The skeptics catch 22 when it comes to U.F.O.'s

a reply to: neoholographic

You been out classed by Arbitrageur with reasonable explanation. All your doing is trying to shout Arbitrageur off the page. And belittle the individual. Strange if there is soooo much “evidence”, ufo arguments boil down to he said she said.

Your using the same tactics used by flat earths when the merit of tangible evidence should speak for itself.

I’m serious. Why can’t you just have a simple conversation with a extraterrestrial race. It’s not like if they are real, they are keeping secret. They are supposedly “secretly” observing the earth with large ships that look nothing like human made, and run around with their running lights on. You start looking at what myths concerning UFOs try convey and how they contradict themselves. It actual becomes quite comical.

Like the whole alien earth/moon base thing. Where’d do the poop. What do they do with their poop. What do they do with their individual waste. How do they shield power systems that provide clean atmosphere and water. What did they do with the dirt and rock moved to build a secret base. Where do they get parts and supplies for their facilities, a galactic Grainger?


The whole “well you don’t know, they are like super advanced” argument gets tiring when they only evidence for UFO’s are myths that mike little actual sense, story’s that contradict, arguments come down to he said she said, circumstantial evidence, and hearsay.

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: Arbitrageur

The fact is, you got caught in a lie. This is because you blindly posted a video without looking at it or reading the description. You said Hynek said this about Pascagoula:

"I was never able to substantiate (the story) in any manner I would call a scientific manner... I was completely disbelieving the story, and I still disbelieve it, because it's my nature not to believe unless I have firm evidence."

He didn't.

Here's what Hynek said in your video that you didn't watch.

"I went down to Pascagoula completely negative."

"All of those things convinced me that he wasn't making it up, they have had an experience."

Your link is to a completely unrelated video. Here is the link to the thread which proves that you are lying, not me:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Where you say "He didn't", that is a lie. He did. Listen to the video beginning at 45 seconds.

Also you cherry-picked the quote you presented to try to make it sound like Hynek was confirming they were abducted by aliens, but, if you had shown the full quote instead of cherry-picking, you would see that Hynek does not confirm they were abducted by aliens. Here's the full quote beginning at 2:22 in the video, which is more in context and ends with Hynek not confirming any abduction:

Hynek: "...and finally the lie detector test. All of those things convinced me that he wasn't making it up, they have had an experience."

Interviewer: "But you can't determine whether they actually saw a flying saucer or (were) taken aboard one".

Hynek: "No, I couldn't at all. There's no way I know of in which we could determine that. It's like if you tell me you dreamt of purple peach trees last night. What can I do about it?"

So what do we really have when we see the full quote in context, instead of your cherry-picked biased version? First, we see Hynek could not confirm any abduction, and second, he compares it to a dream.

This is interesting in several respects. First, it's not a fair comparison because there was a drawbridge nearby, where the drawbridge operator could have seen if a spaceship came down to abduct those men and he did not see any such thing, so Hynek's comparison is flawed in that manner. He could ask the drawbridge operator about what he saw, a possible method of confirmation which is not available to a simple claim of a dream.

The second reason it's interesting he compares it to a dream and maybe he was actually considering this, is, that the position of numerous skeptics is that Hynek was right in saying Hickson believed he had a real experience, but that belief was based on a dream that he could not distinguish from reality. The scientific viewpoint is that this is the likely explanation for most if not all claims of alien abductions (with exceptions like the Travis Walton hoax) is that they are probably some kind of hypnogogic state associated with sleep paralysis and it can be a terrifying experience and life-changing experience for many people. So the article I cited is not really arguing with Hynek's assertion that Hickson believed he had a real experience...that's common to alien abduction stories in general, where real people believe they had real experiences of being abducted by aliens, but there are scientific explanations for those experiences other than alien abduction.

Regarding the lie-detector test, skeptics claimed the examiner wasn't qualified and the examination had problems and lined up a qualified examiner. Hickson refused to take the lie detector test by a qualified examiner. Hynek doesn't mention that.

Here is a researcher from Harvard named Susan Clancy who spent 6 years researching alien abduction claims, and I'm sure she would find Hynek's comment that he believed that Hickson believed he had a real experience quite understandable and plausible, but, that doesn't mean it happened, nor does it mean the millions(?) of other alien abduction claims actually happened.

Abducted: How People Come to Believe They Were Kidnapped by Aliens


In summary she says most people believe their own alien abduction claims, but that doesn't mean they happened, and she explains how they come to have beliefs that the experiences were real, even though they were hypnogogic-based experiences.

Clancy applies critical thinking to standards of evidence, where we commonly hear things like "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". Here is what she says about that in the video, to lament the lack of objective evidence in alien abduction claims:

41:50
"How do we know the moon is round?"
We don't know that based on what other people tell us, we have objective evidence like photos and eclipse shadows.
...
42:40
"There's a lot of anecdotal reports, a lot of suspicion, rumor, hearsay. But none of that counts as the kind of objective evidence that you would want to support such an exceptional claim (as alien abduction). Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

As for Parker, who was with Hickson, he told the police he was unconscious during the experience. The other man, Hickson was old enough to be his father so if Hickson was telling Parker "you and I were abducted by aliens", then Parker didn't have to experience anything himself except to wake up and hear Hickson telling him that, and if he believed Hickson (which apparently he did) that could be traumatic for him. Susan Clancy, while saying the abudction experiences people dreamt of didn't actually happen, said they can nonetheless be quite terrifying and life-changing, though sometimes life-changing in a positive way.

If you are interested in further skeptical discussion of the abduction claims like Barney and Betty Hill, and the Pascagoula case, there is an interesting interview here with Robert Sheaffer where those subjects are discussed:

We Tell the Truth About Betty Hill & Other UFOOLOGY Myths with Robert Shaeffer
www.youtube.com...

The co-host of that show, Kal Korff, has an interesting background. He actually worked personally with Betty Hill, and Stan Freidman, and started writing about UFOs when he was still a teenager. He started out believing Betty Hill's story completely, but he just wanted to know the truth and started seeing the holes in her story, and started seing the merits of Robert Sheaffer's views in spite of his friend Stan Freidman saying bad things about Robert Sheaffer. Kal just wanted the truth, and applied critical thinking to evaluate various claims.

a reply to: Arbitrageur
Nobody is glad that they are abducted.Even she is trying to sound reasonable, she is full of it.Maybe she isn't aware, that many people's memories are earased, that they are put in different states,all weird stuff they come through.And now she says,they made up story.Because of hypnosis.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

This post proves my point. You throw out any reason and logic to accept your biased opinion.

Look at what Hynek was asked:

Hynek: "...and finally the lie detector test. All of those things convinced me that he wasn't making it up, they have had an experience."

Interviewer: "But you can't determine whether they actually saw a flying saucer or (were) taken aboard one".

Hynek: "No, I couldn't at all. There's no way I know of in which we could determine that. It's like if you tell me you dreamt of purple peach trees last night. What can I do about it?"

This is just basic common sense!

I said this in the other post that shows how consistent I have been and how illogical your position still is.

This is also why we have expert witnesses because it can bolster the account of the evidence and the eyewitnesses if there are any. So this is a very strong case and I would say A, they experienced something unique and B, it was extraterrestrial visitation. I'm 100% convinced of A and about 95% convinced of B. There's no other explanation that makes sense outside of post singularity visitation.

Look at what I said. I'm 100% convinced they experienced what they said they experienced. EXACTLY THE SAME AS HYNEK!

Now Hynek couldn't determine that it happened to them because he wasn't there but you can weigh the evidence and reach the conclusion that they experienced what they say they experienced. At this point you have to then say, what's the most likely explanation of what they experienced.

You really are pseudoskeptic number 1. You have to reduce everyone to liars, idiots or being incompetent. This shows how insecure you are in your position.

You're quick to believe an unnamed drawbridge operator didn't see anything. This operater was mentioned by an admitted skeptic. There's no name to this person. Were they really there? What were they doing? Who were they with?

You have ZERO curiosity or questions about this. We know the names of Parker, Hickson, Hynek, the Sheriff and all of the people who said they were credidle.

You also have eyewitness around the same time who saw something similar.

Others in town saw weird things around that same time.

Capt. Ryder said there were three sightings of an unexplained flash of light reported the night it happened, but he did not include those in the official police report.

Ryder said he later learned there had been sightings of unexplained lights all along the Coast in the nights before Hickson and Parker.

The Sun Herald found a retired professional from a local industry, who described in detail something she still can’t explain under the condition that she remain anonymous.

It was before Christmas 1973, about two months after Hickson and Parker.

She was standing outside her car at a gas station near Market Street and Ingalls Avenue in Pascagoula, when she and others saw a flaming object fly along the river.

“I was putting gas in my car and there were two or three others out of their cars. It was about 8 p.m., good and dark.

“For some reason, I was facing north and what I saw was on my left. We all looked … I don’t always remember things, but boy, I remember this.

“It started out up-river, at about the (U.S. 90) bridge and it came down to the beach, always over the river.”

She said it was just above the tree line and disappeared when it reached the beach. It lasted 3-4 seconds. But in that time, the object traveled more than a mile.

It flew over the spot where Hickson and Parker said they were abducted.

The image is so vivid that 45 years later, she can draw it — the shape of a hat with a stubby brim. It had flames all over it moving clockwise, not like a reentry trail. The object moved parallel to the river.

“We just looked at each other, put our eyes down and kept doing what we were doing,” she said. “We were all embarrassed for some reason.

“And to this day, I think why would we be embarrassed?” she said. “It was like somebody walked up and flashed you, and you’re like, ‘No, we didn’t see that.’”

account.sunherald.com...

Again, this is your problem. You will use a report by a skeptic of some unnamed drawbridge operator to discount all of the positive evidence in this case which is overwhelming.

Like I said, it must have hit a sore spot with you when your argument was destroyed years ago, because I can't post in this thread without you bringing this up LOL. Here's a video of Hynek talking about this incident.



Here's a video about the incident:



Yes, Parker said he passed out after he saw the ship but later he said he did that because he didn't want any part of the story and he didn't want to be known as the kook who was taken onto the spaceship.

Does this fit the evidence? Yes. Does this discount their experience in any way? No.

Listen to Parker in the interrogation room. The Sheriff's tried to catch them in a lie. So they recorded Parker and Hickson when they left the room. Here's what they said:

Then he and Diamond plotted to find out the truth. "We kept a tape recorder in the top drawer of the desk," Ryder says. "It was a small office, so it would pick up everything said in there. We let them go to the bathroom and decided to turn the recorder on, then leave them alone for a while.

"We did that, and when we listened to the tape later, we expected to hear them saying, 'Boy, we sure fooled them' or something like that."

But they didn't. Here is the transcript from the hidden recorder.

Parker: "I got to get home and get to bed or get some nerve pills or see the doctor or something. I can't stand it. I'm about to go half crazy."

Hickson: "I tell you, when we're through, I'll get you something to settle you down so you can get some damn sleep."

Parker: "I can't sleep yet like it is. I'm just damn near crazy."

Hickson: "Calvin, when they brought you out - when they brought me out of that thing - (expletive) I like to never in hell got you straightened out."

Parker: "My damn arms, my arms. I remember they just froze up and I couldn't move. Just like I stepped on a damn rattlesnake."

Hickson: "They didn't do me that way."

Parker: "I passed out. I expect I never passed out in my whole life."

Hickson: "I've never seen nothing like that before in my life. You can't make people believe ..."

Parker: "I don't want to keep sitting here. I want to see a doctor."

Hickson: "They better wake up and start believing."

Parker: "You see how that damn door come right up?"

Hickson: "I don't know how it opened, son. I don't know."

Parker: "I just laid up, and just like that, those (expletive) come out."

account.sunherald.com...

Parker said, he told Hickson that he would tell them he passed out because he wanted no part of the story. He said he didn't want to be known as the guy who was taken on a spaceship.

Parker is the one that convinced everyone around them to believe them.

Did Parker's actions match what he was saying?

He vanished with his wife.

He tried to get another job but they kept hounding him

He had a nervous breakdown

He wanted to see Doctors after the event

He didn't do interviews or make money off the event and at the time the event was so popular, he could have been a millionaire. CONT'D

Also, if Parker passed out, how did he see the door opening and the beings they saw?

Parker: "You see how that damn door come right up?"

Parker: "I just laid up, and just like that, those (expletive) come out."

How did he see any of this if he was passed out?

Parker wanted no part of the story. He wanted to go away with his wife and that's exactly what he did for 40+ years when he could have made millions from the lie.

There's a lot more on the thread. I've found documents and more recordings that back up what they're saying. You can check out the thread here.

A new analysis of the Pascagoula abduction
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I don't want to turn this thread into the Pascagoula thread because Arbitrageur is still butthurt because his argument was decimated and he can't refute the case just by yelling everyone's a liar.

He now posts a video of some woman that has nothing to do with the experience of thos who were abducted but she claims all of them are lying and just made it up or they're delusional.

This is why Arbitrageur is a perfect example of a pseudoskeptic.

I have never debated anyone that has to turn every U.F.O. witness into a liar, idiot or an incompetent. Think of how illogical this is. Nobody that experiences these things can be intelligent, well meaning people that you just disagree with. Everyone has to be reduced to liars, idiots, delusional or incompetent because you can't refute the evidence!

This is pseudoskeptic exhibit A.

I don't want to turn this thread into a thread about Pascagoula because Arbitrageur is upset that he lost a debate years ago. Let's debate the thread and if you want to debate Pascagoula comment on the old thread and bring it up again. IT'S AN EXCELLENT THREAD!

a reply to: neoholographic

Serious question. If alien abductions are really being performed by extraterrestrials. Based on what is recorded, what should be done moving forward. With all the home security systems, doorbell cameras, traffic cameras, neighborhood watches, night security, amateur astronomers that find and locate secret spy satellites (that’s really a hobby), amateur astronomers wanting to find that discovery that makes a name for themselves. What should be done, and what can be done.

One of my favorite tidbits from history.

Kettering cosmos: How school children exposed Soviet secret

www.bbc.com...

People are actively questioning and looking. And hoping for first contact. But short on actual evidence of ET on earth.

a reply to: neoholographic

And that’s another of one your “personal catch 22’s”. Ignoring the army of technological armed amateur astronomers wanting and hoping for first contact. Individuals short on actual evidence of extraterrestrial visitation despite their vigilance with an on going search for an extraterrestrial race.

You act like your the only one. That’s not true. Based on written myth that is a real disconnect from a physical search.

originally posted by: Whoarewe
a reply to: Arbitrageur
Nobody is glad that they are abducted.Even she is trying to sound reasonable, she is full of it.Maybe she isn't aware, that many people's memories are earased, that they are put in different states,all weird stuff they come through.And now she says,they made up story.Because of hypnosis.

Great points!

This is their logic!

Everybody but them has to be a liar, idiot, incompetent or delusional.

That's not skepticism that's Pseudoskepticism.

en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: Whoarewe
Susan Clancy says hypnosis can create false memories. That's not the same as making it up, but it can be related to someone recalling a dream they had, then getting involved in hypnosis which might lead them to believe that what happened in the dream was a real experience.

Clancy spent 6 years researching alien abductions, so I think she's aware of more claims than most people in that field. Before that, she researched other aspects of false memories which were created during hypnosis. She is not saying they were "made up" out of thin air. People may believe they really happened but they are recalling things from hynogogic states according to her research.

In any case, she realizes some people have more or less religious beliefs on this subject and that she isn't going to convince everybody. But in the spirit of this thread which is about how to interpret evidence, there is never any real evidence of alien abductions which meets the "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" hurtle.

Now, if the drawbridge operator in Pascagoula near the men who talked about alien abduction had seen a craft fly down, land, and abduct the two men, then their story would be more interesting. In today's world with security cams everywhere, such events might be captured on cams but they never are. That's the kind of evidence we would need to even begin a conversation about alien abductions really happening from a scientific skepticism perspective, and even then, we would still be left with the question of whether the craft was terrestrial or extraterrestrial. Even more convincing evidence would be required to make that distinction.

a reply to: neoholographic

I used to be afraid of the bogeyman, then found out humans are the real monsters.

Shrugs.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

We Tell the Truth About Betty Hill & Other UFOOLOGY Myths with Robert Shaeffer
www.youtube.com...

The truth of all these cases need to be out there and heard. It's unfortunate that evidence showing why these stories were wrong turn people that have bought into them angry and defensive as evident with this thead.

As a child, I bought into The Hill case through watching a repeat of The Interrupted Journey etc. At the time there was no opposable view freely available. As I got older, my mind was open to looking for maybe something different in that story and it was there, but only after looking.

Fantastical UFO/alien stories is what sells in books, magazine articles, TV programs, movies, and on the internet today. The medias driving force is money. I no longer have the moldable mind of a child and think independently. I think that's the way the subject should be approached now.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

You said:

Now, if the drawbridge operator in Pascagoula near the men who talked about alien abduction had seen a craft fly down, land, and abduct the two men, then their story would be more interesting.

What's the drawbridge operators name?

Where's the drawbridge operarors interview?

Where did we hear about the drawbridge operator?

So in the mind of a pseuodoskeptic, we should discount all information gathered in the case because of what an unnamed drawbridge operator said that was talked about by a skeptic that wanted to debunk the case.

Let me repeat that:

So in the mind of a pseuodoskeptic, we should discount all information gathered in the case because of what an unnamed drawbridge operator said that was talked about by a skeptic that wanted to debunk the case.


So according to pseudoskeptic logic.

We should discount Hynek

We should discount Parker and Hickson

We should discount the Doctors

We should discount the other eyewitnesses who saw something similar

We should discount the Sheriffs

We should discount all of the evidence because of some unnamed drawbridge operator that nobody knows that was mentioned by Joe Eszterhas who wanted to debunk the case.

You're so upset that you lost a debate years ago and you can't refute the case you still bring it up when I post on the thread LOL. How insecure is that???

a reply to: neutronflux

The thing that I HATE about the 'pseudoskeptic' term and argument
(which seems to be used by only one ATS member), is that it covers
over the actual issue with smoke and mirrors.

I've observed this with ATS members, and to be excruciatingly honest,
I have to work hard not to fall prey to this 'syndrome' as well.

It's a result of someone having done extensive research in a narrow area
or at least hypnotizing themselves with extensive bull# in one narrow
area, so that they can blather-attack everyone with it, and, when people
don't agree with thier personality-based attack, then suddenly they are
the true 'skeptic' (researcher), while the mere act of not agreeing with
them makes the other person a 'pseudoskeptic'. (one who only FAKES
being open-minded, as if they don't agree wtih the person obsessing
about something with their entire personality, then they are CLEARLY
wrong).

Let me give you some examples:

1) When I was in my 'plasma phase' I drove everyone crazy.
Now.. plasma and UFOs are joined at the hip, but 'UFOs' are a complex issue..
there's ohter things to say.

2) We have our buddy in this thread, who wants to talk about a rock photo
that nobody on earth but him agrees shows an alien, and all this about a
'plasma envelope star drive' and a commander of this star empire.

Now, thankfully, there's not the dishonest/distorted use of the term 'pseudoskeptic'
in this case.

3) Some people KNOW it in their bones, that there's this breakaway civilization,
and no amount of reason or logic will convince them, that some guy who lives in
his mommas basement and made vast, unsupportable claims about dream harvesting
ships and what not has no basis for any of his claims whatsoever. Now, he did say
"look here at this time and you will see that" .. and it appeared to work. This is no
big deal at all.. it means nothing.

So.. it's like a psycholological disorder... in fact Kit Green wrote about it... where someone
can be 99% rational, but in that 1% remained absolutely bat-# crazy and combative..

claiming that everyone else is some fake skeptic and only they have the truth.

It's a good character model in demonstrtion, that is very valuable, so we can all of us
not fall into that cognitive trap.

I think I'm the only person in this thread who had a CE5 experience, investigated by
MUFON, investigated by JV, and I could easily look down my nose at everyone else
as a 'pseudoskeptic'.

But i've learned so much from Arby, MM, Mick West, and even my old buddy who
has an AI fairy girlfirnd in his garden.. I'd be a fool to look down at my nose at
anyone, but I would recommend that playing nice with others and getting off
one's high throne of certainty would help us all.

And yes... extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

Funny how all those UFOs always have their flood light / running lights blazing when secretly abducting people? But they don’t seem to be captured and documented by astronomers…. Looking for signs of an extraterrestrial race….

a reply to: neutronflux

I've studied this very point quite thoroughly.

The black triangle I encountered had blazing white and red lights
and flew low over the free way in a town of 70,000.

You know what?

I was the ONLY person who saw it, that reported it at any rate.
I'd wager others saw it, but were too embarassed to report it..
but i do not have that information.

This is why Jacques calls these sort of events 'stage productions'.

Now we know that the CIA did some literal stage productions...
perhaps even at RFI.

But there seems to be something else doing stage productions
too...

It's a long topic.

But yes, good point.

originally posted by: KellyPrettyBear


Let me give you some examples:



2) We have our buddy in this thread, who wants to talk about a rock photo
that nobody on earth but him agrees shows an alien, and all this about a
'plasma envelope star drive' and a commander of this star empire.



And yes... extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

You're talkin' bout me...right?

a reply to: Ectoplasm8

You said:

I no longer have the moldable mind of a child and think independently. I think that's the way the subject should be approached now.

Again, pseudoskepitics logic.

So anyone that disagree's with you and looks at the evidence differently than you has:

the moldable mind of a child

Only you and people that think as you do can think independently.

I don't see how anyone can't see how illogical this is and it proves my point.

If you can't accept that other intelligent, well meaning people just think differently than you and they don't have to have the moldable mind of a child, then you're a pseudoskeptic!

a reply to: Erno86

It's against ATS terms and condition to talk about
people, not issues, that's why when there is no
choice but to discuss people, names are left out
and general statements are made.

In any case, let's say that I was talking about you.

I have no desire to be mean, or misrepresent anything.

My post was simply about how people (myself included)
can get 'stuck' on a theory, that perhaps nobody else
finds popular, and then harp on it.

Kev

originally posted by: KellyPrettyBear
a reply to: Erno86

It's against ATS terms and condition to talk about
people, not issues, that's why when there is no
choice but to discuss people, names are left out
and general statements are made.

In any case, let's say that I was talking about you.

I have no desire to be mean, or misrepresent anything.

My post was simply about how people (myself included)
can get 'stuck' on a theory, that perhaps nobody else
finds popular, and then harp on it.

Kev

I'm not specifically saying that you were talkin' bout me, per se. I'm talkin' bout my purported ET alien photo...that some people label as a "rock", even though they were never there when I took the picture.

So...ever since my foo fighter sighting in 76...I've been deeply involved in the possibility of ET starships, that are encased in a magnetically contained fusion plasma shield.

And yes...those purported beings that are possibly the crew of such starships...are my leaders.



Erno