Hi, Howard.
Did you author these?
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.paranet.ufo/browse_thread/thread/2fbdf01d745f4835/fe6f6212704e5c8e?hl=en&
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.paranet.ufo/msg/a6e6e5f9b07c3644?dmode=source
<QUOTE ON>--------------------------------
From: ho...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Howpl)
Subject: Re: UFO Evidence
Date: 1999/01/27
Message-ID: <19990127180706.09002.00000050@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 437694897
References: <capr2.119$VQ5.859789@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
Newsgroups: alt.paranet.ufo
X-Admin: n...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>let's
>say I claim to have a volcano in my backyard. You come to visit to see
>it, and find nothing. Then I tell you that of course you can't see it,
>because it's in another dimension, and is thus invisible. But it's
>there! It's not my fault that you can't comprehend other dimensions.
>
>Would the above be acceptable to you? There's no way to prove or
>dis****ve that volcano. If it wouldn't be acceptable to you, then why is
>presenting alien activity in a nonfalsifiable light acceptable?
>
I'm familiar with the thesis that UFOs can be visible to some -- those
with psychic powers -- and not to others (see Colin Wilson's new book).
But the original debate here focussed on motive. You attack a straw man.
That the behavior of these alien-types seems pointless to us is a point in
favor of rejecting their reality --- but only a point. The totality of
the evidence goes way beyond motive. The alien thesis is not falsifiable
simply because we fail to assign motive. There are: - Thousands of visual
sightings by persons of sound mind (many professional pilots, many
subjected to psych tests) - Movements on radar screens matching up with
movements sighted by pilots
- Sightings (and abduction experiences, yes) described similarly by people
without apparent mental problems and with no op****tunity to colllude.
- Burn marks, depressions, and other physical evidence found on the ground
where UFOs were re****tedly seen
- Burned skin, scoop marks, nosebleeds and other physical effects on those
re****ting sightings or abductions
- Strange, unidentified items ("implants") extracted from supposed
abductees (see photos in Streiber's new book) .
- A huge mass of data derived from hypnosis, which is impossible to
dismiss en masse as the product of biased researchers
- The fact that so much data emerges without recourse to hypnosis
- The basic affinity of both sets of data.
- Unexplained cattle mutilations
- Unexplained crop circles
I'm sure I could go on, but I think you get the point. There may be no
way to refute the UFO/alien thesis with a single experience - or lack
thereof. Frankly, I'd be very impressed if YOU could provide an
alternative explanation for all data collected thus far. I haven't heard
one yet.
And it's just not good enough to show some were hoaxes. "Scientists"
concluded that crop circles were a hoax when two Englishmen confessed to
creaing them -- despite the fact that the patterns appear all over the
world and were re****ted decades earlier.
Real scientists review the totality of the evidence, and if the weight of
the evidence doesn't clearly fall to one side or another, they either
devise an experiment that might push their knowledge along, or they remain
agnostic.
Either way - reality or mass delusion - the phenomenon needs explaining.
Mass delusion is, to me, a much less appealing hypothesis than alien
visitation for the simple reason that we have never seen mass delusion of
the sort being implied here. The mechanism for it would seem to pose at
least as much of a challenge as the mechanism permitting long distance
space travel.
Howard
<QUOTE OFF>-------------------------------
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.paranet.ufo/browse_thread/thread/2fbdf01d745f4835/f3bff08c30b0060d?hl=en&
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.paranet.ufo/msg/0fd95f3647e31747?dmode=source
<QUOTE ON>--------------------------------
From: ho...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Howpl)
Subject: Re: UFO Evidence
Date: 1999/01/28
Message-ID: <19990128171039.12693.00000503@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 438093764
References: <kwantem-2701991946390001@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
Newsgroups: alt.paranet.ufo
X-Admin: n...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>(Howpl) wrote:
>
>
>>- Sightings (and abduction experiences, yes) described similarly by
people
>>without apparent mental problems and with no op****tunity to colllude.
>
>What do you mean, no op****tunity to collude? There is a well-established
>myth about UFOs. All people have to do is make there stories conform --
>say they saw a big-eyed gray alien, etc.
>
YOUR WELL-ESTABLISHED MYTH IS VERY SIMPLE COMPAED TO THE MASS OF DATA
COLLECTED. GO TO THE DATA. UNLESS YOU WANT TO CLAIM THAT ALL THE TOP
ESEARCHERS ARE FRAUDS, THEIR WORKS LIST CASE AFTER CASE OF PEOPLE
APPARENTLY UNFAMILIAR EVEN WITH THE BASICS (GRAYS) - AND YOUR RESPONSE
ONLY ADDRESSES THE BASICS - PEOPLE WHO DO NOT WANT TO GO PUBLIC FOR FEAR
OF THEIR REPUTATIOS, PEOPLE WHO DON'T EVEN WANT TO ADMIT THEIR CONCERNS,
ETC.
READ THE TRANSCRIPTS OF THESE SESSIONS. THERE'S A LOT MORE THAN GRAYS
BEING RE****TED.
>>- Burn marks, depressions, and other physical evidence found on the
ground
>>where UFOs were re****tedly seen
>
>Lightning strikes?
>
YOU ARE APPARENTLY UNFAMILIAR WITH THESE RE****TS. DOES LIGHTNING MAKE
SEVERAL DEPRESSIONS OF IDENTICAL SIZE IN A CIRCULAR PATTERN, DEEP ENOUGH
TO SUGGEST THE RECENT PRESENCE OF A HEAVY OBJECT?
>>- Burned skin, scoop marks, nosebleeds and other physical effects on
those
>>re****ting sightings or abductions
>
>Sun burn? Self-mutilation?
THESE SYMPTOMS RUN IN FAMILIES AND ARE EVEN EXPERIENCED BY CHILDREN. DO
YOU REALLY BELIEVE THAT A LARGE NUMBER OF PEOPLE ARE MAIMING THEIR OWN
CHILDREN - WHILE THEY SLEEP - AND DOING IT IN THE EXACT SAME WAY? ALL FOR
THE SAKE OF WHAT?
VERY FEW WANT THE ATTENTION, AND THOSE WHO SEEM TO WANT IT HAVE CASHED IN
LITTLE FROM GOING PUBLIC.
>
>>- A huge mass of data derived from hypnosis, which is impossible to
dismiss
>en
>>masse as the product of biased researchers
>
>Hypnosis is hardly a good way to get at the truth.
IT IS ONE TOOL AMONG OTHERS. YOU DON'T RESPOND TO THE CONVERGENCE OF DATA
FROM HYPNOTIZED EXPERIENCERS AND THOSE WHO REMEMBER SPONTANEOUSLY.
>
>>- Unexplained cattle mutilations
>
>Cow gets attacked by predator. Rancher does not want to lose insurance,
>which does not pay for predator-caused deaths. Therefore rancher claims
>"mysterious" death.
>
THE RE****TS SAY NO BLOOD IS EVER FOUND, AS IF THE CUTS WERE MADE BY LASER
SCALPELS (NO SUCH TOOLS EXISTED AT THE TIME THESE RE****TS STARTED POURING
IN).
RE****TS ALSO SAY THAT NATURAL PREDATORS ACTUALLY SHRINK FROM THE CARCASSES
RATHER THAN FEED ON WHAT'S LEFT OF THEM.
DO YOU REALLY SEE RANCHERS VACUUMING UP ALL THE BLOOD AT THE SCENE OF THE
CRIME? WHY? LEAVE THE BLOOD AND YOU'VE GOT A NON-CONTROVERSIAL
EXPLANATION.
>>And it's just not good enough to show some were hoaxes. "Scientists"
>concluded
>>that crop circles were a hoax when two Englishmen confessed to creaing
them
>--
>>despite the fact that the patterns appear all over the world and were
>re****ted
>>decades earlier.
>
>Why do you assume Doug and Dave were the only ones, or the first, to make
>crop circles?
YOU SKIPPED OVER SEVERAL POINTS. SHOULD I ASSUME YOU FOUND THEM IMPOSSIBLE
TO COUNTER.
-Howard
>
>**********************************************
>* The language of truth *
>* is unadorned and always simple. *
>* - Ammianus Marcellinus *
>* http://burtcom.com/kwantem
*
>
>
>
>
>
<QUOTE OFF>--------------------------------
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.paranet.ufo/msg/f3ef7bbb4c0775e8?dmode=source
<QUOTE ON>--------------------------------
From: ho...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Howpl)
Subject: Re: UFO Evidence
Date: 1999/01/29
Message-ID: <19990129170204.01110.00000651@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
X-Deja-AN: 438489410
References: <78omrh$gdd$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
Newsgroups: alt.paranet.ufo
X-Admin: n...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>> I'm familiar with the thesis that UFOs can be visible to some -- those
with
>> psychic powers -- and not to others (see Colin Wilson's new book). But
the
>> original debate here focussed on motive. You attack a straw man.
>
>I sniped the straw man, because it had no one's address on it. It
>claimed a volcano in the back yard is an extra ordinary claim and if you
>cam over to my back yard and there was no volcano, you would demand proof
>of my invisible volcano.
>
Huh? Some theses are harder to falsify than others. A permanent object in
a confined space is no the same thing as a transient object in limitless
space.
>> That the behavior of these alien-types seems pointless to us is a point
in
>> favor of rejecting their reality --- but only a point. The totality of
the
>> evidence goes way beyond motive. The alien thesis is not falsifiable
simply
>> because we fail to assign motive. There are:
>
> No they are falsifiable cause they are claims made without being
>able to be proven true or false. As we shall see:
"To prove something true" means nothing if it is not accompanied by a
standard of proof. Preponderance or weight of the evidence is one such
standard, and I think it reasonable for someone to argue that the weight
of the evidence favors an ET explanation -- though I'm not necessarily
committing myself to that view here. A simple look to see if there is a
UFO in the vicinity is unlikely to prove or falsify the theory. It is a
more complicated matter.
>
>> - Thousands of visual sightings by persons of sound mind (many
professional
>> pilots, many subjected to psych tests)
>
> Lights in the sky do not equal aliens.
>
Lights in the sky moving in certain ways. Objects seen nearer to the
ground or on the ground. You simplify too much.
>> - Movements on radar screens matching up with movements sighted by
pilots
>
>
> Angels, also do not equal ET. (Angels is a term for ghost images
>on radar screens)
What's the term for UFOs sighted by pilots in the air? There is a huge
number of such re****ts.
>
>> - Sightings (and abduction experiences, yes) described similarly by
people
>> without apparent mental problems and with no op****tunity to colllude.
>
> Name them?
Exactly which books have you read? Or failed or read?
>
>> - Burn marks, depressions, and other physical evidence found on the
ground
>> where UFOs were re****tedly seen
>
> Could have any number of explanations, none having anything to do
>with little green men.
>
Any number? Just give me one.
>> - Burned skin, scoop marks, nosebleeds and other physical effects on
those
>> re****ting sightings or abductions
>
> Again, any number of explanations.
>
Same request.
>> - Strange, unidentified items ("implants") extracted from supposed
>abductees
>> (see photos in Streiber's new book) .
>
> No one likes Streiber. He has all the claims but nothing to back
>them up.
>
Streiber isn't the only one re****ting recovery of such objects. Do you
dispute his account of surgeries and analyses in his most recent book?
On what grounds?
>> - A huge mass of data derived from hypnosis, which is impossible to
dismiss
>en
>> masse as the product of biased researchers
>
> We need not have biased researchers to dismiss them. Hypnosis is
>unreliable. Sorry.
>
That word "unreliable" is being used to carry much more weight than you
need to justify your dismissals.
>> - The fact that so much data emerges without recourse to hypnosis
>
>And this proves what? More camp fire stories.
>
Campfire stories told to strangers with great trepidation and much
emotion. These are all great actors, then. Is that what you're saying?
>> - The basic affinity of both sets of data.
>
> That is silly. Affinity means nothing on its own. Besides, UFO's
>could be a Jungian Archetypes, which explains the affinity.
>
As if a Jungian archetype is any more credible than the ability of a race,
say, 1 billion older than ours, could devise technology for interplanetary
travel. 100 years ago, you would have told the Wright Bros. they were
nuts. Have you no modesty in light of the puniness of our existence
relative the vastness of space and time?
>> - Unexplained cattle mutilations
>
> Did you know there is a UFO/cattle mutilation response team? They
>have yet to find and evidence of attack that could not have been man made
>or animal made.
>
So farmers all over the world are carving up their cows, pre-cooked, just
for the fun of it? Or gangs of rampaging youth in remote farm areas are
cutting flesh with laser precision and vacuuming out all the blood.
>> - Unexplained crop circles
>
> Have another beer at the inn! Most are fakes.
>
Most?
>> I'm sure I could go on, but I think you get the point.
>
> I am sure you could, but it would a lot more work than this.
>Sorry, my friend but what you have said , is nice but does not come close
>to showing ET.
>
I haven't tried to show ET. I have tried to show that your dismissals are
glib, based on ignorance of, or blindness to, the totality of the data .
>>There may be no way to
>> refute the UFO/alien thesis with a single experience - or lack thereof.
>> Frankly, I'd be very impressed if YOU could provide an alternative
>explanation
>> for all data collected thus far. I haven't heard one yet.
>
> Well, that is not data but claims, and as suck more explanation is
>needed to show these claims are valid.
>
Huh?
>> And it's just not good enough to show some were hoaxes. "Scientists"
>concluded
>> that crop circles were a hoax when two Englishmen confessed to creaing
them
>--
>> despite the fact that the patterns appear all over the world and were
>re****ted
>> decades earlier.
>
> OK show me one that an alien did?
>
The point is that there are many that neither of these two Brits could
have done.
>> Real scientists review the totality of the evidence, and if the weight
of
>the
>> evidence doesn't clearly fall to one side or another, they either
devise an
>> experiment that might push their knowledge along, or they remain
agnostic.
>
> Howard, i do not think agnostic is the word you want to use! :-)
> The totality of the evidence is that there is none that says ET is
>home. All it is is smoke and mirrors and a lot of money to be made in
>hustling people for their coins.
>
Prove it.
>> Either way - reality or mass delusion - the phenomenon needs
explaining.
>Mass
>> delusion is, to me, a much less appealing hypothesis than alien
visitation
>for
>> the simple reason that we have never seen mass delusion of the sort
being
>> implied here. The mechanism for it would seem to pose at least as much
of
>a
>> challenge as the mechanism permitting long distance space travel.
>
>Sorry but mass delusion happen a lot!
At this level of complexity?
And in recent years it has
>a lot to do with Aliens. Sorry but thanks for posting.
>
Sorry but the real bad guys in the history of science are the knee- jerk
skeptics of the prevailing religion, er, paradigm.
> Just Thought I Should Mention It
>
>
>
>
>
<QUOTE OFF>--------------------------------
Dave
http://www.jfk-online.com/judythmenu.html
|
