Recent developments in UFO 'Abductology'

[TjW]

Perhaps these problems are stemming from the faulty premise that UFOs are "aliens" of a biological nature? The 'ET hypothesis' is falling apart, and so naturally "Abductology" would fall apart as well if it is based on an assumption that the ET hypothesis is valid.

Oh don't get me wrong. The UFO phenomenon is legitimate. Its just that the nature of the phenomenon is not biological and technological as many assume. The true nature of the UFO phenomenon is mystical and psychical. I can't help but wonder how many "Abductologists" have labored under the misdirection of a flawed ET mythology. Operating under that kind of flaw will leave them vulnerable to the true nature of the phenomenon.

So is there a mystical/psychical component to shoving implements up people's butts? That would be a good reason to stay away from mystics/psychics for me. As always, YMMV.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I want to know what happens to all the 911 calls.

~~ Paul

 

[Marduk]

Is the debate being somehow obstructed by asking for adequate (reliable, extraordinary, solid, etc.) evidence?

not the asking for, but the lack of any reply

 

[blobru]

My butt hurts! (sorely surely that's evidence enough)

 

[blobru]

Doctors who perform prostrate biopsy's are sneaky Hentai Aliens in disguise.

Warning! Bad Joke Alert! Warning!

Why are aliens always using anal probes?

Homesickness.

They're trying to get back to Uranus.

 

[Rramjet]

Based in this argument anything said about them, including anal probes, sex experiments etc. could be considered doubtful.

Well yes, precisely! We simply don’t know what motivates them and we may therefore be wildly misinterpreting their actions. I am however interested in the debunker’s fixation with the “sexual” aspect of it all though – something very interesting of a sociological nature is certainly occurring when the debunkers can barely mention the topic without including the term “anal probe”.

For all we know we might as well be talking about the motivations / actions of demons & faeries.

Do you have any evidence that relates these mythical beings to “alien abductions”? If not, then it is unlikely that we are talking about the same motivations.

The abductees experiences could be the results of "magic spells" and they actually never went anywhere.

Indeed! And there is evidence in some “abduction cases” that the “abductees” in fact did not go anywhere! Yet, we still have no adequate explanation as to why this is occurring either…

(Remember Clarke's Third Law).

Sure: ” Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” (http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/776.html)

…your point being?

However, by our standards they are being sadistic.

That is merely an anthropomorphism (ie; by our standards). However, the whole thrust of my argument here is that we cannot use “our standards” to judge “their” motivations to in turn conclude something about “their” reality (the argument was that, as humans, a certain approach would be taken – such as being more careful, more caring, better organised, or having an advanced, crash proof, mistake free technology etc. Yet we see no evidence of that “perfection” – in fact it all seems very messy, so therefore they don’t exist. My argument is that we simply do not know what motivates them, so cannot draw such conclusions).

 

[Rramjet]

I didn't read through the site yet because I generally avoid sites with such titles. I'll have to give it a shot some time later, but I feel I have wasted too much time on such sites in the past.

I guess you have to come to the realisation that it is not the messenger that is important, it is the message. Besides, I have already informed you that on that page (http://www.ufoevidence.org/topics/abduction.htm) you will find a wealth of “debunking” articles as well as articles by the authors who were mentioned in the link in the OP (Jacobs, Mack and Hopkins). I think you may also be letting your own personal biases colour your perceptions. The site is titled “UFO Evidence” and it lists (and links to) both evidence for and against for much of what it presents.

 

[Rramjet]

I want to know what happens to all the 911 calls.

~~ Paul

That's a very good question. Can we assume a dereliction of duty?

 

[Zanders]

I guess you have to come to the realisation that it is not the messenger that is important, it is the message. Besides, I have already informed you that on that page (http://www.ufoevidence.org/topics/abduction.htm) you will find a wealth of “debunking” articles as well as articles by the authors who were mentioned in the link in the OP (Jacobs, Mack and Hopkins). I think you may also be letting your own personal biases colour your perceptions. The site is titled “UFO Evidence” and it lists (and links to) both evidence for and against for much of what it presents.

Like I said, I will have to give it a read later. I'm sure it's fascinating stuff.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Well yes, precisely! We simply don’t know what motivates them and we may therefore be wildly misinterpreting their actions. I am however interested in the debunker’s fixation with the “sexual” aspect of it all though – something very interesting of a sociological nature is certainly occurring when the debunkers can barely mention the topic without including the term “anal probe”.

I think it's sort of an analogy for skeptics poking creduloids with a stick.

Do you have any evidence that relates these mythical beings to “alien abductions”? If not, then it is unlikely that we are talking about the same motivations.


Indeed! And there is evidence in some “abduction cases” that the “abductees” in fact did not go anywhere! Yet, we still have no adequate explanation as to why this is occurring either…


Sure: ” Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” (http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/776.html)

…your point being?


That is merely an anthropomorphism (ie; by our standards). However, the whole thrust of my argument here is that we cannot use “our standards” to judge “their” motivations to in turn conclude something about “their” reality (the argument was that, as humans, a certain approach would be taken – such as being more careful, more caring, better organised, or having an advanced, crash proof, mistake free technology etc. Yet we see no evidence of that “perfection” – in fact it all seems very messy, so therefore they don’t exist. My argument is that we simply do not know what motivates them, so cannot draw such conclusions).

In fact, it's never been shown that there is a "them"!

 

[MontagK505]

Well yes, precisely! We simply don’t know what motivates them and we may therefore be wildly misinterpreting their actions. I am however interested in the debunker’s fixation with the “sexual” aspect of it all though – something very interesting of a sociological nature is certainly occurring when the debunkers can barely mention the topic without including the term “anal probe”.


Do you have any evidence that relates these mythical beings to “alien abductions”? If not, then it is unlikely that we are talking about the same motivations.
Indeed! And there is evidence in some “abduction cases” that the “abductees” in fact did not go anywhere! Yet, we still have no adequate explanation as to why this is occurring either…


Sure: ” Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” (http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/776.html)

…your point being?


That is merely an anthropomorphism (ie; by our standards). However, the whole thrust of my argument here is that we cannot use “our standards” to judge “their” motivations to in turn conclude something about “their” reality (the argument was that, as humans, a certain approach would be taken – such as being more careful, more caring, better organised, or having an advanced, crash proof, mistake free technology etc. Yet we see no evidence of that “perfection” – in fact it all seems very messy, so therefore they don’t exist. My argument is that we simply do not know what motivates them, so cannot draw such conclusions).

If their technology and motivations can't be understood then for all practical reasons they might as well be "magical beings" Demons & Faeries

Since we are talking about "magic", we can't use our "standards" to analyze anything about them, including the abduction accounts themselves.

 

[Marduk]

something very interesting of a sociological nature is certainly occurring when the debunkers can barely mention the topic without including the term “anal probe”.

you need to check your facts, I believe it is the people claiming they were abducted who started mentioning anal probes, but psychologically the way you have it is a valid point,
people reporting a belief in Alien visitation on the strength of unevidenced claims like that are all clearly closeted homosexuals, thanks for pointing that out, it hadn't occurred to me before

 

[Alan]

Abductology is a pseudoscience.

Abductonomy, though... now THAT's a real science.

 

[Rramjet]

If their technology and motivations can't be understood then for all practical reasons they might as well be "magical beings" Demons & Faeries

Sure, and cases have been made for them being one, other, or both of those things. Unfortunately we just don’t have the direct evidence to draw specific conclusions in that regard. We do however know some things about them. First it seems they can interact with ourselves and the environment (abductions, physical trace evidence). Second they can physically manifest (they can be radar and light reflective and they can in turn emit radiation). Third, they are intelligent (in the sense that they seem to act with some purpose – unfathomable as that purpose might be). But aside from those basics – we don’t know a hell of a lot more…

Since we are talking about "magic", we can't use our "standards" to analyze anything about them, including the abduction accounts themselves.

Oh but we can analyse the accounts and we can also analyse the people who provide those accounts. Anyone interested in the topic of alien abductions (and I assume everyone posting in this thread would be – oh, except Zanders who expresses an interest yet seems reticent to actually look at the evidence) should acquaint themselves with some of the studies that have been conducted. This article by Peter Hough (2010) mentions a few (http://www.forteantimes.com/features/fbi/2929/alien_abductions_revisited.html) and this from Blackmore & Cox (2000) (http://www.susanblackmore.co.uk/Articles/ejufoas00.html) and an interesting article on the whole abduction phenomenon can be found here (http://psychology.wikia.com/wiki/Abduction_phenomenon) – though it must be remembered that this latter is a Wiki article and thus is probably interpretive rather than objective – but at least there is a reference list attached…

 

[MontagK505]

Sure, and cases have been made for them being one, other, or both of those things. Unfortunately we just don’t have the direct evidence to draw specific conclusions in that regard. We do however know some things about them. First it seems they can interact with ourselves and the environment (abductions, physical trace evidence). Second they can physically manifest (they can be radar and light reflective and they can in turn emit radiation). Third, they are intelligent (in the sense that they seem to act with some purpose – unfathomable as that purpose might be). But aside from those basics – we don’t know a hell of a lot more…


Oh but we can analyse the accounts and we can also analyse the people who provide those accounts. Anyone interested in the topic of alien abductions (and I assume everyone posting in this thread would be – oh, except Zanders who expresses an interest yet seems reticent to actually look at the evidence) should acquaint themselves with some of the studies that have been conducted. This article by Peter Hough (2010) mentions a few (http://www.forteantimes.com/features/fbi/2929/alien_abductions_revisited.html) and this from Blackmore & Cox (2000) (http://www.susanblackmore.co.uk/Articles/ejufoas00.html) and an interesting article on the whole abduction phenomenon can be found here (http://psychology.wikia.com/wiki/Abduction_phenomenon) – though it must be remembered that this latter is a Wiki article and thus is probably interpretive rather than objective – but at least there is a reference list attached…

You can't handwave off criticisms of their behavior being illogical because "we can't understand alien motivations" and then turn around and claim their behavior is "intelligent or has some purpose" when it supports the abduction scenario.

 

[Rramjet]

You can't handwave off criticisms of their behavior being illogical because "we can't understand alien motivations" and then turn around and claim their behavior is "intelligent or has some purpose" when it supports the abduction scenario.

The argument concerned alien motivations – in that we cannot know their motivations – and therefore cannot ascribe motivations (like “sadistic”) to them. We can however describe observable characteristics. We can say that their treatment of us seems sadistic according to our standards, but we cannot therefore conclude that they are sadists. When it comes to intelligence however, then the game changes. Intelligence is the capacity to learn, plan, reason and problem solve. If abductions are causally related to aliens, then in being able to deal with the inherent individual unpredictability of humans and leave very little evidence, they must have at least some, if not all of these characteristics. This does not arise from a necessity to support the “abduction scenario” it arises directly from the abduction scenario.

 

[RoboTimbo]

The argument concerned alien motivations – in that we cannot know their motivations – and therefore cannot ascribe motivations (like “sadistic”) to them. We can however describe observable characteristics. We can say that their treatment of us seems sadistic according to our standards, but we cannot therefore conclude that they are sadists. When it comes to intelligence however, then the game changes. Intelligence is the capacity to learn, plan, reason and problem solve. If abductions are causally related to aliens, then in being able to deal with the inherent individual unpredictability of humans and leave very little evidence, they must have at least some, if not all of these characteristics. This does not arise from a necessity to support the “abduction scenario” it arises directly from the abduction scenario.

In fact, it is premature to say that there is a "them" in the face of such a dearth of evidence.

 

[Rramjet]

In fact, it is premature to say that there is a "them" in the face of such a dearth of evidence.

Obviously you did not notice the statement: "If abductions are causally related to aliens..." and it was not I who originally ascribed anthropomorphically derived motivations to "them".

The argument was originally about contending that aliens would (or should) act in a certain way if they were intelligent, the implication being that because we don’t see evidence that “they” do act that way, then that means either that they are not intelligent or they don’t exist in the first place.

My argument was that we cannot know what might motivate “them” so cannot draw such conclusions from how we think they should behave. Their motivations for doing or not doing are simply obscure to us, they might easily have intelligent reasons of their own for doing things the way they do them and just because we cannot see those reasons does not mean they are not intelligent or don’t exist.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Obviously you did not notice the statement: "If abductions are causally related to aliens..." and it was not I who originally ascribed anthropomorphically derived motivations to "them".

What a silly thing to say. Of course I noticed it.

The argument was originally about contending that aliens would (or should) act in a certain way if they were intelligent, the implication being that because we don’t see evidence that “they” do act that way, then that means either that they are not intelligent or they don’t exist in the first place.

My argument was that we cannot know what might motivate “them” so cannot draw such conclusions from how we think they should behave. Their motivations for doing or not doing are simply obscure to us, they might easily have intelligent reasons of their own for doing things the way they do them and just because we cannot see those reasons does not mean they are not intelligent or don’t exist.

So it's still premature to say there is a "them" in the face of such a dearth of evidence. Perhaps you didn't notice that I said that?

 

[Bell]

If ever I get abducted by aliens, I hope they force me to have sex with their females.

Boom chicka wah wah!