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

a reply to: Logarock

do any of those cases you have, mention whether the abductee's have any physical or mental disability's ? I think you may have misunderstood my reply to brother

are you aware of any reports where the Abductee has a mental or physical disability ?

funbox

originally posted by: Logarock
a reply to: Arbitrageur


"You have no idea what happened"......going back to the original statement.... sounds a lot stronger than the idea that folks may have detail problems over time.

Absolutely. Such bombastic exaggeration.
It's misleading at best.
Most importantly, it has nothing at all to say about alien contact or a person's ability to accurately describe a vehicle's appearance or performance characteristics.

It seems that some would have us believe that we can't even be sure who won the battle of the bulge.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Yes, many people around here think witnesses are unreliable. Not just a little unreliable, but extremely unreliable. We get it.

Let's let James McDonald insert some common sense back in here....

"A frequent objection to serious consideration of UFO reports, made by skeptics who have done no first-hand case investigations, is based on the widely discrepant accounts known to be presented by trial-witnesses who have all been present at some incident. To be sure, the same kind of discrepancies emerge in multiple-witness UFO incidents. People differ as to directions, relative times, sizes, etc. But I believe it is not unfair to remark, as the basic rebuttal to this attack on UFO accounts, that a group of witnesses who see a street-corner automobile collision do not come to court and proceed, in turn, to describe the event as a rhinoceros ramming a baby carriage, or as an airplane exploding on impact with a nearby building. There are, it needs to be soberly remembered, quite reasonable bounds upon the variance of witness testimonies in such cases. Thus, when one finds a half-dozen persons all saying that they were a few hundred feet from a domed disk with no resemblance to any known aircraft, that it took off without a sound, and was gone from sight in five seconds, the almost inevitable variations in descriptions of distances, shape, secondary features, noises, and times cannot be allowed to discount, per se, the basically significant nature of their collective account.

I have talked with a few scientists, especially some psychologists, whose puristic insistence on the miserable observing equipment with which the human species is cursed almost makes me wonder how they dare cross a busy traffic intersection. Some balance in evaluating witness perceptual limitations is surely called for in all of these situations. With that balance must go a healthy skepticism as to most of the finer details, unless agreed upon by several independent witnesses. There is no blinking that anecdotal data are less than ideal; but sometimes you have to go with what you've got. To make a beginning at UFO study has required scrutiny of such anecdotal data; the urgent need is to get on to something much better."
(Statement by Dr. James E. McDonald, Symposium on UFOs, U.S. House of Representatives, July 29, 1968.)

And here we are, 50 years later, with a whole new generation of fearful people arguing that there is STILL NO NEED to "get on to something much better" with our study of UFOs.

a reply to: TeaAndStrumpets

And here we are, 50 years later, with a whole new generation of fearful people arguing that there is STILL NO NEED to "get on to something much better" with our study of UFOs.

Got any suggestions on what that "much better" would entail? What have we got other than anecdotes?

originally posted by: Phage
Got any suggestions on what that "much better" would entail? What have we got other than anecdotes?

Do you have some objection to letting scientists take a serious and unbiased look at the topic this time? That's what he's talking about. Or do you think that has already happened?

a reply to: TeaAndStrumpets

Do you have some objection to letting scientists take a serious and unbiased look at the topic this time?

Not at all. But what would you like them to look at? Anecdotal evidence? That does not really lend itself to scientific scrutiny. That was McDonald's point.

To make a beginning at UFO study has required scrutiny of such anecdotal data; the urgent need is to get on to something much better."

Anecdotal evidence doesn't cut it. To enter the realm of science there needs to be something more.

originally posted by: TeaAndStrumpets
And here we are, 50 years later, with a whole new generation of fearful people arguing that there is STILL NO NEED to "get on to something much better" with our study of UFOs.

Who is arguing that? Certainly not me. If anything I agree with McDonald that something better than anecdotes is needed, which is one of the points of this thread, to point out one of many reasons why that is so.

If there isn't anything better for the scientists to look at than anecdotes, they aren't going to be able to do anything scientific with anecdotes.

originally posted by: Phage
Not at all. What would you like them to look at? Anecdotal evidence? That does not really lend itself to scientific scrutiny. That was his point.... Anecdotal evidence doesn't cut it. To enter the realm of science there needs to be something more.

Did you truly read his quote, or was that just a knee-jerk reaction/response by you? Because your interpretation of "his point" doesn't make sense. Or do you actually believe that James McDonald was basically saying "oh well folks, all done with UFOs then, since all we have is anecdotal evidence...."

I realize that you think there's nothing more than anecdotal evidence to UFOs. I disagree with you. So this could all go two ways. Option 1 is the ATS house special: I mention radar data as being non-anecdotal, and then you mention anomalous propagation... I mention ground trace cases, and then you mention how those still rely on witness testimony, which you think is unreliable, then round and round we go.

But how about Option 2, instead? Option 2 is where we just agree to let the people much smarter and more scientifically competent than either of us -- the actual SCIENTISTS -- decide how THEY would like to examine the topic, and decide what THEY would consider to be anecdotal vs. non-anecdotal evidence? Would that be okay with you? A thorough and objective "once through", free of the ridicule and stigma that have so obviously plagued prior studies? Or do you presume to speak for all of the scientists?

It's obvious that many of the skeptics around here are very uncomfortable with the idea of the topic actually getting a fair and objective shake by science. To me, that says something about the true source of some of this extreme skepticism. It's not superior logic, nor a better sense for evidence that's fueling it. The extreme skepticism is just FEAR. Fear of being wrong, fear of being right (down deep) even, fear of the paradigm shift, whatever... but the smell of skeptics' fear around this place is absolutely unmistakable.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
If anything I agree with McDonald that something better than anecdotes is needed, which is one of the points of this thread, to point out one of many reasons why that is so.... If there isn't anything better for the scientists to look at than anecdotes, they aren't going to be able to do anything scientific with anecdotes.

So you and Phage are both saying that James McDonald thinks, and was conceding, that there's nothing more to UFOs than anecdotal evidence?

Wow!!! You two don't even feel those skeptics' blinders on your noses, do you?!? And are you both really that unfamiliar with UFO history?

a reply to: TeaAndStrumpets

Did you truly read his quote,

Yes, I did. Did you?

The extreme skepticism is just FEAR.

I tend to avoid extremes. Particularly when it comes to belief.

So you and Phage are both saying that James McDonald thinks, and was conceding, that there's nothing more to UFOs than anecdotal evidence?

No. He said that there is nothing but anecdotal evidence concerning UFOs. He said that something more is necessary if the investigation of UFOs is to be carried out on a scientific basis.

Over and over again, I see skeptics pin claims of false memories, temporal lobe issues, self-delusion, a desperate need to believe, etc on people who have experienced something paranormal. And sometimes those ideas make sense. Not arguing that.

But its sorta like describing a ufo experience and then immediately being told "well, were you doing drugs at the time." Its usually not a question, but a statement directed at a world that's outside their own. Its a neat tidy way to excuse, well, just about anything without paying any attention... 

For those of us who have witnessed the impossible with family/friends/strangers standing by our sides, this kind of thinking is frustrating. Its all aimed at undermining an individual; question their sanity, question their credibility, question their perception. It doesnt address the huge number of times a paranormal event has had numerous witnesses. 

It seems like a very unproductive way to go about figuring anything out. Doesnt it? You dont have to believe one way or the other in order to talk about something. Why undermine the voice? Or, in the many ufo cases with multiple witnesses, voices?

Dont get me wrong, im definitely not arguing that memory cant be faulty, and i know anecdotes arent proof of anything, and some people do deal with schizophrenic issues, and some people are flat-out liars, but most skeptics (and im talking outside of ATS here) direct their criticism at the individual reporting their experience rather than considering the experience itself. Heck, Streibers life has become one bad butt probe joke over and over. 

That said, i actually love the mix of voices on ATS on this subject. At least the skeptics here engage the subject... 

The source being 'New Yorker' and the research itself like a zillion other researches does not make it absolutely right. This is such a relative statement and depends on the person - what is the character like? Are they known to exaggerate stories? Do they have too much imagination? Do they try to stand objective.

Being biased and adding up to the story because you barely remember it so, then starting to believe it yourself is a possibility but I doubt the cases where people's memories are not telling them enough is the case with many people.

So if a person is known to present as facts things that he is uncertain about, instead of saying 'I am not sure' is his own decision.. If the research is saying that people mass tell things that didn't happen because of 'bad memory' - okay apply this to old people who lose the touch, but you can't label just everybody like that. If people are objective and said what they saw, then it is, if they made it, they made up.

This is not serious - to say that people made up the abductions because of some emotion state... if they have mental problems thats another story.

a reply to: TeaAndStrumpets
I'm not sure where the misinterpretation is happening.

There is no blinking that anecdotal data are less than ideal; but sometimes you have to go with what you've got.

He is saying:
Anecdotal evidence is not ideal but that's all there is.

To make a beginning at UFO study has required scrutiny of such anecdotal data;

but anecdotal data is good enough to start.

the urgent need is to get on to something much better."
(Statement by Dr. James E. McDonald

But we need something better than anecdotal data.

I liked some of his other comments too about having a balanced view. He was ahead of his time in my opinion.

originally posted by: TeaAndStrumpets
So you and Phage are both saying that James McDonald thinks, and was conceding, that there's nothing more to UFOs than anecdotal evidence?

We have more than anecdotal evidence. We have for example the photos of the McMinnville UFO, which looks suspiciously like a canning pot lid. It also doesn't help the case that there happens to be an overhead wire where the object appears, and pictures of a ladder such as one might use to hang the canning pot lid from the overhead wire. A scientist (Bruce Maccabee) did analyze those photos and determined that it was unlikely they were close by objects hung from the wire, but he did list some exceptions to his analysis on how a photo could give the illusion of the object being further away. If it is an alien spaceship, I must say their space ship bears a remarkable resemblance to our canning pot lids.

You said you thought the Iran case was interesting. We don't have a photo or video, but we do have reports of alleged "electromagnetic interference" and "radar lock" After I found out that the maintenance on those aircraft was awful and they were having problems even when there were no UFOs around, that part of the case seemed a little less mysterious, I found it harder to put a lot of weight on things that may have more to do with aircraft problems than with any UFO:

The Tehran 1976 UFO

The McDonnell Douglas tech at Shahrokhi noted that the second F-4 had a long history of intermittent electrical outages that the IIAF had never been able to fix. He was personally called in to adjust that F-4's radar about a month after the event. Both techs stated that the Shahrokhi base was notorious for low quality work and poor record keeping.

So we have reason to expect that Jafari's F-4 would have had electrical problems regardless of whether he was under attack by a UFO or not, and we have conflicting stories about whether Nazeri's F-4 had any problems at all or not...

Fourth is the compelling radar lock obtained by Jafari's backseat weapons officer. Surely there had to be something up there. Maybe there was; most of what these pilots did was to intercept enemy MiG-25 fighters on surveillance missions, whether Jupiter was in the sky or not. But there were also two other possibilities. Note that Jafari's radar was known to be defective, or at least in need of adjustment. The same McDonnell Douglas supervisor noted that the weapons officer "could have been in manual track or something like that and not really realized it." Whichever of the three possibilities was true, it's not necessarily a fact that a radar lock meant something was there. Maybe there was; maybe there wasn't.

I must say I found that case far more interesting before I found out the aircraft had a history of electrical problems even when there were no UFOs around. What's really needed is better evidence of the actual UFO itself, like a photograph perhaps, and not ancillary claims like problems with electrical systems in the aircraft which may have nothing to do with the UFO. I still think it's one of the more interesting cases, even if they were chasing Jupiter as some people claim, that in itself would be noteworthy. But with no photos, we will never know, and the case is still almost completely anecdotal. There are documents but they are more or less records of the anecdotes. When I asked you for your most convincing case and that's one you mentioned in response, it's mostly anecdotal. What real, hard evidence do we have other than anecdotes? The transponder from a C-141? That's about it, and it hardly supports the ETH.

originally posted by: Reddaysun
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.

Assigning new "definitions" to claim something is offensive is weak. The term simply means someone who likes something, and knows a but about it. The real issue is that too many people are far too sensitive!

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian

originally posted by: funbox
a reply to: ZetaRediculian

yes yes Brother , but my continued search for any abductees reports from the blind is turning up nothing so far , have also extended it to the handicapped and the disabled, nothing as of yet. do you know of any reports from these people ?

would they even make them , or is this evidence of exclusion?

funbox

There is no reason to exclude such people. I think you are on to something.

you think so ? or is this just a statistical blip , ide imagine the disabled or the mentally handicapped are capable of at least making up a story, an abduction account , yet im still having difficulty finding one

I vaguely remember reading about a case where the abductee had a prosthetic arm, but time has faded that memory , snippets of the story resurface , something about the aliens taking interest in the prosthetic , maybe someone reading knows of which case this is , but asides from this ghost of a memory , I've drawn a blank , no blind abducted , physically disabled, mentally handicapped nothing..

its almost like those working at the animal testing labs
"sorry those bunnies will have to go back in the boiler, no good for these tests , we're trying to find out if this compound sends you blind, and you bring me blind bunnies! ?"

doesn't bode well for us, if this kind of discrimination is taking place

funbox

a reply to: funbox

you think so ? or is this just a statistical blip , ide imagine the disabled or the mentally handicapped are capable of at least making up a story, an abduction account , yet im still having difficulty finding one

Nah, you make good points here and there. Either aliens exclude them or the psychology does. Obviously the aliens would want prime specimens but psychology should not be limited to handicaps. My understanding of the "abduction phenomenon" is that it occurs in people without any mental health issues. Nothing stating that it excludes any certain population. Perhaps the only accounts that are accepted are from the normal healthy population, otherwise, they might be too easy to dismiss? I dun no...

a reply to: ZetaRediculian

it is unusual , but lets ascribe one of our favourite theories , sleep paralysis.. now , im no expert but im pretty sure the disabled, and the blind would still suffer from these ailments , yet there seems to be a hole in the data

pardon ?

how about the deaf you say ?

you'll have to speak up , this spaceship is quite some light years away

a bit of a conundrum me thinks

funbox

Emotional events are not dismissable by the possible 'unreliability' of memory.

I have an almost photographic memory of some events, even from my early childhood, I can recall and see details like the texture of a wall, often events of memory to me look like a photographic image, but live, like a video.

Just because you cannot recall your dinner last Monday doesn't mean you didn't eat that dinner.

Additionally, abduction experiences often involve missing time and memory loss during that time, it is a known phenomenon, there are plenty of credible reports. Perhaps there is something that has the ability for manipulating time, space and memory that you or current scientific comprehension isn't aware of yet.

The facts are, things have happened that are beyond he normal sphere of reality, either the stuff of dimensions or dimensional beings with powers beyond human capabilities. My own experiences are something I rarely even mention these days due to the attitudes of some. I don't need to talk about it, it isn't for attention but when there are others experiencing similar things, it is good to know. The human brain tries making sense of things, it is natural to look for validation.

a reply to: theabsolutetruth

like the videographer in the editing suite, snipping pieces out , filling in, a few cheesy crossfades to Owls , then off to the proofer, and censors, yet

as you say its the emotions generated that cement long lasting memory's, maybe the abductors never figured out how to replace this part of the experience properly, something human that they could not interfere with or completely wash out from the abductee

but then is there always a disconcerting feeling reported after an abduction event has taken place?

have you ever heard of an abduction case involving the blind , deaf or disabled ?

funbox