Thoughts about people claiming alien contact

I love Quantum Physics and its implications.
As to the current discussion I have no doubt there are people who believe they have been abducted but in this
world can not prove it - But in a quantum universe this may be one of many worlds - Some, if not all, of the
UFO/alien phenomenon may reflect this - 'They' exist somewhere but not necessarily here in the usually
so-called normal and local universe - but they do exist in any number of alternative, and yet still real, universes
visible to some people and yet not to others - Jacques Vallee went into this in on one of his books making the
observation that in areas where UFO or occult type phenomena was occurring some otherwise credible people
saw it while others saw nothing.

Ready for "Stargate SG-2" ???

Originally posted by g2v12
You're a professional debunker with only semantics to offer, but nothing concrete to show that lack of material evidence is lack of proof.

You seem to still be relating abductions to something relatively simple like discovering a new species of fish, as I mentioned. If you can so readily accept word-of-mouth stories as proof, it makes me wonder if you truly grasp the enormity of alien visitation. Apply your methodology to phenomenon's with equal levels of uncertainty and "evidence". The Loch Ness monster, Bigfoot, ghosts, etc. We have many photographs, many videos, and many stories of each. Because of the nature of those claims, any rational thinking person should demand the best level of evidence possible to back it up. Same applies with alien abductions.

If you look at the number of hoaxes perpetrated within this phenomenon in which people take stories or photographs at face value with no physical evidence to back it up. Then find out, sometimes many years later, it was a hoax or the stories weren't true. Shouldn't then by default, this phenomenon be scrutinized and held up to the highest standards of evidence? Unless you have some special skill, people are easily deceived and lied to. I'm not saying everyone with an abduction story is lying. I've experienced sleep paralysis first-hand and can see how it could be interpreted as such within the context of a dream/nightmare while sleeping. I happened to be resting and fully aware of what was going on. But, as other people have explained in other threads, Earthly reasons are still possible. Elaborations on sleep paralysis being one example.

Too much time on your hands?

Yeah... I guess it is pretty evident being a member since Dec 6, 2011 and 170 posts that I have lots of time on my hands. Maybe I need a hobby. Hmmmmm....

Originally posted by Ectoplasm8
Shouldn't then by default, this phenomenon be scrutinized and held up to the highest standards of evidence?

Um. It would be helpful if we could start with almost any standard of evidence, at this point.

We could maybe progress to some highest standard when we had a standard, period...

I'm not saying everyone with an abduction story is lying. I've experienced sleep paralysis first-hand and can see how it could be interpreted as such within the context of a dream/nightmare while sleeping.

The topic and its range of experience and situations of them is vastly too big to be explained by that for certain, which isn't to say that it may not have some degree of involvement in some instances -- as many other things do particularly those which relate to "human perception" and non-beta brainwave states.

Earthly reasons are still possible. Elaborations on sleep paralysis being one example.

When a subject is used as an avenue for exploration and understanding, that is a good thing. When it is used as a tombstone for redirection of all such experience, and/or concluding such experience is hence merely an artifact, it's probably not. There are as many paradigms in the critique of this field as in the field itself.

Peace.

Originally posted by Ectoplasm8

Originally posted by g2v12
You're a professional debunker with only semantics to offer, but nothing concrete to show that lack of material evidence is lack of proof.

You seem to still be relating abductions to something relatively simple like discovering a new species of fish, as I mentioned. If you can so readily accept word-of-mouth stories as proof, it makes me wonder if you truly grasp the enormity of alien visitation. Apply your methodology to phenomenon's with equal levels of uncertainty and "evidence". The Loch Ness monster, Bigfoot, ghosts, etc. We have many photographs, many videos, and many stories of each. Because of the nature of those claims, any rational thinking person should demand the best level of evidence possible to back it up. Same applies with alien abductions.

If you look at the number of hoaxes perpetrated within this phenomenon in which people take stories or photographs at face value with no physical evidence to back it up. Then find out, sometimes many years later, it was a hoax or the stories weren't true. Shouldn't then by default, this phenomenon be scrutinized and held up to the highest standards of evidence? Unless you have some special skill, people are easily deceived and lied to. I'm not saying everyone with an abduction story is lying. I've experienced sleep paralysis first-hand and can see how it could be interpreted as such within the context of a dream/nightmare while sleeping. I happened to be resting and fully aware of what was going on. But, as other people have explained in other threads, Earthly reasons are still possible. Elaborations on sleep paralysis being one example.

Too much time on your hands?

Yeah... I guess it is pretty evident being a member since Dec 6, 2011 and 170 posts that I have lots of time on my hands. Maybe I need a hobby. Hmmmmm....

I don't know what or if you've studied any data (raw or interpreted) but there is physical evidence. I'm afraid to give you any references, as you would likely strike it down as unworthy of your high standards. I think that if you are more interested in doing the research as opposed to critiquing theoretical discussions, you should have your head buried in a book instead of demanding physical proof on a cyber forum.

What books or authors have you read?

Well see, that is kind of the point of discussion forums, you know? To discuss.

Often the people who have been the worst to me online were the best opportunity to respond reasonably and with detail, which was helpful/informative to others, and kind of the point of bothering to hang around a forum communicating in the first place.

Usually the more reasonable you are, the more you make any opponent who is rabid look even more like a cretin, an unintended but subversively enjoyable side effect.

If you are more flame-baiting than the scoffers (and that guy so far is less a scoffer than a skeptic, though I admit I have only this thread to go on for that), it's more harm than help to your cause.

(Also... you just don't need to quote entire posts. Threads are so much nicer to read when quotes are brief and to the point.)

While you are angry 'cause this guy wouldn't like whatever examples you have (and you're probably right, I'm sure he'll be a royal PITA about it actually), you're kind of missing the point that other people reading the thread may actually be informed by, and interested in, such examples, and then may have their own views on such things. Which would lead to... discussion. You know... why we're here.

In short, you are giving him far too much importance. He's just a guy on the internet. It's ok for him to have an opinion. No matter what opinion he has, lots of people have the opposite opinion, and one more like yours. While you are busy calling him names instead of just talking about what you find relevant and interesting, you deprive a whole forum of people the opportunity of learning from your hard work in this subject in the past.

Like me, for example. I have far too little exposure to the field, and I only come out of the closet to openly talk about it once in awhile (then my psychology snaps shut and I go back to my cave again, as I have mostly done for the seven years of my membership here), and what little edu I get about UFOlogy is often through threads like this while I'm around. I'd like to hear about the things you mention.

As for critique, everything can withstand critique. Consider it like science in a way: it doesn't matter what the answer is; it is the process, and having any answer at all, that is the point of value, not what it might be. You are not responsible for the integrity or detail of UFOlogy accounts which you may be aware of, only for communicating whatever you know of in as fair fashion as you can, and others can then make of it whatever they will, or use that pointer to go do some research themselves, or whatever.

When I read a book on something I find really interesting, after that, I go read a book on the opposite perspective. It is very useful for seeing the multiple points of view, the critiques and rebuttals, etc. Although I admit it does often lead one to the conclusion that -- as a saying I like goes, "Seeing both sides of the story mostly serves to convince one there must be more than two sides."

Don't take critique personally, it isn't personal (YOU control what is personal for you, nobody else can). Share what you've got, I'm genuinely interested, and no matter how much skepticism some people have, know that there are many other people who will be totally glad for the information.

Originally posted by g2v12
I don't know what or if you've studied any data (raw or interpreted) but there is physical evidence. I'm afraid to give you any references, as you would likely strike it down as unworthy of your high standards. I think that if you are more interested in doing the research as opposed to critiquing theoretical discussions, you should have your head buried in a book instead of demanding physical proof on a cyber forum.

What books or authors have you read?

"High standards" that most skeptics or non-believers of this phenomenon would require. It's not exclusive only to me. Instead of once again trying to drag the discussion back down into the irrational, uneducated skeptics argument, provide what you believe are high standards of physical evidence. You seem to indicate you have scholarly knowledge of these cases, it should be a simple task. Just out of curiosity.

In a topic as seemingly foreign to our understanding (or nebulous, which right now amounts to the same thing) as this, any evidence whatever should be seen as a positive contribution, which doesn't mean it is assumed to be true or conclusive, but that every piece of data is at least potentially a puzzle piece we did not have before.

That would be the difference between wanting to understand something, versus wanting to find a reason why an idea should be dismissed without trying to understand it because "there's nothing to understand."

'Debunkers' usually fall into the latter category.

I think there are a lot of analogies for that. A silly one, but perhaps simple enough:

I lost my cat. The neighborhood is full of them. I go looking and find a place a few doors down near a big ditch, and I see pawprints leading into the muddy tunnel that goes under the streets and comes out in a field nearby. A skeptic would say: there are 15 cats around here, 3 at this house 50 feet away, there are definitely other explanations than 'the pawprint belongs to my cat,' so assuming it does is irrational, stop assuming, stop 'believing' without evidence, that could be anything. But someone who wants to know the answer, might say: I'd like to understand where my cat went, so I'm going to go to the other side of the tunnel where the prints lead and see if maybe I find her over there. Sure, it's a slim chance. Sure, it means "right now" I have no known-valid information and no proof. But maybe before long I'll have found my cat, or at least maybe another clue to her whereabouts. It's a data point and it may be wrong or irrelevant. But this is the only evidence I have, and I want the answer, so it is what it is. Lots of grain-of-salt and suspension of judgment until I know either way.

By pre-choosing the limiters of evidence, we pre-choose the allowed answers. For example, what if the phenomenon has physical elements and physiological effects but is actually based on a technology which at this point is definitely not going to have any objective physical evidence that cannot be interpreted as "that could be something else or anything?" Yes, that is an unfalsifiable framework I realize, one cannot prove that technology does not exist to allow that, but then again, the whole point of the topic itself is, fundamentally, that something "we do not understand" is going on -- whether that is technology, psychology, spirituality, or what, still the one pretty clear thing is that we truly don't know what is going on.

The assumption that all evidence must fit what we already think we know about reality merely limits the only possible answer to "things we already know" -- and as noted... if this is something we already knew and already understand, the question would be answered by now.

Originally posted by RedCairo
Well see, that is kind of the point of discussion forums, you know? To discuss.

Let me be clear, I haven't refused to discuss anything with anyone nor have I hesitated to humanly engage Ectoplasm8, despite his incessant angst over what he terms - the highest standard of evidence. Nevertheless, I do reserve the right to defend my premise by every reasonable means, including the assertion of personal views and certain intellectual assets. Further, there is no arrogance in my displeasure, even at the insinuation that decades of my life were wasted searching the truth without predilection for evidence (on any scale).

And by the way, proof is much more than physical evidence. If one is not willing to fine-tune his mentality beyond the application of physical evidence, then he does not reap the fruit of his desire. Yes, proof is more than the materiality of our senses and even beyond the perceptions of our personal experiences.

Cyber relationships are very difficult to manage in the sense of individual identity and social collaboration, but do offer a matrix of demography that sweeps the globe. There is this thing about learning through teaching and the depth and width of networking. Entirely, it could become a fabrication of thought.

We are often spellbound by the obvious, such as the NSA collecting information. Do we ever consider that extraterrestrials are doing the same? That they listen in on the most private, high level conversations of top world leaders and utilize prediction analysis to foretell world changing events? We may not actively consider such things, but there are people in governments who do.
As an individual, I may be somewhat talented (as I am sure we all have them) in discerning patterns or pathways of information. I may have had some interesting experiences, as well as connections with interesting people. I may also understand how to attract information about subjects important to me. Of all the words on this page, the word attraction means something monumental to us all.

Several years ago I was led to Nancy Talbott, founder of BLT RESEARCH TEAM INC. Having been quite well to do financially, she has traveled the world to investigate crop circles since the 1970s. What makes her organization unique is the training of hundreds of volunteers in the procedure of gathering evidence. She has also contracted with scientists to conduct independent analysis on crop circle samples, which has long established the character of real crop circles from those produced by hoaxers.

The BLT link here is attached to the home page. Please open the link in the left column, “Plant Abnormalities” and read that entire section. Note that the nodes of stalks are expanded and in many cases burst' with such precision as to force the entire stalk downward at the proper angle to form part of the whole picture. In addition, the moisture in the nodes has become steam used to bend the stalks at this point, because there is more moisture in the nodes than other parts of the stalk. According to the many studies conducted on crop circle samples from around the world, it has been realized that it would take intense heat for perhaps milliseconds to bend thousands of stalks accurately enough to create the artwork and geometric symbols. For this reason, and others I will mention, the most likely tool would be a microwave beam (weapon?) that is computer controlled for extreme accuracy. In simpler terms, one might compare it to the computer controlled Lasik laser instrument used by ophthalmologists to shave the iris.
According to our conversation this was corroborated in the 1990s, when Nancy went to England to investigate a wave of crop circles. She stayed as a guest in a farmhouse in the area where the activity had increased. One night at about 3:00am she saw flashes of light on the bedroom window. Looking out over a vast wheat field from her second story window, saw the last seconds of a thirty foot saucer shaped craft simmering in the moon light. It was moving back and forth and gyrating, with several intense beams of solid light shooting into the field from various angles in busts of short duration. She could also see the wheat stalks falling very rapidly in a circular pattern. This all occurred within seconds after which time the craft hesitated and shot out of sight. She had a camera but the shots were ruined by the intense light from the beams. Another mark of authenticity regarding the real crop circles is the effect of intense heat, which leaves the soil with vitrified particles of iron and glass, as well as higher than normal radiation.

(CONTINUED)

reply to post by g2v12




Nancy also mentioned other interesting facts about the crop circles she has studied. Some of them appear in places on the planet where the terrain does not support human traffic or remote rural areas. She mentioned a very large crop circle that was reported by commercial pilots flying over the Himalayas between China and India. It was carved into the snow in a deep valley between two large mountains of rock. This crop circle appeared the day after a snow storm had blanketed the area and the plane was due to fly directly over it.
Nancy also went to Poland and hired a helicopter to fly her over a large crop circle that was on a farm in a remote highland village where the people still used carts and horses to get things done. The crop circle could be seen by the locals from the surrounding hills and this created allot of buzz and publicity.

Here is one of Nancy’s more recent INVESTIGATIONS in the Polish countryside.

Originally posted by Ectoplasm8

Originally posted by g2v12
I don't know what or if you've studied any data (raw or interpreted) but there is physical evidence. I'm afraid to give you any references, as you would likely strike it down as unworthy of your high standards. I think that if you are more interested in doing the research as opposed to critiquing theoretical discussions, you should have your head buried in a book instead of demanding physical proof on a cyber forum.

What books or authors have you read?

"High standards" that most skeptics or non-believers of this phenomenon would require. It's not exclusive only to me. Instead of once again trying to drag the discussion back down into the irrational, uneducated skeptics argument, provide what you believe are high standards of physical evidence. You seem to indicate you have scholarly knowledge of these cases, it should be a simple task. Just out of curiosity.

As I recall, I asked you to provide a list of books and authors you favor on the subject of UFOs and alien abduction. I'm still waiting.

Thanks g2v12. Yes I agree the crop circle stuff (diff topic) is very interesting and a nice example of something with hard physical evidence which people dismiss anyway. As I recall, there was plenty of evidence like that, and then Jim Schnabel went to England, hoaxed a couple, and then wrote a book about how weird and crazy the people into it were, seeming to leave out the best evidence (e.g. science). Coincidentally he also wrote a very detailed interesting book about remote viewing, seeming to leave out the best evidence (e.g. science). I'm sure that is merely a coincidence.

reply to post by RedCairo

I think there are a lot of analogies for that. A silly one, but perhaps simple enough:

I lost my cat. The neighborhood is full of them. I go looking and find a place a few doors down near a big ditch, and I see pawprints leading into the muddy tunnel that goes under the streets and comes out in a field nearby. A skeptic would say: there are 15 cats around here, 3 at this house 50 feet away, there are definitely other explanations than 'the pawprint belongs to my cat,' so assuming it does is irrational, stop assuming, stop 'believing' without evidence, that could be anything. But someone who wants to know the answer, might say: I'd like to understand where my cat went, so I'm going to go to the other side of the tunnel where the prints lead and see if maybe I find her over there. Sure, it's a slim chance. Sure, it means "right now" I have no known-valid information and no proof. But maybe before long I'll have found my cat, or at least maybe another clue to her whereabouts. It's a data point and it may be wrong or irrelevant. But this is the only evidence I have, and I want the answer, so it is what it is. Lots of grain-of-salt and suspension of judgment until I know either way.

Here is a better analogy:
I lost my cat. It must have been abducted by aliens. Case closed.

Well that was a lovely (and injust and ridiculous and scoffing) twisting of the point of the 'incremental evidence' analogy in the first place...

I'll have you know my cat is ALREADY an alien.

Originally posted by RedCairo
Thanks g2v12. Yes I agree the crop circle stuff (diff topic) is very interesting and a nice example of something with hard physical evidence which people dismiss anyway. As I recall, there was plenty of evidence like that, and then Jim Schnabel went to England, hoaxed a couple, and then wrote a book about how weird and crazy the people into it were, seeming to leave out the best evidence (e.g. science). Coincidentally he also wrote a very detailed interesting book about remote viewing, seeming to leave out the best evidence (e.g. science). I'm sure that is merely a coincidence.

Schnabel was a well known science writer building a reputation. He was interviewed by The Circular in 1992 and apparently admitted working for an agency to draw attention away from scientific work being published regarding crop circles. The interview link goes to the article and taped interview.

It applies to the theme of this thread since we are talking about how people with something to say are treated and the mechanism underlying it.

In the following candid interview Schnabel reveals his role as a paid disinformation agent working for an unnamed western intelligence organization. From what he says, one is made aware of the extent and determination of the continuing campaign to rubbish the circles and discredit the researchers. This campaign is but a continuation of the Doug & Dave scam with different faces, different players.

One point I would make about crop circle investigation, is that it has turned out more in the way of evidence and research than any other aspect (in part or whole) of the UFO enigma, yet it is still one of the most neglected in terms of ufology, forums and the like. Taking from what you said, it seems that even the forum members take it very lightly. Although I can tell you that Nancy has lectured around the globe, outside of that the average individual doesn't seem to follow or know about the information.

Originally posted by g2v12
reply to post by compressedFusion

 

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.

edit on 27-8-2013 by g2v12 because: grammar

Nope, the problem is that fanciful stories about alien abductions drags ufology down into the realms of joke topic resulting in it not being taken particularly seriously by wider society. A topic like this cannot be taken seriously when it is knee deep in a quagmire of conflicting conspiracy theories, obvious hoaxes, "personal experiences" and a lack of any real accessible evidence.

People trying to get past the crap (of which there is a ton and a half) is the reason why debunking is such an avid pastime on forums like these.

I think everyone has the same goal, as the subject has some value to everyone in having some focus, study and even just acknowledgement applied to it by the real world, the problem is that different people have a different perception of what they expect society to accept as being worthwhile information.

Originally posted by InsertNameHere

Originally posted by g2v12
reply to post by compressedFusion

 

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.

edit on 27-8-2013 by g2v12 because: grammar

Nope, the problem is that fanciful stories about alien abductions drags ufology down into the realms of joke topic resulting in it not being taken particularly seriously by wider society. A topic like this cannot be taken seriously when it is knee deep in a quagmire of conflicting conspiracy theories, obvious hoaxes, "personal experiences" and a lack of any real accessible evidence.

People trying to get past the crap (of which there is a ton and a half) is the reason why debunking is such an avid pastime on forums like these.

I think everyone has the same goal, as the subject has some value to everyone in having some focus, study and even just acknowledgement applied to it by the real world, the problem is that different people have a different perception of what they expect society to accept as being worthwhile information.

edit on 2-9-2013 by InsertNameHere because: changed content

If someone representing himself as a skeptic shows a sincere interest in something based on a well rounded knowledge base of data, engages intelligently and displays critical thinking, then my criticism obviously wouldn't apply. My complaint is on those who only critique the statements of others, without offering any logical or constructive analysis. People with common interests and perhaps similar experiences come to the forums to coalesce for a learning experience.

I was part of a debunking group that focused efforts in several forums. We worked together as a team in chosen threads to discourage interaction and collaboration and generally enhance the fog of ambiguity by fomenting doubt. It took me about seven months to gain their trust. They accepted me because of my knowledge of the so called classic stories, which ufologists often quoted from. I was good at turning the data used by ufologists them. I was able to do this to gain the trust of the group and was inducted. But of course, I had to leave a few things off the table to be convincing.

During my short stay with them, I learned some interesting things about the individuals. None of them were well read in any aspect of ufology. Here we had a group of people who would spend a great effort to discourage discourse in forums, but who had never picked up a book on the subject. One of the female members had read Dimensions, by Vallee, but only did so to learn the terminology and basic concept that we were using to discourage any chat about "physical" extraterrestrials. As you may know, the Vallee/Hynek theorem involving the language and concept of the EDH Vs. ETH, has become the model for refuting the traditional view that there are inhabited planets and unearthly visitors.

The reasoning behind this group effort was individual, but mostly connected with an apparent conflict through the filter of religious beliefs. Governments on the other hand, only utilize religious beliefs to keep the concept of ET visitation out of the equation altogether. The group leader wasn't religious at all. He was extremely esoteric and into the paranormal fantasy of fractal and energy beings. He was a doctor, which made it somewhat creepy. Outside of the doctor, the others thought they were saving the world by combating satanic forces. From the view of the intelligence agencies, this idea of fostering that "dark forces" are attempting to destroy the social order, is the best route to preventing the social order from being compromised.

On the other hand, individual debunkers who aren't religious, tend to put their faith in their home grown version of scientific thinking and hard evidence. Pseudo skeptics also express themselves mockingly through this inflexible type of rant.

I can understand your frustration with what you term, fanciful stories, but if you are telling me that you can distinguish between true and false stories, I would have to say you are full of it. I would also question why anyone who believes this would even attempt to get folks to change. Who would be foolish enough to deal with a bunch of idiots telling stories? I just don't understand why someone would waste his precious time.

Forums just aren't places where anyone could filter the out the white noise.

Originally posted by RedCairo
Well that was a lovely (and injust and ridiculous and scoffing) twisting of the point of the 'incremental evidence' analogy in the first place...

I'll have you know my cat is ALREADY an alien.

Yes, it was ridiculous. I have seen those types of "analogies" before of how the "other" point of view would handle a situation...and we'll, it makes me cringe and then I am forced to say something scoffing(whatever that is). It goes both ways. Skeptics come in all shapes and sizes as do people that believe in ETH. Personally, I don't agree that I would have thought in the manner that you described nor do I think any other skeptic would have either. Why? Because you have exact numbers. 17 cats and a set of paw prints. Of course, you check it out. It's ridiculous not to. We know cats exist and we how exactly how many exist in your "analogy" and I am lost as to how this connects to the discussion.

We don't know that aliens exist so we can't be certain that people are seeing aliens. However, We do know that you can hallucinate aliens and that is information we can work with.

Originally posted by g2v12
As I recall, I asked you to provide a list of books and authors you favor on the subject of UFOs and alien abduction. I'm still waiting.

Why list what I've read if you can simplify things by posting examples of your strongest physical evidence? Soil samples? Dr Leir's "implants"?... What? I have no clue. I've already explained what I need, physical evidence. One example would be an object from inside a craft- Travis Walton claimed he picked up an object off a table inside a spacecraft and used it as a weapon, so grabbing an object is a possibility. As far as abductions go, you seem to be the self-appointed scholar between the two of us. Give us your scholarly knowledge of this subject. I'm curious to know what your high standards are besides the stories relayed. Now you seem to be hiding behind this: "Well, you need to read the books X, X, and X then you'll know what I'm talking about" argument. That's just an attempt to deflect. Show us examples. And while you're at it, address some of the points I've made in my previous posts like: "If you look at the number of hoaxes perpetrated within this phenomenon in which people take stories or photographs at face value with no physical evidence to back it up. Then find out, sometimes many years later, it was a hoax or the stories weren't true. Shouldn't then by default, this phenomenon be scrutinized and held up to the highest standards of evidence?" Among others.

reply to post by RedCairo

Originally posted by ZetaRediculian

Here is a better analogy:
I lost my cat. It must have been abducted by aliens. Case closed.

It is riduculous, but proves the point never-the-less. Real life possibilities(cat hit by a car, ran off and is lost, etc) as opposed to fantasy possibilities(cat was abducted by aliens). As possible answers, they don't even belong in the same category.
Here's another version:

The man down the street said his cat was abducted by aliens last week. Now my cat is missing. I wonder if he's been abducted by aliens too since a neighbor said his was?

-On one side you have absolutely no physical evidence what-so-ever in many decades and many thousands of sightings/experiences that alien beings are, or have ever, visited Earth. Absolutely nothing.

-On the other side you have mundane Earthly factual explanations of: Cat could have been hit by a car, could be lost in the woods, cat was attacked and killed by a dog, etc.

See the difference in reasonable conclusions? Even human abduction of the cat is far greater of a possibility. Just as with alien abductions, there are reasonable Earthly explanations ie: Sleep paralysis, mental issues, fabricated stories, etc. that far outweigh the fantasy of alien abductions. How about eliminate for a fact all of the realistic, Earthly possibilities before even attempting to believe it could be aliens?

reply to post by g2v12

I was part of a debunking group that focused efforts in several forums. We worked together as a team in chosen threads to discourage interaction and collaboration and generally enhance the fog of ambiguity by fomenting doubt. It took me about seven months to gain their trust. They accepted me because of my knowledge of the so called classic stories, which ufologists often quoted from. I was good at turning the data used by ufologists them. I was able to do this to gain the trust of the group and was inducted. But of course, I had to leave a few things off the table to be convincing.

Heh. Really? I actually find this hard to believe and if is true, well...really? 7 months to gain their trust? This must of been some serious debunking team. Good grief. Inducted by an Internet debunking team? Wow, they must have been some cool dudes! Please tell me you have recordings of discussions or something, please.

reply to post by g2v12

Ahhhhh.... Alien abductions and crop circles. I understand now. I thought this was a different level of discussion. I'll let you off the hook to show evidence. I'm frankly disappointed now.
[/end]