Thoughts about people claiming alien contact

There are too many contact and abduction reports for them all to be false or all to be sleep paralysis. That's ridiculous. There are, in fact, so many that they can't all be lumped into any one category. Some are mental illness, dreams, combinations of animals and aircraft as one wakes up etc...but there are a large percent that are just unexplainable...something is going on.

On a related note. I was reading some Bud Hopkins and Whitley Strieber stuff the other day and there was mentions of false memories implanted by ETs to help hide the fact or mask the fact that these people were abducted. They had dreams of animals. That's a simplified explaination, but ...I then remembered that I had a very vivid dream when I was younger...I woke up very frightened and was insistant that there was a mouse or rat in my bedroom. We had guests and everyone tore apart my bedroom looking for this supposed rodent in an effort to calm me down. Nothing was found. However, the next morning I had no recollection of this...20-45 minute incident. Perhaps....

reply to post by g2v12

As for the so-called disbelievers, I find it disingenuous that real disbelievers would waste a moment their precious sensibilities trying to convince forum Trekkies of their presumed delusions. Rather, I see them (disbelievers) as vocal discontents, struggling to come to terms with their fear of extraterrestrials.

Why? Because it is illogical to refute anything that is false.

That's an interesting comment but I disagree. While a disbeliever in alien abduction, I am devout believer that what we are looking at here is something very hallucinatory in nature but as of yet, not well understood by current knowledge. I don't presume to know what drives other disbelievers, but I find the topic endlessly fascinating.

I'm not sure what would be more frightening, real extraterrestrials or knowing its possible to hallucinate a full on extraterrestrial experience. Perhaps it is more comforting to think these experiences were "real" in the sense that they were not hallucinations. given all the negative connotations and misconceptions associated with hallucinations, perhaps it would more unnerving to learn that this type of thing is more common then we really know. Here are the choices for an "experiencer"; becoming a part of alien folklore or a lifetime of wondering if they are mentally ill. And no, I do not think this is a phenomenon of the mentally ill.

reply to post by amazing

There are too many contact and abduction reports for them all to be false or all to be sleep paralysis. That's ridiculous. There are, in fact, so many that they can't all be lumped into any one category. Some are mental illness, dreams, combinations of animals and aircraft as one wakes up etc...but there are a large percent that are just unexplainable...something is going on.

...and that's the common statistical fallacy that seems to plague the whole UFO/alien phenomenon. There are just too many for them to be all false or "the law of averages" is invoked.

There are no statistics or mathematics that agrees with this. We have zero confirmed alien abductions and zero confirmed alien spaceships which makes it impossible to calculate the odds of any given sighting or abduction being due to aliens. We do have quite a few known reasons that account for them. All we can do is Imagine that some of these might be aliens. I do sometimes, and there is nothing wrong with that. What is erroneous is to imagine that there is some actual statistical number behind all this.

This is the same error in logic that allows casinos to make money.

Originally posted by Ectoplasm8
..."seek a therapist" is an ... attempt at flaming...

Ectoplasm8, thank you for not picking up the gauntlet and keeping things civil .

Originally posted by g2v12
Are you a published writer?

No, but thank you for the compliment.

Originally posted by Grimpachi
Those types IMO are the ones who drive the stereo type and most likely the reason such claims are usually dismissed out of hand by most as imaginary.

I think it is a reasonable hypothesis to believe it is imaginary or hallucinatory. It is one of several that explain the phenomenon. It would be nice to be able to debate it openly and without prejudice. Is it real? If not what is happening? The inability to do this as a society really gets to the heart of my post. Thank you for adding your thoughts. It helps to see this from all sides.

Originally posted by raymundoko
I think they get shunned because nobody wants to hang out with crazy people.
...
I already knew he was weird from talking to him on Ventrilo, but when he started spouting off abduction talk I told him I had people waiting and I had to go.

Raymundoko, thank you for sharing your experience. Was the talk about abductions the straw that broke the camel's back or was it the whole hay pile?

Originally posted by ZetaRediculian
While a disbeliever in alien abduction, I am devout believer that what we are looking at here is something very hallucinatory in nature but as of yet, not well understood by current knowledge
...
I'm not sure what would be more frightening, real extraterrestrials or knowing its possible to hallucinate a full on extraterrestrial experience. Perhaps it is more comforting to think these experiences were "real" in the sense that they were not hallucinations.
...

ZetaRediculian, that is an excellent point. From my brief research the majority of them want it to be hallucinations. Invariably the reasoning is that if it is a condition of the mind then it can be treated with drugs and the problem can be solved. However, the thought that it is real is a frightening proposal because it comes with the realization that they have no control over the situation and they will be forever powerless. It also seems like most of them want it to stop. So the feeling of being powerless has real implications to them. It is probably the same fear that people experience when they are diagnosed with an illness with no cure.

Originally posted by ZetaRediculian
reply to post by amazing

...and that's the common statistical fallacy that seems to plague the whole UFO/alien phenomenon. There are just too many for them to be all false or "the law of averages" is invoked..

There are no statistics or mathematics that agrees with this. We have zero confirmed alien abductions and zero confirmed alien spaceships which makes it impossible to calculate the odds of any given sighting or abduction being due to aliens

ZetaRedicullian, I think the "law of averages" may be an inaccurate characterization of the post by amazing. People invoking this "law" usually recognize that there is a probability distribution but often assume that there is no bias. In other words, that we are dealing with some element of chance or probability. I don't think he was making a point about probability (even if we ultimately assign a chance of legitimacy).

I think a more accurate analogy would be where there is smoke there is fire. You could look at this through a lens of probability and justify the "law of averages" comment. It is less about probability and more about cause and effect. I think amazing is making the following assumption: the more people that claim something the easier it is to believe they aren't lying. Interpreting the claim is certainly subjective and has very little to do with statistics in my opinion. Although, we could conduct a study to determine the probability that the above assumption about lying is reasonable .

Originally posted by raymundoko
I think they get shunned because nobody wants to hang out with crazy people.

LOL! Yeah that's probably it.

This is what I wrote my friend in my case study about that:

A few years ago, when I was in the Mesmer Society out in North Hollywood, a few folks asked me to come to MUFON meetings and similar clubs to work as a hypnotist for regressions with people of "alien abductions." I just laughed. I had to refuse, even though friends like E. and R. were involved in the field, and they're obviously intelligent, far more than average.

But you know how it is: the few folks I'd encountered who claimed to be "alien abductees" were basically wacked. In analysis, some of this was a catch 22 explanation: they had personal problems that could result in the delusion of abduction, but on the other hand, it's possible that real abductions could have had that effect on the psychology (caused the problems). So logic didn't work on that one.

But they were so strange! Quasi anarchists or metaphysically way over the wall, and that's the best that could be said. They always seemed to be people who took things far too seriously, they always seemed to be on the verge of obsessive, and many went immediately went ballistic -- they'd range from explaining why they are Jesus (And He Is An Alien Too) to stockpiling arsenals in their cellar for the "upcoming invasion." Getting "into" the UFO field invoked extremes. (Then again, this WAS Hollywood -- people are weird as a 'norm' there.)

Besides, from what little I'd heard, I suspected that "alien abduction" stories were more about the hypnotist's interest than the subject's anyway. I refused to have anything to do with it.

(I should add that I have since then met quite a few very intelligent, rational people who consciously remember these sorts of experiences. But back then, except a couple I considered rare exceptions, I hadn’t. I can see now that my bias was probably most of that: I didn’t bother looking, and probably ignored, those more rational sorts, but certainly remembered the weirdos.)

Either I talk with intelligent people who think I'm a moron for having these experiences, or I talk with people who believe me, but they are morons, ha!

...I'm obviously functioning quite well in the world, despite having experiences and traumas I'm sure have put many people in straightjackets. I'm successful in business, logical and reasonably intelligent, creative and social, and as far as I know, outside these rather bizarre experiences, I'm pretty well adjusted.

On the other hand, many people with similar experiences aren't. I admit, my limited experience in the "UFO" field has introduced me to more paranoid bizarre people than I've ever met in my life.

I guess I can't complain about people finding those claiming such experiences to be weirdos if I've had the same impression so often.

There is a rather obvious confounding factor though, you have to consider.

For example, unless I'm doing it intentionally out of curiosity or humor, I don't talk to the average person about these things because we are simply not on the topic. Most people in life I talk to, we're definitely on other subjects, and there's no reason to bring this up. Aside from which, many people are unsettled by the topic, so it's hardly likely to be a good social ice breaker. I'm pretty sure most people who know me would literally be bewildered if they knew the kind of stuff I talk about privately or on the internet. And many of the people I have met with similar experiences are very much the same: I would never have had the slightest clue this was in their life if we hadn't happened to have met through the topic itself, and they are totally ordinary people in every other respect, often rather accomplished and I'm sure people who know them outside the topic would find it hard to believe that they had such accounts.

So, chances are you've run into a number of people you'd find surprisingly credible as individuals in general, but you had no idea they had such experiences because there was no reason for them to tell you.

On the other hand, people who are "destabilized" as I will call it, lack proper appropriate social filters, so they are the ones who are likely to be ranting about it, raving about it, inflicting it on people outside of topical conversation, and who are most likely to be pretty bizarre across the board.

So those are the ones people are most exposed to, and tend to be the most memorable.

reply to post by compressedFusion

ZetaRedicullian, I think the "law of averages" may be an inaccurate characterization of the post by amazing. People invoking this "law" usually recognize that there is a probability distribution but often assume that there is no bias. In other words, that we are dealing with some element of chance or probability. I don't think he was making a point about probability (even if we ultimately assign a chance of legitimacy).

This may be the case but I read it as "since there are so many cases the odds are that some are due to aliens". I may have misinterpreted the comment but it does seem to be a repeating theme.

I think a more accurate analogy would be where there is smoke there is fire. You could look at this through a lens of probability and justify the "law of averages" comment. It is less about probability and more about cause and effect. I think amazing is making the following assumption: the more people that claim something the easier it is to believe they aren't lying. Interpreting the claim is certainly subjective and has very little to do with statistics in my opinion. Although, we could conduct a study to determine the probability that the above assumption about lying is reasonable .

Where there is smoke, there is fire certainly works but What I am saying that the fire isn't necessarily due to aliens. For the most part, I also don't believe anyone is lying.

(ZetaRediculian) On the Walton and Hill cases, we really don't know if they were asleep or a awake aside from the their own accounts, correct? Nobody witnessed Travis Walton going up into the UFO. They left him laying on the ground unconscious and drove away if I have the story correct.

I only know some about the Walton case, a brief clip on a documentary and a movie eons ago. After I commented on the movie online once someone told me he had a book, which I'd forgotten until now, I should get that. I have a great deal of trouble getting myself to read on the topic, although I really liked the Vallee books I've seen so far. Reading on it tends to focus me on it and I really only do that once in awhile, in a place like ATS for example. What little I saw of Walton's case had so much in common with some of my experiences I was more upset by that one than many of the others I saw referenced in passing on compuserve back in the day.

(ZetaRediculian) The Hills were driving late at night on an isolated road and pulled over when they saw the UFO. The people I know aren't all wide awake recording devices under these conditions. The possibility remains that they simply fell asleep like so many others under the same conditions. Why would this be unlikely?

Hmmn. Maybe. But why would they have pulled off the road to begin with (we assume they weren't sleeping while driving). And if a close sighting of a UFO is promptly followed by "falling asleep and dreaming an incredibly realistic abduction experience," then I think it'd be fair to consider that abduction experiences may have some state of mind overlap with delta frequencies that may be a valid part of the experience, whatever it may be -- and in any case that the two discrete experiences (awake UFO sighting, asleep alien abudction) might be related.

The comic strip in my head now has green teenagers in UFOs beaming people to sleep and then giving them a 'dream' about being abducted and laughing uproariously about it. Like teens who crank call random numbers...

(ZetaRediculian) I'm not sure what would be more frightening, real extraterrestrials or knowing its possible to hallucinate a full on extraterrestrial experience.

Ha! Both are pretty unsettling. Though I think the 'big picture' (world-level) of the former is a little more disturbing.

(ZetaRediculian) Perhaps it is more comforting to think these experiences were "real" in the sense that they were not hallucinations.

Probably the opposite at least for me.

Although I'm willing to say that our understanding of human 'experience' is still incredibly limited, and our words structure our thoughts, so it probably would be useful if we had a few more words for these things, some of which didn't have the baggage existing words do.

I am not averse to discussing the topic under the model of it being hallucination, as long as it's understood that our species is hallucinating the same thing around the world and throughout time and hence whatever it is, is a larger topic than merely "Yo, go get medicated" or something retarded like that.

Frankly I find the topic just as interesting in that model.

I said in my case study to my friend that I wondered (early on) if there could be some similar "neural biology" effect that could cause different unrelated people to be unknowingly having incredibly similar experiences -- like a "world" that many sometimes went to in some certain state of mind -- whether awake or asleep -- which was a valid experiential-world but clearly not the same one, or same kind, as 'this' one.

As a result of my over-lucidity during sleep for some periods, I came to understand (now I would say 'believe' but it wasn't really an intellectual decision, but an experiential observation) that human experience is not limited to what happens while we are 'awake' and that it is not limited to what we consider dreaming when we are asleep, either.

In fact, given how oblivious we are in waking life about how much else is going on with us, it is -- oddly -- almost more as if we are sleeping now than then.

given all the negative connotations and misconceptions associated with hallucinations, perhaps it would more unnerving to learn that this type of thing is more common then we really know.

Yeah, probably that has some relationship to the brain parasites thread LOL -- something way too disturbing. Which reminds me of that joke:

It's said one in four people suffer from mental illness.
Think of three friends. If they're normal, it's you.

Where there is smoke, there is fire certainly works but What I am saying that the fire isn't necessarily due to aliens.

I agree. As I've already pointed out previously on this thread, the whole space aliens concept is really just one paradigm but not the only one.

I think there may be multiple things going on -- and we blend and overlap things -- contributing to the immense confusion around the topic -- because "they all look alike to me."

As I told my friend back in '95:

It's illogical, but it seems most of the official "UFO field" is as unobjective, unprofessional and emotionally involved as the virulent skeptics who, like wanna-be Atheists, swear they don't believe in it but spend all their time hanging around groups talking about it as obsessively as anyone else. (Or in doing experiments (while reaching so far for conclusions you'd think they'd snap in the middle) to "disprove" it to themselves that say far more about their own mental state than anybody else's.) Pseudo-skeptics are often outright evangelists on the subject, but they don't have the corner on acting like fools; both groups are an equal pain in the butt after a while.

Considering the bizarre nature of all this stuff to begin with, you'd think we could just agree to spray the whole subject with a stunned sort of amazement right up front, before diving in, as a kind of pre-antiseptic to what one may find at any moment that might be upsetting to one's belief system. Taken in bulk, there's enough information in this field to convince anybody with half a brain that something is going on (the "what" being the big question). The real problem is getting people to actually read or study the information already available (and keep them from dismissing a mountain of evidence because they found some pinhole that makes no sense to them).

Perhaps if there were less fear about it, if we just agreed we'd disbelieve it totally, and then studied it as a matter of “creative novelty,” maybe more serious work would get done, unimpeded by the personal problems of researchers who ought to be trained or educated well enough to know better.

I also think that one of the things which keeps better insight out of the subject is that people are so afraid to discuss it with integrity. I said in my case study:

Meeting others with similar stories to my own brought me both fear and relief. But the paradigms are overwhelming. In practice, it's not just an experience people share, it's nearly religion. If you talk about this it falls into the ‘UFO’ field—even though it spans everything from Jungian psychology to shamanism to Cabala and metaphysics. Many “abduction” groups have what can only be called a cult mentality, replete with leaders and theological belief systems. The common mix of that subject with other fields, such as technologies (which may not exist), channeling, possible shadow-government involvement, etc., makes the whole 'Ufology' subject a chaotic minefield even for discussion, let alone involvement.

The emotional volatility of even supposedly objective researchers, let alone people in the midst of these confusing and upsetting experiences, can be almost frightening. Even for those without the experience issues, the logic-stretching that many folks pull off in their attempts to make other peoples' reality fit into their own mental-construct is amazing.

I've found the more honest I am, the more it upsets people. From those who find the sensual angles disturbing, to those who insist I can't mention the occult “if I want to be taken seriously,” even the persons in fields surrounding study of these very things have their own little box of "acceptable data" that they want others' lives and experiences to fit into. My willingness to address everything from hallucinations and potential sleep disorders and schizophrenic symptoms to shamanic symbols and dreams, from alien experiences to religious icons to Egyptian and occult symbolism – well, my range of experience only seemed to make people angry. Just as they think they have another story to add to the list of those supporting their beliefs, I tell of some experience they're sure contradicts or invalidates either myself or them.

out of room, continued in next

But our culture and the public response to this is part of the problem. As I told my friend:

As just one example, in our attempt to make things like abduction "scientifically researchable," we have begun with the assumption that it is always "wholly physical" (and measurably so by modern tools and understanding) if it's real. Western thought neatly categorizes everything into either "fully physical" or "hallucinatory." Since it may not be limited to those polarities (and there may be far more gradients within those than we realize), that makes it easy to find details of memory or circumstance that are inconsistent by that measure, and by this, invalidate the entire experience, and the person relating it. Yet even crime witnesses get details mixed up, and this of fully physical experiences in "this" reality and state of mind, when there's often no doubt the experience truly happened. Imagine how much more trauma is involved when you are the center of the experience, and the world around you is at best not what you recognize.

I'm not saying experiences are not physical -- they certainly can be. And despite my open cynicism about modern 'abduction groups,' I would not suggest that hypnosis "creates" these memories, at least not from scratch. Since most people I know in this field have never been hypnotized about it (I have not), that's clearly not the case, despite the overt media attempts to make it seem so (which leads into a whole cultural and who-controls-the-culture area of study which I think matters to the bigger picture of all this, but which I have not explored). I'm just pointing out that the desperate need for defensive "validation" our culture has taken with study of such experiences, represented by the small number of media-present "leaders" in this field, has led the public to believe these experiences are physical if they're "real," there's craft involved, medical research is the only theme, and these experiences aren't remembered until someone is hypnotized.

From not only my own experiences but the people I've encountered from all over the world the last year and talked with, I think I can say those assumptions are not so -- not to the exclusion of all else in any case, and in my opinion even when those issues exist, they may be less relevant than other aspects. It is a whole spectrum of experience, and much doesn’t fit into the UFOlogy framework at all. It often fits into other frameworks that are even more controversial, since they overlap with shamanic, spiritual and occult worlds (and possibly psycho-social clandestine research). It is harming the study of this subject to let the public be misled into thinking the sound-bite “aliens with probes remembered under hypnosis” model is "the way it is." If the only time people remembered these experiences was after being hypnotized, for example, I wouldn't believe them either.

Where there is smoke, there is fire certainly works but What I am saying that the fire isn't necessarily due to aliens.

I agree. As I've already pointed out previously on this thread, the whole space aliens concept is really just one paradigm but not the only one.

I think there may be multiple things going on -- and we blend and overlap things -- contributing to the immense confusion around the topic -- because "they all look alike to me."

Most the public is NOT really interested in the whole thing anyway, they want a 20-second sound byte just like they want on the news, they need it to be simple, small words, existing accepted concepts and so on. Anything that boggles someone's mind is almost pointless, it just results in confusion for onlookers, which given the amount of confusion experiencers are having is reasonable.

reply to post by RedCairo

I am not averse to discussing the topic under the model of it being hallucination, as long as it's understood that our species is hallucinating the same thing around the world and throughout time and hence whatever it is, is a larger topic than merely "Yo, go get medicated" or something retarded like that.

Yes, absolutely. I think there is a lot of good stuff there to have a good discussion. First, though, is it true that these things are the same around the world and throughout time? I would venture to guess that there would be many different common themes.

The number of people interested who are objective but who are critical thinkers and who are interested in the whole spectrum of experience to better understand it is very small, in my observation. When I wrote my case study I thanked the people who helped me most -- and most of them were skeptics or people who weren't even having the experiences, because they were very "grounding" to me when I desperately needed people with the ability to have an open inquiry, not assume I was insane or lying, but also a very critical mind about it.

Every group has its own box of 'ok.'

You talk to people in some genres, e.g. Casteneda-ish metaphysics, and they're totally good with it all as being "pulled FROM a dream INTO that" because that is part of their paradigm, of what amounts to multiple parallel realities and humans being present in an energy field and having the ability to shift which 'energy line' you're dominantly on and hence experiencing.

You talk to people in some other genres, e.g. Ceremonial Magick-ish occult, and they're totally fine with dreams and with "other worlds reached via mental/astral-state which are valid," which is intentionally done in practices there, but most will scoff at the idea of aliens etc. And you could mean Baphomet or a demon and they'd be fine with that but if you tell them you met Mary they freak out LOL.

You talk to people in the more christian-religious world and they put everything in the demon and "spiritual warfare" category, and the inability to fit everything into that is solved by a hand-waving assumption that reminds me of what a sunday school teacher told me when I was 13 and I asked about the stuff in archeology: "The devil just puts those there to confuse you." (It worked!)

You talk to people in the UFOlogy field and they're fine with aliens but if you mention anything else (spiritual, fey, etc.) they get incredibly upset. Here they are trying to win some kind of validation for the presence of the Greys and they are sure everything else 'invalidates' the alien theme by proxy.

Then there are some in the UFOlogy field who are certain there's one or two types and everything else is either a hallucination or a lie. (Oh brother.)

In my opinion, discussing it under the model of "novelty psychology" is almost the only model that actually allows an honest and full spectrum review without bias influencing the data or its interpretation.

First, though, is it true that these things are the same around the world and throughout time? I would venture to guess that there would be many different common themes.

Actually I'm not familiar enough with the literature to know for sure, but I read two or three books by Jacques Vallee which gave me that impression. However when I say that, I am not trying to be incredibly literal there in terms of the detail -- I would expect this to vary with the individual as well as the culture. I did talk to tons of people in the mid-94 to late-95 era from around the world, via compuserve, some about their experiences which (prior to meeting me) had similarities. I said to my friend:

...And yet this is what has been happening with our culture’s model of human psychology, never mind the “paranormal” (to use a term I dislike), for a long time. Translations of anything are considered symbolic garbage or imagination (as if imagination is not part of how we perceive everything). Inconsistencies within this frame of reference about things "there" (often created by trying to translate one system of perception to another, and losing a great deal in the process) are used to “demonstrate unreliability.” Even the most linear accounts relating to a place and/or people "there" are diagnosed as hallucinations or fraud.

This might have continued indefinitely, were it not for the "contact" field that is considered a part of "UFOlogy." (Honestly, I think Transpersonal Psychology is a much better place for this exploration, but few people in our culture seem particularly interested in that, either.)

For the first time, we have a subject that a rather vast range of types of people are experiencing, to various degrees. The places seem to look the same. The same things seem to happen in those places. The people and entities seem to look the same. Even the personalities are similar. The circumstance is often the same. The manner of arriving "there" is often similar. The manner of perception returning, or arriving "here," is often similar. The psychological, emotional, physical, mental, and other symptoms and reactions to the events show commonalities. Even the psychological and physical history of individuals prior to known events show commonalities.

I can't imagine that we truly lack data for studying this, given all of the above.

... Try to consider that if there IS any ‘reality’ to intelligent identities with apparently more knowledge of us than we have of ourselves let alone them, then it’s very likely our culture, including governments, media, etc. are influenced by them in ways they find convenient.

Henri Corbin had a phrase "the inter-worlds" which is great. I am just beginning to read works by people like James Hillman and others in the TP field. Corbin is the guy, at least I think, who came up with the term "imaginal." I said in my case study in '95:

[Considering that we haven't got far with the theories we've got, maybe we should wise up and seek out a few new theories. Maybe we've got the wrong paradigm altogether. Maybe the issue isn't the simple black and white of other autonomous identities vs. imagination. Maybe the issue is the developing ability of humans to mix their imagination with autonomous identities and get a third result.]

I felt that was a pretty novel idea when I first thought of it, but I found out later somebody else thought of it first. He called it "imaginal." Not to be confused with imaginary or false; rather, sort of a "third realm" of existence.

Now this fits into the occult model as well as the shamanic model, fails in the spiritual and religious models, and is usually rejected with active sneezing by the UFOlogy crowd because it implies that at least most of the time these experiences are not "fully" physical -- which does not mean they are dreams or hallucinations either since in this model, the whole point is that there is more than one category of perceptual reality and that just happens to be another one, which is not THIS one, but is still a VALID one -- if different. And it may "overlap" with some "percentage" of the physical body -- resulting in actual body evidence.

I used to go to sleep and wake up with bruises, pulled muscles and a bloody nose. I am certain my body laid in bed all night. But I came to believe there was a technology that could literally, in a physics sense, "split" the overall energy of me and drop over half of it 'elsewhere', leaving the rest of me catatonic in bed. I actually had an IN-body experience (where half of me went 'elsewhere,' and because I was struggling so hard to stay lucid, the sense of "I" stayed with the body) which later led to more relaxation on my part, because I believed that 'technology' was responsible then. Note: it was a specific experience which led to this belief system.

To me, it finally explained why I could have physical symptoms -- or not, or almost sort of mild/half symptoms -- from experiences I was certain did not involve levitating my body out a window.

While I had 'physical' things my memory fought me on them, and they got recorded almost never as a result. I think they're less, not more, documented.

reply to post by RedCairo

You talk to people in some genres, e.g. Casteneda-ish metaphysics, and they're totally good with it all as being "pulled FROM a dream INTO that" because that is part of their paradigm, of what amounts to multiple parallel realities and humans being present in an energy field and having the ability to shift which 'energy line' you're dominantly on and hence experiencing.

Heh, I guess at one time I was "Castenada-ish". That was quite a while ago. I don't take it seriously now but I must say it did have quite an influence on me and the way I think about things now.

There is a lot catch up here with your postings.

I think many have had contact and I think many make it up for attention.

How do you tell the difference? Well no idea. I have never had an encounter, that I can remember.

Imo those who have had an experience and discuss I think are brave. It takes a lot to tell someone you've been abducted by aliens or have had alien contact because you know as soon as you say it that many will think you are completely mental. Nobody will really understand how those people feel unless they too have had experiences.

My favorite stories have been mentioned. The schools in Africa and I also love Betty and Barney Hill. It is definitely the first story I ever heard about in regards to alien abduction. It was on Unsolved Mysteries when I was a kid. I remember being completely freaked out and having all the lights on in the house before the episode was over.

Originally posted by Ectoplasm8

Originally posted by RedCairo
I cannot speak to this particular debate on topic, but on communication, I'd like to point out that we are typing in little boxes on the fly here. We are not writing entire books on the subject and trying to cover every possible imaginable element per post. You bring up something new, someone responds with something new. That is why threads continue, as opposed to having only one book-length post per user per thread. It seems injust to imply he is being disingenious by pointing out something he hadn't put into a previous post. Debate the topical matter, not the integrity of the individual communicating, and maybe this thread will stay conversational instead of becoming pedantic-flaming like so many in this forum on similar topics.

g2v12 added another explanation to his "vulnerable state" to explain away other possible reasons. It's staying right on track with his methodology and there's no interpretation of his belief. He's stating it himself.

..."seek a therapist" is a silly attempt at flaming, but far too funny to report.
Of course it probably will be met with a response something like: "No, I wasn't flaming, I was seriously offering advice so you can get a full understanding of your compulsion".. Sincere of course.

edit on 31-8-2013 by Ectoplasm8 because: (no reason given)

You're a professional debunker with only semantics to offer, but nothing concrete to show that lack of material evidence is lack of proof. Too much time on your hands?

Well... to be fair... a lack of material evidence actually IS, de-facto, a lack of proof.

It is not a lack of evidence, since there is empirical evidence, and other-than-material evidence.

But I'm pretty sure proof does require not only physical evidence, but replicable physical evidence.

I myself have said more than once that it is common that scoffers in this genre have clear psychological issues involved, because I think it is true. I might add that it's just as true in other topics that aren't UFOlogy too, of course.

But if you say that to an individual, you have essentially invalidated their right to their own perspective, which is ironic, since the complaint is that they are by their communication, invalidating other peoples' right to their own perspective.

What is a 'professional' debunker? You mean like people who spend all their time obsessed with the topic and how it's all bad/wrong/stupid/fake/lies/crazy or whatever?

I don't know much about the UFOlogy field, my exposure to it was fairly brief 20 years ago, and every year or two I get a wild hair and spend too much time at ATS forum for a couple weeks, so I'm not familiar with the people that others might be.

I guess I can understand that if people do nothing but stomp on threads, intimidating others from participating by sneering / mocking / scoffing, that this would get pretty old.

I've been going through some of the threads in various topics and my god, people can armchair pedantic debate these things to death, sheesh. I wouldn't spend my time around that for pay, never mind for free.

Some people I don't argue much with because they are not worth the effort. Some because they're clearly unstable and it would only spark their issues and make it worse. I think it's worth talking to people who seem relatively reasonable, even if they disagree.

Maybe I just lack clarity about what/who is actually reasonable and why.

reply to post by compressedFusion


It was the whole hay pile. But honestly, why would aliens want to abduct a hoarder obsessively absorbed in a fantasy game.

I always wrote my mom-in-law off as an acid trip she confused with real life, and the old man claims he was abducted to give top secret information...you know, the kinds marines usually have....

Originally posted by RedCairo
Well... to be fair... a lack of material evidence actually IS, de-facto, a lack of proof.

It is not a lack of evidence, since there is empirical evidence, and other-than-material evidence.

But I'm pretty sure proof does require not only physical evidence, but replicable physical evidence.

I myself have said more than once that it is common that scoffers in this genre have clear psychological issues involved, because I think it is true. I might add that it's just as true in other topics that aren't UFOlogy too, of course.

But if you say that to an individual, you have essentially invalidated their right to their own perspective, which is ironic, since the complaint is that they are by their communication, invalidating other peoples' right to their own perspective.

What is a 'professional' debunker? You mean like people who spend all their time obsessed with the topic and how it's all bad/wrong/stupid/fake/lies/crazy or whatever?

I don't know much about the UFOlogy field, my exposure to it was fairly brief 20 years ago, and every year or two I get a wild hair and spend too much time at ATS forum for a couple weeks, so I'm not familiar with the people that others might be.

I guess I can understand that if people do nothing but stomp on threads, intimidating others from participating by sneering / mocking / scoffing, that this would get pretty old.

I've been going through some of the threads in various topics and my god, people can armchair pedantic debate these things to death, sheesh. I wouldn't spend my time around that for pay, never mind for free.

Some people I don't argue much with because they are not worth the effort. Some because they're clearly unstable and it would only spark their issues and make it worse. I think it's worth talking to people who seem relatively reasonable, even if they disagree.

Maybe I just lack clarity about what/who is actually reasonable and why.

Semantics. Subjective Definitions. Reading too much into my statements or deconstructing my statements. Pseudo skeptics, professional debunkers, people who haven't put forth the time or effort to study the subject in depth, read the best books or investigate UFO sightings, interview abductees or contactees. I've done my homework, so at least I can assert my right to make some moral judgement about jerks who critique folks having theoretical discussions, when these hypocrites can't even quote from the material they criticize.