, it's an evolutionary trait.
Ask a WWII veteran about one single event seventy years ago, I have. Much of what they say is verifiable, and their recall was surprisingly accurate.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: MarioOnTheFly
a reply to: Arbitrageur

So whats the bottom line here...? There are no aliens visiting us ?

How can I possibly know? I was thinking it would be cool if there were when I started researching UFOs, and I can't prove there aren't so I have to say "maybe".

Some people say "yes", but many of those people base their opinion on eyewitness accounts. Sadly my research on eyewitness accounts suggests that eyewitness perceptions, including my own, are likely to be flawed in some way, so if that's the basis for someone's belief, it's time to start researching this topic. Of course the research also shows that people won't believe you when you tell them their memories or perceptions are flawed.

It really depends on your standards of evidence. The standards of evidence for extraordinary claims for some people are quite low. If they are low enough, we already have this video of Stephen Greer summoning a spaceship, and the man in the video at 3 minutes says "there's a ship over there". Sounds like he believes there's a ship over there.

I can't prove there's not a ship over there, but I don't consider this good evidence.

The bottom line is, if they are visiting, there's no good evidence that I've found to support this idea. That doesn't mean it's not happening, it just means that to convince more people it's happening, better evidence is needed than what we have so far.

Ah yes...the evidence. I presume a photo from your average smartphone while in the process of being abducted by aliens, would suffice.

Entire history of universe is "observed" by us eyewitnesses. Can we than stand to reason by your remarks that it's most likely flawed ?