UFO Testimonies By Cosmonauts and Astronauts and U.S. Presidents

reply to post by K-PAX-PROT


Again, let me clarify to you what I am saying since you insist on being confused. I actually agree with oberg that you do make sense on some points except where you (purposely?) misstate my position even after correcting you at least 29 times now.

So my opinion as an ATS member is that you can not get to ET as being real even with ALL of the fantastic data that you have. This does NOT mean that ALL cases can simply be explained away as anything. Not one time have I suggested that. If you think I have, point it out please and I will retract or clarify what I said.

The point I am making about cognitive psychology is that it barely existed at the time McDonald made his statements. Today, 45 years later, there are a number of varied disciplines to draw from that are much more involved such as neurobiology.

To ME as a independent thinking person, this means that we have a better understanding of things today. I personally ca not rely on the data from 45 years ago. This is because it is simply not what I was taught. I have a degree in psychology. I hardly would call it a credential since I haven't worked in the field in 15 years. I consider it just an interest now.

So, again, I can't conclude for myself personally that ET is here or even a serious consideration. This because in my personal veiw there are way too many things that have to be considered. It's possible. That's it.

It is really troublesome to me that I would be lambasted for thinking and forming my own opinion.

ZetaRediculian
reply to post by K-PAX-PROT

 

So how did McDonald miss this fantastic information? How come he could not conclude without a doubt that ET was here? -500 interviews.
-can only conclude ETH is a possibility
-Based on that there was no other competing explainations 45 years ago.
-Not based on witness testimony
-Branches of psychology dealing specifically with perception barely existing as a field of study

How can this be?

Still not provided any credible scientific data that proves beyond doubt there is no possibility of ET intelligence's out there with the required technologies to have in place a stealth observational agenda with us??

You still have not provided any real credible evidence that totally debunks the conclusions that McDonald reached on those cases that were backed up by radar hits, multiple witness testimonies ect .

You have an agenda of answering questions not with answers but with questions, your attempt at trying to pass off ALL UFO cases involved with military pilots ect as nothing more than mental discrepancies reeks of desperate straw clutching...

As i have stated at the onset of this thread my take and probably McDonald's is that we are being observed, why has there been no definite proof of ET in UFO cases but only an ET hypothesis, well that i feels is down to the level of the technology , remaining in a stealth like mode would be easy to achieve with the right technology, their will only ever be proof we those ET intelligence's provided it , have you ever considered that they are the ones total control of any disclosure of their presence ...


I just feel that after looking at those cases he investigated and the conclusions he reached through the data at his disposal and the witnesses he interviewed the ET hypothesis is a valid possible possibility.When all avenues of mundane explanations have been ruled out including investigation methods ect then we are left with other avenues, like unknown atmospheric origins , black ops; ET,

Now if we were observing a civilization from a hands off or distant observational agendas would you want to be detected?? would you not make sure that you remained in "stealth mode" for the foreseeable??

Is it not the case that the ET hypothesis has adequate evidence to be a very plausible and credible origin of number of alternative explanations for those cases deemed unsolvable by not only the past but also today's current understandings and that there are those who do not want the ET hypothesis as having any ground at all or to be included in those alternative explanations, yes would be my answer.

That there is raw high strangeness data ,(flight characteristics),contained in some cases investigated by McDonald backed up by military radar and also has multiple witnesses that rules out your rather amusing "mental discrepancies" and misconceptions and false memory traits explanations it makes me really believe that you have not looked closely ,(if any at all), at the actual data contained in those "high strangeness" cases investigated by McDonald.

Do you realize how condescending and patronizing it sounds and comes across from someone who is telling someone they are wrong or having some mental discrepancies in what they saw regardless of other independent witnesses who witnessed the same stimuli, that one of those independent witness was in a fighter jet sent up by another independent witness who happened to be the air force base commander who gave the order to scramble based on another of those independent witnesses who just happened to be a radar operator who acknowledged this object, then other independent witnesses were observing it through binoculars on the ground......., now in what possible way can these set of stimulus and events be attributed to mental discrepancies, false memory traits or hallucinations or false memory stimuli of the events... The above has convinced me that you are not paying attention, ignoring the real data of cases that have the above data of events in them, not paying attention to all the independent witness testimonies that make redundant your false memory and mental discrepancies conclusions...


You would do well in taking on board this verified quote from a very respectable scientific physicist Bernard Haisch when he quote the below...

To look at the evidence and go away unconvinced is one thing. To not look at the evidence and be convinced against it nonetheless is another. That is not science. Do your homework!

Then this rather remarkable revelation from Bernard Haisch, who evels from sources he trusts that they have been privy to have handled what they described as "alien material"... when we have such respectable and highly credible sources coming out with such information then when is it time to start paying attention to them, them your "mental" or "misconceptions" to physical stimuli as being a acceptable ,credible and scientific conclusion is not justified for multiple witness and radar , pilot cases..., the fact that you offered it in the first place is based on not paying real attention to the actual data and avoidance tatic of those cases that still remain unsolved...

I see myself a bit like the kid standing next to the kid looking through the hole in the big tall fence at the baseball game. This means that the closest I am getting to inside information will be a recounting of what is going on in there. I myself am definitely not an insider, but certain contacts I have acquired and/or befriended over a long period of time seem to be on the periphery of some kind of inside which appears to contain at least remarkable information, and apparently more than that. Let me be (somewhat) more specific. I now have three completely independent examples of individuals whom I trust reporting to me that individuals they trust have admitted to handling alien artifacts in "our" possession in the course of secret official duties.

(The special access level in the one case for which I know it is R, a not widely known SCI level whose existence was finally verified for me by someone who himself had a very high access level, though short of that one, as being "reserved for someone at the very top." I do not know, however, whether it is specifically reserved or designated for this topic.) It is interesting that from the clandestine intelligence world perspective the scientific community, for all of its technical and theoretical sophistication, is viewed as remarkably naive in certain respects. We scientists tend to think that we know better than anyone else what is possible and what is impossible, and that we of all people could surely not be kept in the dark for very long.

Over the course of time I have learned how it would indeed be possible to maintain decades-long secrecy on this topic and why this might be justified, concepts I myself once dismissed (see Black Special Access Programs, also Some Thoughts on Keeping It Secret). My impression is that the justification may be waning at last. (For some insight on the origin of this situation see the book UFOs and the National Security State: An Unclassified History. Vol. 1: 1947-1973 by Richard Dolan; also The Missing Times by Terry Hansen which documents the history of ties between the national media and the intelligence community.)

link for the two above quotes;
www.ufoskeptic.org...

K-PAX-PROT

ZetaRediculian
reply to post by K-PAX-PROT

 

So how did McDonald miss this fantastic information? How come he could not conclude without a doubt that ET was here? -500 interviews.
-can only conclude ETH is a possibility
-Based on that there was no other competing explainations 45 years ago.
-Not based on witness testimony
-Branches of psychology dealing specifically with perception barely existing as a field of study

How can this be?

Still not provided any credible scientific data that proves beyond doubt there is no possibility of ET intelligence's out there with the required technologies to have in place a stealth observational agenda with us??

You still have not provided any real credible evidence that totally debunks the conclusions that McDonald reached on those cases that were backed up by radar hits, multiple witness testimonies ect .

You have an agenda of answering questions not with answers but with questions, your attempt at trying to pass off ALL UFO cases involved with military pilots ect as nothing more than mental discrepancies reeks of desperate straw clutching...

As i have stated at the onset of this thread my take and probably McDonald's is that we are being observed, why has there been no definite proof of ET in UFO cases but only an ET hypothesis, well that i feels is down to the level of the technology involved with "high strangeness cases" , remaining in a stealth like mode would be easy to achieve with the right technology, there will only ever be proof when those ET intelligence's provided it or lets us observe it, have you ever considered that they are the ones in total control of any disclosure of their presence ...


I just feel that after looking at those cases he investigated and the conclusions he reached through the data at his disposal and the witnesses he interviewed the ET hypothesis is a valid possible possibility.When all avenues of mundane explanations have been ruled out including investigation methods ect then we are left with other avenues, like unknown atmospheric origins , black ops; ET,

Now if we were observing a civilization from a hands off or distant observational agendas would you want to be detected?? would you not make sure that you remained in "stealth mode" for the foreseeable??

Is it not the case that the ET hypothesis has adequate evidence to be a very plausible and credible origin of number of alternative explanations for those cases deemed unsolvable by not only the past but also today's current understandings and that there are those who do not want the ET hypothesis as having any ground at all or to be included in those alternative explanations, yes would be my answer.

That there is raw high strangeness data ,(flight characteristics),contained in some cases investigated by McDonald backed up by military radar and also has multiple witnesses that rules out your rather amusing "mental discrepancies" and misconceptions and false memory traits explanations it makes me really believe that you have not looked closely ,(if any at all), at the actual data contained in those "high strangeness" cases investigated by McDonald.

Do you realize how condescending and patronizing it sounds and comes across from someone who is telling someone they are wrong or having some mental discrepancies in what they saw regardless of other independent witnesses who witnessed the same stimuli, that one of those independent witness was in a fighter jet sent up by another independent witness who happened to be the air force base commander who gave the order to scramble based on another of those independent witnesses who just happened to be a radar operator who acknowledged this object, then other independent witnesses were observing it through binoculars on the ground......., now in what possible way can these set of stimulus and events be attributed to mental discrepancies, false memory traits or hallucinations or false memory stimuli of the events... The above has convinced me that you are not paying attention, ignoring the real data of cases that have the above data of events in them, not paying attention to all the independent witness testimonies that make redundant your false memory and mental discrepancies conclusions...


You would do well in taking on board this verified quote from a very respectable scientific physicist Bernard Haisch when he quote the below...

To look at the evidence and go away unconvinced is one thing. To not look at the evidence and be convinced against it nonetheless is another. That is not science. Do your homework!

Then this rather remarkable revelation from Bernard Haisch, who evels from sources he trusts that they have been privy to have handled what they described as "alien material"... when we have such respectable and highly credible sources coming out with such information then when is it time to start paying attention to them, them your "mental" or "misconceptions" to physical stimuli as being a acceptable ,credible and scientific conclusion is not justified for multiple witness and radar , pilot cases..., the fact that you offered it in the first place is based on not paying real attention to the actual data and avoidance tatic of those cases that still remain unsolved...

I see myself a bit like the kid standing next to the kid looking through the hole in the big tall fence at the baseball game. This means that the closest I am getting to inside information will be a recounting of what is going on in there. I myself am definitely not an insider, but certain contacts I have acquired and/or befriended over a long period of time seem to be on the periphery of some kind of inside which appears to contain at least remarkable information, and apparently more than that. Let me be (somewhat) more specific. I now have three completely independent examples of individuals whom I trust reporting to me that individuals they trust have admitted to handling alien artifacts in "our" possession in the course of secret official duties.

(The special access level in the one case for which I know it is R, a not widely known SCI level whose existence was finally verified for me by someone who himself had a very high access level, though short of that one, as being "reserved for someone at the very top." I do not know, however, whether it is specifically reserved or designated for this topic.) It is interesting that from the clandestine intelligence world perspective the scientific community, for all of its technical and theoretical sophistication, is viewed as remarkably naive in certain respects. We scientists tend to think that we know better than anyone else what is possible and what is impossible, and that we of all people could surely not be kept in the dark for very long.

Over the course of time I have learned how it would indeed be possible to maintain decades-long secrecy on this topic and why this might be justified, concepts I myself once dismissed (see Black Special Access Programs, also Some Thoughts on Keeping It Secret). My impression is that the justification may be waning at last. (For some insight on the origin of this situation see the book UFOs and the National Security State: An Unclassified History. Vol. 1: 1947-1973 by Richard Dolan; also The Missing Times by Terry Hansen which documents the history of ties between the national media and the intelligence community.)

link for the two above quotes;
www.ufoskeptic.org...

K-PAX-PROT

K-PAX-PROT

ZetaRediculian
reply to post by K-PAX-PROT

 

So how did McDonald miss this fantastic information? How come he could not conclude without a doubt that ET was here? -500 interviews.
-can only conclude ETH is a possibility
-Based on that there was no other competing explainations 45 years ago.
-Not based on witness testimony
-Branches of psychology dealing specifically with perception barely existing as a field of study

How can this be?

reply to post by K-PAX-PROT

Still not provided any credible scientific data that proves beyond doubt there is no possibility of ET intelligence's out there with the required technologies to have in place a stealth observational agenda with us??

Your straw man routine is getting old. How about you provide any statement that come close to that first. It's nothing short of repetitive bullying on your part and it's shameful to say the least.

You are wasting your time with your long winded posts since I won't bother looking at the same thing over and over that doesn't have exact quotes from me. it's tiresome but it won't stop me from commenting when I choose to do so.

K-PAX-PROT
[zquote] K-PAX-PROT
[zquote] K-PAX-PROT
[zquote] ZetaRediculian
reply to post by K-PAX-PROT

 

So how did McDonald miss this fantastic information? How come he could not conclude without a doubt that ET was here? -500 interviews.
-can only conclude ETH is a possibility
-Based on that there was no other competing explainations 45 years ago.
-Not based on witness testimony
-Branches of psychology dealing specifically with perception barely existing as a field of study

How can this be?

Trouble with the quote function? It's pretty basic logic... Oh right, nevermind

reply to post by K-PAX-PROT

Simple, real visual stimuli caught on radar then witnessed by other individuals of the SAME stimuli ,(UFO), then pilots being ordered to scramble and engage or investigate the visual stimuli caught on radar then witnessed by other individuals is why it is relevant.

here is a relevant case than. The JAL flight over Alaska which is probably the most well documented and most credible radar case out there. All indications were that it was due to a cloud. post by Arbitrageur
I don't want to derail this thread any more than it has been already. Just make any comments in the JAL thread. thanks. and no, All cases cant be explained as clouds so don't even...

Please produce credible evidence that all independent witnesses in the cases McDonald investigated were simply suffering from a mental discrepancy or were victims of the malleability of human memory, the Misinformation Effect, and false memory syndrome and its relation to recovered memory therapy.

I honestly have no idea what you are talking about.

You are i feel really scrapping the bottom of the debunking barrel if you are seriously offering the conclusion that the same people can be suffering from an illusionary visual stimuli that not only was recorded on radar, had fighter jets engaging them exct..

I haven't come to a conclusion but do check out the JAL thread.

this is scrapping the bottom:

well that i feels is down to the level of the technology , remaining in a stealth like mode would be easy to achieve with the right technology, their will only ever be proof we those ET intelligence's provided it , have you ever considered that they are the ones total control of any disclosure of their presence ...

Since when did radars record or multiple witnesses see or be experiencing Cognitive psychology ,of mental processes such as "attention, language use, memory, perception, problem solving, and thinking ..

this has got to be the worst straw man argument I ever heard!

Are you seriously suggesting that a renowned atmospheric physicist was basing all his conclusions on the witness data , mainly from military witnesses in some cases more than one wittiness to any UFO report, that was nothing more than Cognitive psychology, if that is your conclusions then the military had some real mental problems with most of its base commanders and fighter pilots,

I have to be quite honest with you. You have an apparent inability to have any type of conversation based on anything I actually said. You HAVE to be doing it on purpose, because nobody is this dense. You are imply I said this based on what exactly? because I mentioned cognitive psychology didn't exist as a formal field of study until 1967? "real mental problems " is yet another straw man. when will it stop?

, i am just glad that you are no where near any decision making when it comes to any military defense of my countries air spaces , do you really think that these pilots ect even today who are reporting things in the air when be aloud any were near a fighter jet

right...I suppose you would be on a constant patrol of the invisible alien space ships then? Why wouldn't you send someone to investigate? If I "think" I hear something in the middle of the night, I will check it out even if I am certain it was nothing. If nobody was there, I wouldn't then blame it on the invisible alien but you would I guess? Yeah, im pretty sure I wouldn't want you calling any shots with regards to anything to do with defense.

... seriously...., to suggest that ALL UFO cases involving military witnesses are all down to mental misconceptions, stimuli and false memory traits

seriously, I didn't suggest that.

is nothing short of a real disrespect to all those brave pilots ect who have had the guts to come forward with their personal testimonies and that McDonald was a victim to the data of he cases he investigated .... 

well golly, I didn't think of it that way. your blatant dismissal of 45 years worth several academic disciplines is nothing short of ridiculous. To seriously suggest that ALL fields of psychology and neurology should be discarded in favor of chasing make believe aliens around is incredibly arrogant and highly delusional. how do you think the people who have dedicated their lives to such disciplines feel when they come here and read this? Did I get that about right?

You still have not provided any real credible evidence that totally debunks the conclusions that McDonald reached on those cases that were backed up by radar hits, multiple witness testimonies ect .

was I supposed to? you still haven't proved one was an alien. oh that's right because of their stealth mode...ah well.

You have an agenda of answering questions not with answers but with questions,

I have answered every one of your questions. when do you plan on answering mine?

your attempt at trying to pass off ALL UFO cases involved with military pilots ect as nothing more than mental discrepancies reeks of desperate straw clutching...

what is it you think will happen if you constantly pull the straw man? that it will somehow come true? "straw clutching" is your projection because this the tactic you are using. anyone can read what I posted.

For the Record: I cant prove that ANY misperception, hallucination false memory or whatever has occurred by anyone in any given case. They ALL possibly very well may be due to secret alien spies from space as you have suggested, or they could be something a little less exciting. They may be a combination of both. What I do know is that misperception, etc does occur and has occurred as evidenced here. What I don't know is of any confirmed aliens.

So what can we do with this data? we can study misperceptions, we cant study aliens. aliens ARE cool though. way cool.

Now if we were observing a civilization from a hands off or distant observational agendas would you want to be detected?? would you not make sure that you remained in "stealth mode" for the foreseeable??

There is an awful lot of sightings as you pointed out. If they are experiencing such catastrophic failure of their stealth mode on a consistent basis, could it be that their technology sucks then? or these hypothetical aliens are amazingly good at being in "stealth" mode and being seen just enough to make it look like it could be something else. thank god you are on to them!

Is it not the case that the ET hypothesis has adequate evidence to be a very plausible and credible origin of number of alternative explanations for those cases deemed unsolvable by not only the past but also today's current understandings and that there are those who do not want the ET hypothesis as having any ground at all or to be included in those alternative explanations, yes would be my answer.

Im going with no.

That there is raw high strangeness data ,(flight characteristics),contained in some cases investigated by McDonald backed up by military radar and also has multiple witnesses that rules out your rather amusing "mental discrepancies" and misconceptions and false memory traits explanations it makes me really believe that you have not looked closely ,(if any at all), at the actual data contained in those "high strangeness" cases investigated by McDonald.

I have looked at a lota lota cases. the stranger, the better. radar cases are interesting but I don't know enough about radar failure to comment. I raise the "amusing mental discrepancies" with your "ridiculous alien stealth technology that is constantly failing".

Do you realize how condescending and patronizing it sounds and comes across from someone who is telling someone they are wrong or having some mental discrepancies in what they saw regardless of other independent witnesses who witnessed the same stimuli

do you know how incredibly arrogant, condescending and patronizing it sounds when you tell everyone in every field of psychology and related disciplines that the knowledge gained for the last 45 years is useless based on someone's comments in 1968?

that one of those independent witness was in a fighter jet sent up by another independent witness who happened to be the air force base commander who gave the order to scramble based on another of those independent witnesses who just happened to be a radar operator who acknowledged this object, then other independent witnesses were observing it through binoculars on the ground......., now in what possible way can these set of stimulus and events be attributed to mental discrepancies, false memory traits or hallucinations or false memory stimuli of the events... The above has convinced me that you are not paying attention, ignoring the real data of cases that have the above data of events in them, not paying attention to all the independent witness testimonies that make redundant your false memory and mental discrepancies conclusions...

here
false memory article by oliver sacks
post by Arbitrageur
hallucinations and UFO article
Illusury contours
You have to read it all at once and have had to have some insight into yourself for a number of years. I highly recommend being conscious of the things you misperceive in everyday life. now lets see if you can make this into one sentence on your next rant.

Then this rather remarkable revelation from Bernard Haisch, who evels from sources he trusts that they have been privy to have handled what they described as "alien material"... when we have such respectable and highly credible sources coming out with such information then when is it time to start paying attention to them

when? once the information is verified.

the fact that you offered it in the first place is based on not paying real attention to the actual data and avoidance tatic of those cases that still remain unsolved...

yes there unresolved cases most likely due to alien stealth failure

reply to post by JimOberg

KPAX you're really shining

so is the pimple on my butt

EnPassant

So, what are the chances that two people who don't know each other and know almost nothing about ufology would have an error of perception that has their car engine stalling when a bright light in the sky approaches them? What are the chances that these events would be followed by an out of the body experience in both instances? Is there a mental disease known as bright-light-engine-stall-OBE-syndrome? If there was they would, no doubt, make a pill to cure it...

well the first thing that came to mind would be a seizure. here is an interesting article by Oliver Sacks but it falls short of your requirements but still worth a read...so this is where I would start.

www.theatlantic.com...

EnPassant


You are complicating a very very simple thing. What are the chances that delusions could be so consistent across time, geographic borders and, most importantly, barriers that prevent people knowing about other's experiences?

You are over simplifying a very complicated thing and posing a loaded question. Reports are by nature diverse and inconsistent, and geographic borders are in no way impermeable to information... not now, not ever.

This is what's known as a complex question fallacy.

As is this:

EnPassant
Even more simply: how could a person have a similar delusion, within very limited parameters, that mirrors another's when there is no cross contamination?

You assert the constraints you deem necessary to produce the desired answer.

Complex Question Fallacy

For more details on this topic, see Loaded question.

The complex question fallacy, or many questions fallacy, is context dependent; a presupposition by itself doesn't have to be a fallacy. It is committed when someone asks a question that presupposes something that has not been proven or accepted by all the people involved. For example, "Is Mary wearing a blue or a red dress?" is fallacious because it artificially restricts the possible responses to a blue or red dress. If the person being questioned wouldn't necessarily consent to those constraints, the question is fallacious

reply to post by draknoir2


good catch

zetarediculian

EnPassant

So, what are the chances that two people who don't know each other and know almost nothing about ufology would have an error of perception that has their car engine stalling when a bright light in the sky approaches them? What are the chances that these events would be followed by an out of the body experience in both instances? Is there a mental disease known as bright-light-engine-stall-OBE-syndrome? If there was they would, no doubt, make a pill to cure it...

well the first thing that came to mind would be a seizure. here is an interesting article by Oliver Sacks but it falls short of your requirements but still worth a read...so this is where I would start.

www.theatlantic.com...

This is the problem with the medical items in the debunkery bag- you can always pull out some syndrome or chemical to explain things away. What you need to do is look at the facts more carefully. These events are often multiple witness events and are often followed up by OBEs and preceded by sightings of ufos. If you are going to medicalise it you have to invent a new syndrome "UFO sighting-car stalling-OBE-lesions on body" syndrome. It simply does not work. The most logical conclusion is that these events are real because the alternative theory cannot provide a convincing explanation. You need to push the alternative theory to its limits to see if it will break down because simply saying "It could be explained by ..." and leaving it at that stops you from thinking any further.

draknoir2

EnPassant


You are complicating a very very simple thing. What are the chances that delusions could be so consistent across time, geographic borders and, most importantly, barriers that prevent people knowing about other's experiences?

You are over simplifying a very complicated thing and posing a loaded question. Reports are by nature diverse and inconsistent, and geographic borders are in no way impermeable to information... not now, not ever.

This is what's known as a complex question fallacy.

As is this:

EnPassant
"Even more simply: how could a person have a similar delusion, within very limited parameters, that mirrors another's when there is no cross contamination?"

You assert the constraints you deem necessary to produce the desired answer.

I don't think so. These constraints are real. Randles has unearthed cases that were buried in the archives that nobody knew about. For example, the Greys were described long before Striber's descriptions. Many of these cases were not published...

ZetaRediculian

K-PAX-PROT
[zquote] K-PAX-PROT
[zquote] K-PAX-PROT
[zquote] ZetaRediculian
reply to post by K-PAX-PROT

 

So how did McDonald miss this fantastic information? How come he could not conclude without a doubt that ET was here? -500 interviews.
-can only conclude ETH is a possibility
-Based on that there was no other competing explainations 45 years ago.
-Not based on witness testimony
-Branches of psychology dealing specifically with perception barely existing as a field of study

How can this be?

Trouble with the quote function? It's pretty basic logic... Oh right, nevermind

edit on 10-9-2013 by ZetaRediculian because: (no reason given)

Nice bullying tactic again and yet again you you fail to produce any evidence to prove there are no ET intelligence's out there with the required technologies , (tired of me asking you this, well just admit you do not have any evidence then, answer the question as it is put instead of straw man like avoidance), none do to have an observational agenda with us.You know very well that you will never have that evidence and you also know very well that until you provided it then the ET hypothesis stands as a possibility and let me answer your quest above, McDonald provided ample evidence that multiple witnesses cases backed up with radar evidence are not in any way results of mental discrepancies, misconceptions ect.. Have you real trouble understanding the above, trouble with the above text function...??

Really you are sounding anything but scientific or credible in your conclusions of the "mental physiological and psychology" being the explanations for every single "quote" or multiple witness testimonies and radar back ups of what those witnesses witnessed.

The real truth of the matter here is that you have lost the argument that ALL quotes ,UFO cases with multiple witnesses, radar evidence are ALL just mental physiological and psychology" related misconceptions ect.. You have NOT looked at those cases investigated by McDonald that rule out any human mental misconception explanations due to the actual raw data they contain, lets look at one shall we then you can put for ward your now tiresome psychology" related misconceptions conclusions...

If time permitted I would talk about a number of radar cases. One of the most famous is the Washington National Airport sighting. On July 19, 1952, CAA radars and Andrews Air Force radars tracked unknowns moving at variable speeds from 100 miles an hour to over 800 miles an hour, and a number of airline pilots in the air saw these, and were in some instances vectored in by the CAA radar people, and then saw luminous objects in the same area that they showed on radar up near Herndon and Martinsburg.

I talked to five of these CAA people. One can still go back and check these old cases, I emphasize. I also talked to four of the airline pilots who were in the air at the time. I have gone over the quantitative aspects of the official explanation that this was ducting or trapping of the radar beams. That is quite untenable. I have gone over the radiosonde, computed the radar refractive index gradient, and it is nowhere near the ducting gradient.

Also, it is very important that at one time three different radars, two CAA and one Andrews Air Force Base radar, all got compatible echoes. That is extremely significant.

And finally from a radar-propagation point of view, the angles of propagation, radar and visual, were far above any values that would permit trapping, which makes this a case which is not an explained case. It was an instance of unidentified aerial objects over our Capital, I believe.

One could go on with many cases.

For the record i never claimed that McDonald had proof of ET visitation , he never claimed that either it was YOU who implied i did, round about the time you realized you were loosing the arguments for your human psychology" related misconceptions for ALL quotes and those cases investigated by McDonald. What i and McDonald are claiming is that there is credible and significant evidence in those cases he investigated that are "OUTWITH" any human psychology" related misconceptions having any possible grounds for those cases with MULTIPLE WITNESSES and radar evidence.. Now were is the credibility and evidence of your estimation that the above is any where near your tiresome psychology" related misconceptions conclusions...?????


Again McDonald puts this in perspective when he is quoted as saying the below..

This sort of thing has happened over and over again. The ridicule lid keeps these out of sight; too many of them are occurring to delay any longer in getting at this problem with all possible scientific assistance.

link; files.ncas.org...

You have gone down the human psychology" related misconceptions rabbit hole and while it may seem valid to those who have not looked or paid real attention to those cases McDonald investigated... ie. those radar and multiple witnesses cases.. it does manifest as a real arrogant and non credible argument to assume that ALL those MULTIPLE witnesses were suffering from delusions and mental misconceptions at the SAME time while witnesses the object under investigation, how is that argument in any way shape or form applicable to such cases of multiple witness, what scientific reasoning are you trying to achieve here, surely you can perceive that your human psychology" related misconceptions arguments for McDonald's ET hypothesis in relation to those multiple witness and radar cases he investigated and the conclusions he reached fir them are wrong on every scientific level ...

You are confusing McDonald's ET hypothesis with proof of ET visitation from the conclusions of the cases he investigated and as you know he or i never claimed proof of ET observation but what he did show was that the ET hypothesis as ONE of a number of possible explanations was entirely feasible, credible and that more scientific investigations were needed due to the utter incompetence and inadequate scientific investigations carried out by the USAF intelligence's, not due to lack of data but because they had no known protocols to investigated a technology far in advanced of what science understands and rather than admit that they started the "force fit debunking" explanations for such cases of very high strangeness....

tell me why those force fit debunking cases are in any way not justification fir further investigation and why your have never once included that reality in your estimations of your rebuttals of any possibility of the ET hypothesis having solid foundations ... you and we all know that if the USAF intelligence's admitted we were dealing with a real unknown intelligence displaying an advanced technology indicating intelligent design and control through an objects flight characteristics then we would have reached a whole new level of the credibility and official admittance of the ET hypothesis emerging as more than just an hypothesis, that is the reason you avoid the subject and reality of all those UFO cases that received the "force fit debunking" explanations forced on them, no smoke without fire as they say and when objects start to perform or show signs of intelligent control and are backed up by multiple witnesses and have radar evidence to then its time to start paying attention, you can cite all the psychologists you want but they will never offer any credibility to those radar and multiple witnesses cases investigated by McDonald , just glad we have those in positions of air defense that are not mentally unstable to defend my countries air spaces...

reply to post by zetarediculian

K-PAX-PROTH: Do you realize how condescending and patronizing it sounds and comes across from someone who is telling someone they are wrong or having some mental discrepancies in what they saw regardless of other independent witnesses who witnessed the same stimuli

Zetariticulian: do you know how incredibly arrogant, condescending and patronizing it sounds when you tell everyone in every field of psychology and related disciplines that the knowledge gained for the last 45 years is useless based on someone's comments in 1968?

Your rhetoric is running away with you. He is not saying the last 45 years of knowledge is useless. He is saying it does not apply in this case.

reply to post by K-PAX-PROT

Nice bullying tactic again and yet again you you fail to produce any evidence to prove there are no ET intelligence's out there with the required technologies , (tired of me asking you this, well just admit you do not have any evidence then,

yes I admit it! will you stop with your BS argument now? I have said it repeatedly. here, let me say it again. I cant prove that any given case is not ET with the required technology to enter into stealth mode. in fact I cant prove without a doubt that you are not a stealth capable ET yourself. I cant prove spiderman is not real and I cant prove any negative. I can fill up a million things I cant prove. happy?

You know very well that you will never have that evidence and you also know very well that until you provided it then the ET hypothesis stands as a possibility

yes, I have said that many times. yes its possible. can you stop with the BS?

and let me answer your quest above, McDonald provided ample evidence that multiple witnesses cases backed up with radar evidence are not in any way results of mental discrepancies, misconceptions ect.. Have you real trouble understanding the above, trouble with the above text function...??

I have no trouble with anything. Is it OK if I disagree without you going into a tizzy? would that be possible?

Really you are sounding anything but scientific or credible in your conclusions of the "mental physiological and psychology" being the explanations for every single "quote" or multiple witness testimonies and radar back ups of what those witnesses witnessed.

really you sound like a broken straw man creation machine. I have said over and over again there is no explanation for every single case or even one case. what we have is no aliens to date. what we do have is knowledge of how people perceive and misperceive. we do also have cases where this has occurred. is it making sense yet?

The real truth of the matter here is that you have lost the argument that ALL quotes ,UFO cases with multiple witnesses, radar evidence are ALL just mental physiological and psychology" related misconceptions ect.. You have NOT looked at those cases investigated by McDonald that rule out any human mental misconception explanations due to the actual raw data they contain, lets look at one shall we then you can put for ward your now tiresome psychology" related misconceptions conclusions...

really you sound like a broken straw man creation machine. I have said over and over again there is no explanation for every single case or even one case. what we have is no aliens to date. what we do have is knowledge of how people perceive and misperceive. we do also have cases where this has occurred. is it making sense yet?

For the record i never claimed that McDonald had proof of ET visitation , he never claimed that either it was YOU who implied i did, round about the time you realized you were loosing the arguments for your human psychology" related misconceptions for ALL quotes and those cases investigated by McDonald.

you implied it. really you sound like a broken straw man creation machine. I have said over and over again there is no explanation for every single case or even one case. what we have is no aliens to date. what we do have is knowledge of how people perceive and misperceive. we do also have cases where this has occurred. is it making sense yet?

it does manifest as a real arrogant and non credible argument to assume that ALL those MULTIPLE witnesses were suffering from delusions and mental misconceptions at the SAME time while witnesses the object under investigation, how is that argument in any way shape or form applicable to such cases of multiple witness, what scientific reasoning are you trying to achieve here, surely you can perceive that your human psychology" related misconceptions arguments for McDonald's ET hypothesis in relation to those multiple witness and radar cases he investigated and the conclusions he reached fir them are wrong on every scientific level ...

really you sound like a broken straw man creation machine. I have said over and over again there is no explanation for every single case or even one case. what we have is no aliens to date. what we do have is knowledge of how people perceive and misperceive. we do also have cases where this has occurred. is it making sense yet?

so how do you just dismiss 45 years of psychological knowledge? where are your credentials to do so?

EnPassant
reply to post by zetarediculian

 

K-PAX-PROTH: Do you realize how condescending and patronizing it sounds and comes across from someone who is telling someone they are wrong or having some mental discrepancies in what they saw regardless of other independent witnesses who witnessed the same stimuli

Zetariticulian: do you know how incredibly arrogant, condescending and patronizing it sounds when you tell everyone in every field of psychology and related disciplines that the knowledge gained for the last 45 years is useless based on someone's comments in 1968?

Your rhetoric is running away with you. He is not saying the last 45 years of knowledge is useless. He is saying it does not apply in this case

you missed it than because I haven't said what he is implying anywhere. can you quote where I did?

EnPassant

zetarediculian

EnPassant

So, what are the chances that two people who don't know each other and know almost nothing about ufology would have an error of perception that has their car engine stalling when a bright light in the sky approaches them? What are the chances that these events would be followed by an out of the body experience in both instances? Is there a mental disease known as bright-light-engine-stall-OBE-syndrome? If there was they would, no doubt, make a pill to cure it...

well the first thing that came to mind would be a seizure. here is an interesting article by Oliver Sacks but it falls short of your requirements but still worth a read...so this is where I would start.

www.theatlantic.com...

This is the problem with the medical items in the debunkery bag- you can always pull out some syndrome or chemical to explain things away. What you need to do is look at the facts more carefully. These events are often multiple witness events and are often followed up by OBEs and preceded by sightings of ufos. If you are going to medicalise it you have to invent a new syndrome "UFO sighting-car stalling-OBE-lesions on body" syndrome. It simply does not work. The most logical conclusion is that these events are real because the alternative theory cannot provide a convincing explanation. You need to push the alternative theory to its limits to see if it will break down because simply saying "It could be explained by ..." and leaving it at that stops you from thinking any further.

you asked if something sounded like this and the answer is yes. its not a debunking its an article about seizures. I said it doesn't match exactly what you wanted or maybe not at all.

EnPassant

draknoir2

EnPassant


You are complicating a very very simple thing. What are the chances that delusions could be so consistent across time, geographic borders and, most importantly, barriers that prevent people knowing about other's experiences?

You are over simplifying a very complicated thing and posing a loaded question. Reports are by nature diverse and inconsistent, and geographic borders are in no way impermeable to information... not now, not ever.

This is what's known as a complex question fallacy.

As is this:

EnPassant
"Even more simply: how could a person have a similar delusion, within very limited parameters, that mirrors another's when there is no cross contamination?"

You assert the constraints you deem necessary to produce the desired answer.

I don't think so. These constraints are real. Randles has unearthed cases that were buried in the archives that nobody knew about. For example, the Greys were described long before Striber's descriptions. Many of these cases were not published...

Let's see what Ms. Randles has to say about it:

Certainly in my study of British cases there are no obvious greys at all until well into the l980's. Most - even hypnotically pursued - CE 4 s until about l985 had more human like or Nordic beings. The classic Telford encounter (pursued in l982/l983 with hypnosis on all three witnesses) produced different entity types with each witness and one of these was somewhat grey like. It is all the more apparent when you see how - after the massive import of greys into British culture circa l987 (via the books of Strieber and Hopkins) the previous pattern of British aliens virtually disappeared overnight and >>now you are hard pressed NOT to find greys." - Jenny Randles

ufoupdateslist.com...

Your asserted "consistency" across time is artificial and media-driven, as conceded by your own source. Common human experiences are subject to popular interpretation. Example: Incubus attack, Old Hag Syndrome, Alien Abuction, Hallucinatory Sleep Paralysis.

See my post about the power of the media.

reply to post by K-PAX-PROT


So to recap, you have zero aliens. on the other hand, there are a number of cases that turned out to be some form of basic psychological phenomenon together with real external events as evidenced by Jim Oberg.
in these cases, they look and feel like the fantastic unsolved cases that you reference.

On the other front, you have absolutely obliterated all the straw men you have put in place. Congratulations.