Recent developments in UFO 'Abductology'

[Stray Cat]

 

[Akhenaten]

Extraordinary!

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

http://www.ufocasebook.com/Cahill.html

Thanks. It's hard to know what I'm supposed to make of that. One woman claims she saw something while the people she was with didn't, and another unnamed and unidentified woman is said to have later said "me too", even though we don't get to hear her story and there's no way of verifying that she was ever actually there. There are claims that this woman had medical issues the week afterwards as if that's significant, but no information as to why it's supposed to be significant. Did the doctors say there was anything unusual about her condition? It doesn't seem so.

If this is the very best evidence there is that aliens abduct people, then colour me entirely unimpressed. Reads more like an overactive imagination to me.

 

[Akhenaten]

If this is the very best evidence there is that aliens abduct people, then colour me entirely unimpressed. Reads more like an overactive imagination to me.

But the anecdotes!!! The artist's impressions!!! How can you debunkers ignore such extraordinary evidence???

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

But the anecdotes!!! The artist's impressions!!! How can you debunkers ignore such extraordinary evidence???

Not quite as amazing as the way the link to the first story Rramjet provided ignores some evidence. If you read the story as told here there are some details which seem relevant (not to mention some details in this account which contradict details in both of the accounts in Rramjet's link - making some details completely different in all three). One big thing that seems relevant to me is this bit:

The next morning they didn't talk about it much, but later asked a ranger they ran into about it. He said it was searchlights crossing, and then asked, "Did you get your rayguns out, fellahs? Everyone's always complaining about the bugs and bears, and now Martians."

So there they've got a rational explanation from someone who knows the area well who even comments that it's common for people to mistake the man-made lights he knows of for something more extraordinary.

Next:

12 years later, Jim had an accident where he fell 1 1/2 stories which resulted in temporal epilepsy. He was diagnosed in 1983, and therapy reduced his seizures. In 1988 he started having terrible nightmares, where he was in a room and creatures were doing painful things to his body. Sometimes he woke up thinking there was something in his room, and once felt a tugging on his shoulder. Due to lack of sleep, his seizures began increasing. He went to his doctors and told them of John Mack's studies, which the doctors said was crazy. Luckily, one week later he went to a MUFON meeting and heard about Ray Fowler. Ray was interested in the missing time and the fact that 4 people were involved, two of them identical twins.

The other accounts say that he went to the doctor because of his nightmares of being abducted and that the doctors got him in contact with Ray Fowler. In this account he sustained a severe head injury which affected his brain and which triggered the nightmares. The doctors said it was ridiculous. People at a UFO meeting said it was aliens.

If I thought this was unimpressive before, I really think it's unimpressive now.

 

[Correa Neto]

Ever noticed the sightings and abductions accounts at these sites seem to have been written by wannabee sci-fi writers?

 

[Rramjet]

Testimony gained under hypnosis has no value. Testimony gained under hypnosis 13 years after the event even less. There's no way to tell whether any of the reported story is true, although it's worth noting that the two accounts on that page have contradictory elements and cannot both be 100% true.

I think it is too sweeping a generalisation to state that hypnosis has “no value”. The use of hypnosis to recover memory is controversial. I think a fair assessment of the literature would be that it does work and can be useful but that its practical application has many pitfalls and it has often been used inappropriately. Opinions range for example:

(http://www.selfhelpmagazine.com/qa/qahyp/qahyp3.html)
” While no one refutes the idea that some people are able to recover lost memories during an hypnotic encounter…
(http://www.forensiceducation.org/)
” Forensic Hypnosis has been used in famous cases around the world. Two of the most famous cases are the Chowchilla case and Rock vs. Arkansas although it has been used in the Ted Bundy case and the Scott Peterson case as well. Its use has been upheld by the US Supreme court.”
(http://ezinearticles.com/?Hypnosis-And-Memory---Hypnosis-And-Forgetting&id=459684)
” Hypnotherapy may or may not be effective in retrieving a memory. One person may recover a memory in just one session of hypnotherapy, while another may require several sessions…”
(http://www.stopbadtherapy.com/main/inmemthr.shtml)
”Memories recalled under hypnosis are recognised to be so unreliable that they are no longer admitted as legal testimony…”

404 error.

Oh, sorry, I accidently included the “)?” into the hyperlink. Apologies. Here they are again.

(http://www.ufocasebook.com/Allagash.html) (http://www.ufocasebook.com/Cahill.html)

You could have cut and paste the address into your browser if you were really interested though…

I had an amazingly vivid episode of this last year. Really amazing. Faces and voices were appearing over me and talking, all weird like what an acid trip might look like. (I personally haven't tried that, but have heard lots of descriptions) I was completely convinced that I had lost my mind for a while. I had all three of the highlighted conditions above plus big overseas jet lag.

No aliens were present, as far as I know.

One thing your experience does demonstrate is that “sleep paralysis” does not necessarily lead to an abduction encounters. Given that the weight of evidence shows that abductees are not different to community samples on psychological measures, and I assume you also will not be “different” in that regard, this is an interesting case example showing sleep paralysis and alien abductions are not necessarily linked.

RRamjet you say we don't know what motivates aliens to abduct people correct?

So what's your thoughts on David Jacobs and Bob Hopkins ''research'' saying that aliens are breeding with humans for a slow take over of Earth?

In the absence of plausible mundane explanations, science can only progress by speculation (Darwin stated for example: “I am a firm believer, that without speculation there is no good & original observation.” - http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/entry-2192).

Re: The Kelly Cahill abduction (http://www.ufocasebook.com/Cahill.html):

Thanks. It's hard to know what I'm supposed to make of that. One woman claims she saw something while the people she was with didn't…

That is simply not true. For example:

” Kelly begged of her husband, "What are you going to do?" Her husband now frightened to death by the glowing presence before them, replied, "I am going to keep on driving.".​

See here for more detail (http://www.theozfiles.com/kelly_cahill.html).

…and another unnamed and unidentified woman is said to have later said "me too"…

That’s simply not true. For example:

”As strange as this encounter seems, it was not without corroboration. The occupants in the other car would come forward and tell almost an exact story, a story of abduction, mind control, and embarrassing procedures.”​

…even though we don't get to hear her story and there's no way of verifying that she was ever actually there.

That’s simply not true. For example look here:
(http://www.theozfiles.com/kelly_cahill.html)

There are claims that this woman had medical issues the week afterwards as if that's significant, but no information as to why it's supposed to be significant.

Of course correlation cannot be construed as causation – but a mere coincidence in this case?

Did the doctors say there was anything unusual about her condition? It doesn't seem so.

That's simply not true. For example:

” The doctors there said she must have been pregnant; either that, or she had had some kind of gynaecological operation. In fact, she had had neither in recent times.” (http://www.theozfiles.com/kelly_cahill.html )​

If this is the very best evidence there is that aliens abduct people, then colour me entirely unimpressed. Reads more like an overactive imagination to me.

That’s your opinion, but I have demonstrated, it is based on false information.

 

[Rramjet]

Not quite as amazing as the way the link to the first story Rramjet provided ignores some evidence. If you read the story as told here there are some details which seem relevant (not to mention some details in this account which contradict details in both of the accounts in Rramjet's link - making some details completely different in all three). One big thing that seems relevant to me is this bit:

” The next morning they didn't talk about it much, but later asked a ranger they ran into about it. He said it was searchlights crossing, and then asked, "Did you get your rayguns out, fellahs? Everyone's always complaining about the bugs and bears, and now Martians." (http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc362.htm)​

However, compare that with:

”The others turned and saw a giant ball of light, not more than 200 yards away from them, with a raised horizontal and vertical band, and colored patches of red and blue light streaming and pulsating all over it. It slowly rose, making no sound, and drifted off to the shore, its lights illuminating the treetops. It was much larger than any helicopter, about 2 1/2 stories tall.” (http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc362.htm)​

And..

” Soon after they were out in their canoe, they saw "a large bright sphere of colored light hovering motionless and soundless about 200 to 300 feet above the southeastern rim of the cove," according to Rak.” (http://www.ufocasebook.com/Allagash.html)​

“Searchlights crossing”?

So there they've got a rational explanation from someone who knows the area well who even comments that it's common for people to mistake the man-made lights he knows of for something more extraordinary.

The peculiar propensity of UFO debunkers to take unfounded and uncorroborated third party speculations as irrefutable evidence while completely ignoring the first hand eyewitness accounts is no longer surprising to me in the least.

The other accounts say that he went to the doctor because of his nightmares of being abducted and that the doctors got him in contact with Ray Fowler. In this account he sustained a severe head injury which affected his brain and which triggered the nightmares. The doctors said it was ridiculous. People at a UFO meeting said it was aliens.

The two "contradictory" accounts:

” 12 years later, Jim had an accident where he fell 1 1/2 stories which resulted in temporal epilepsy. He was diagnosed in 1983, and therapy reduced his seizures. In 1988 he started having terrible nightmares, where he was in a room and creatures were doing painful things to his body. Sometimes he woke up thinking there was something in his room, and once felt a tugging on his shoulder. Due to lack of sleep, his seizures began increasing. He went to his doctors and told them of John Mack's studies, which the doctors said was crazy. Luckily, one week later he went to a MUFON meeting and heard about Ray Fowler. Ray was interested in the missing time and the fact that 4 people were involved, two of them identical twins..” (http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc362.htm)​

And…

” It was years later before the four men explored that missing period of time. When Jim Weiner suffered tempero-limbic epilepsy, his doctors asked him to report any unusual experiences that might be symptomatic.

Weiner described his UFO experience, and various phenomena that had happened to him and his camping buddies since then. His doctors suggested he contact a UFO researcher.” (http://www.ufocasebook.com/Allagash.html)​

As can be noted, Sceptic Tank has outrageously misrepresented the two accounts. That a UFO debunker should so misrepresent such accounts is also no longer surprising to me. Fortunately we have the actual accounts to compare his statements to.

If I thought this was unimpressive before, I really think it's unimpressive now.

As I stated in my previous reply to you, this is merely your opinion - and that opinion is based on demonstrably false and deliberately misrepresented information!

It seems the debunkers are not at all interested in clarifying and getting to the truth - rather it seems they are merely interested in obscuring and misrepresenting the truth. I have to ask what sort of mentality does this? To me it represents an antiscience, antirational, antihuman position. Others of course are free to make up their own minds.

 

[Bad vibe]

whilst I find the subject of UFO phenomena fascinating the abductions side is so mired in poor unscientific investigation and documentation it is difficult to approach the subject objectively it seems to be little better thought of now than crop circles or fairies. I wouldn't dismiss it out of hand but would need significant evidence to be convinced, hypnosis and witnesses simply wouldn't be enough for me personally

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I think it is too sweeping a generalisation to state that hypnosis has “no value”.

I don't. It's been demonstrated that people are extremely prone to confabulation while under hypnosis. It's been demonstrated that people under hypnosis will tend to remember what their hypnotist wants them to remember, as they are susceptible to suggestion, even suggestion created by subtle hints such as gestures, or omissions of words. It's been demonstrated that people under hypnosis are no more likely to remember things accurately than people who aren't.

This means, I'm afraid, that testimony gained under hypnosis has no value.

Opinions range for example:

Scientific opinions don't range. They're very clear. Hypnosis is useless when it comes to recovering memories, but is excellent at implanting false ones.

That is simply not true. For example:

” Kelly begged of her husband, "What are you going to do?" Her husband now frightened to death by the glowing presence before them, replied, "I am going to keep on driving.".​

See here for more detail (http://www.theozfiles.com/kelly_cahill.html).

I was talking about the aliens themselves, and having memories of the abduction. That's the subject under discussion, correct?

That’s simply not true. For example:

”As strange as this encounter seems, it was not without corroboration. The occupants in the other car would come forward and tell almost an exact story, a story of abduction, mind control, and embarrassing procedures.”​

As I said, another woman later said "me too".

That’s simply not true. For example look here:
(http://www.theozfiles.com/kelly_cahill.html)

This is not the link you gave me. If you're presenting evidence to me, then you can't accuse me of lying because I've not seen evidence that you didn't present to me.

And we're back to hypnosis again.

Of course correlation cannot be construed as causation – but a mere coincidence in this case?

I'm not sure that "coincidence" is the word I'd use to describe a woman having an ailment of the womb later ascribing that ailment to aliens, no.

That's simply not true. For example:

” The doctors there said she must have been pregnant; either that, or she had had some kind of gynaecological operation. In fact, she had had neither in recent times.” (http://www.theozfiles.com/kelly_cahill.html )​

That reads to me like she may have misunderstood what the doctors told her. It's perfectly possible to miscarry before you even know that you're pregnant. It's also possible to maintain your menstrual cycle while pregnant. It reads to me like the doctors told her that she had been pregnant, and she didn't believe them because she hadn't known she was.

That’s your opinion, but I have demonstrated, it is based on false information.

It was based on the information you gave me.

 

[carlitos]

Ever noticed the sightings and abductions accounts at these sites seem to have been written by wannabee sci-fi writers?

While participating in the social experiment that is the UFOs, the Research, the Evidence thread, I read the Travis Walton story. Heroic first-person fiction. Really awful.

ETA - and illustrated, to boot. Tell me someone hasn't been watching Star Trek:

 

[carlitos]

whilst I find the subject of UFO phenomena fascinating the abductions side is so mired in poor unscientific investigation and documentation it is difficult to approach the subject objectively it seems to be little better thought of now than crop circles or fairies. I wouldn't dismiss it out of hand but would need significant evidence to be convinced, hypnosis and witnesses simply wouldn't be enough for me personally

If I hypnotized you and there were witness, would that be enough?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

” The next morning they didn't talk about it much, but later asked a ranger they ran into about it. He said it was searchlights crossing, and then asked, "Did you get your rayguns out, fellahs? Everyone's always complaining about the bugs and bears, and now Martians." (http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc362.htm)​

However, compare that with:

”The others turned and saw a giant ball of light, not more than 200 yards away from them, with a raised horizontal and vertical band, and colored patches of red and blue light streaming and pulsating all over it. It slowly rose, making no sound, and drifted off to the shore, its lights illuminating the treetops. It was much larger than any helicopter, about 2 1/2 stories tall.” (http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc362.htm)​

And..

” Soon after they were out in their canoe, they saw "a large bright sphere of colored light hovering motionless and soundless about 200 to 300 feet above the southeastern rim of the cove," according to Rak.” (http://www.ufocasebook.com/Allagash.html)​

“Searchlights crossing”?

Yeah, but the second two paragraphs you quoted are their recollections more than a decade later, after being hypnotised. I'll say the word again - confabulation.

The peculiar propensity of UFO debunkers to take unfounded and uncorroborated third party speculations as irrefutable evidence while completely ignoring the first hand eyewitness accounts is no longer surprising to me in the least.

Sorry, who took what as irrefutable evidence, now? You don't seem to be discussing my post, here.

As can be noted, Sceptic Tank has outrageously misrepresented the two accounts. That a UFO debunker should so misrepresent such accounts is also no longer surprising to me. Fortunately we have the actual accounts to compare his statements to.

You're right that I missed the original link mentioning the epilepsy - I read it over breakfast before work, so didn't spend too much time on it and missed it. I am, however, not wrong that one of the articles suggests that the doctors told him to go to Fowler, and the other says that the doctors thought the abduction story was silly.

As I stated in my previous reply to you, this is merely your opinion - and that opinion is based on demonstrably false and deliberately misrepresented information!

It seems the debunkers are not at all interested in clarifying and getting to the truth - rather it seems they are merely interested in obscuring and misrepresenting the truth. I have to ask what sort of mentality does this? To me it represents an antiscience, antirational, antihuman position. Others of course are free to make up their own minds.

Blimey, I missed half a sentence when quickly reading an article, and I'm therefore anti-human? Seems that you've decided I'm a "them" to your "us", and that you now see me as an enemy of some kind, knowing, as you obviously think you do, everything you need to know about me.

I wonder, in light of this, whether it's at all possible to have any kind of productive conversation with you on this subject. I'm doubtful, but I'll see what you've got to say on the matter.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

ETA - and illustrated, to boot. Tell me someone hasn't been watching Star Trek:

Tell me, does this fiction get sexy at any point? I ask because he (I assume it's a he who has done the writing/illustrating) seems to have gone out of his way to make sure that you can't miss the fact that the woman has nipples under her suit.

 

[Akhenaten]

As I stated in my previous reply to you, this is merely your opinion - and that opinion is based on demonstrably false and deliberately misrepresented information!

It's based on a complete lack of evidence!

It seems the debunkers are not at all interested in clarifying and getting to the truth - rather it seems they are merely interested in obscuring and misrepresenting the truth. I have to ask what sort of mentality does this?

One made out of straw, Rramjet, just like the man in your argument.

To me it represents an antiscience, antirational, antihuman position.

This is merely your opinion - and that opinion is based on demonstrably false and deliberately misrepresented information!

Others of course are free to make up their own minds.

Like they did in this poll?

 

[Correa Neto]

While participating in the social experiment that is the UFOs, the Research, the Evidence thread, I read the Travis Walton story. Heroic first-person fiction. Really awful.

ETA - and illustrated, to boot. Tell me someone hasn't been watching Star Trek:

Some aliens are like humans with weird hairdoos while others are black souless shapes with glowing red eyes...

Ah, yes, we could use the "billions and billions" line to explain such extraordinary nonsense...

Oh, Star Trek... No. Star Trek aliens must have some sort of ridges, crevasses, spots or tatoos at their foreheads. The odds are also their race's name starts with "T".

 

[Bad vibe]

If I hypnotized you and there were witness, would that be enough?

no I have no confidence in hypnosis after seeing demonstrations of how suggestable people are

 

[Rramjet]

I don't. It's been demonstrated that people are extremely prone to confabulation while under hypnosis. It's been demonstrated that people under hypnosis will tend to remember what their hypnotist wants them to remember, as they are susceptible to suggestion, even suggestion created by subtle hints such as gestures, or omissions of words. It's been demonstrated that people under hypnosis are no more likely to remember things accurately than people who aren't.

This means, I'm afraid, that testimony gained under hypnosis has no value.

This is of course merely pure unfounded speculation. You have not shown any sources for theses unfounded assertions. Do they then merely comprise an unfounded belief set of yours - or do you actually have evidential support?

I was talking about the aliens themselves, and having memories of the abduction. That's the subject under discussion, correct?

Then: ”As strange as this encounter seems, it was not without corroboration. The occupants in the other car would come forward and tell almost an exact story, a story of abduction, mind control, and embarrassing procedures.”

As I said, another woman later said "me too".

Ah, I see, you simply make up quotes to suit your belief system often then?

This is not the link you gave me. If you're presenting evidence to me, then you can't accuse me of lying because I've not seen evidence that you didn't present to me.

Accuse you of lying? Oh please… I merely gave you the evidence to show that what you stated was untrue. That’s a far cry from accusing you of lying … perhaps though your perception is merely a reflection of a guilty conscience? It happens you know… (there… now you can say I have accused you of lying – at least by implication! LOL)

I quoted:
” The doctors there said she must have been pregnant; either that, or she had had some kind of gynaecological operation. In fact, she had had neither in recent times.” (http://www.theozfiles.com/kelly_cahill.html )

That reads to me like she may have misunderstood what the doctors told her. It's perfectly possible to miscarry before you even know that you're pregnant. It's also possible to maintain your menstrual cycle while pregnant. It reads to me like the doctors told her that she had been pregnant, and she didn't believe them because she hadn't known she was.

Obviously you are not a woman then…

I stated:
“That’s your opinion, but I have demonstrated, it is based on false information.”

It was based on the information you gave me.

Oh very good! I like that. A quick wit makes welcome change in this debate.

ETA: run out of time - will get to your other post soon.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

This is of course merely pure unfounded speculation. You have not shown any sources for theses unfounded assertions. Do they then merely comprise an unfounded belief set of yours - or do you actually have evidential support?

There's a difference between "have not provided evidence for yet" and "this is of course merely unfounded speculation". I've seen numerous sources of the information I've provided. I might look for some on the net and post them if I've got time later.

Then: ”As strange as this encounter seems, it was not without corroboration. The occupants in the other car would come forward and tell almost an exact story, a story of abduction, mind control, and embarrassing procedures.”

Moving the goalposts. We were talking about her family. I've already said that someone else later coming along and saying "me too" is unimpressive. Twice, in fact.

Ah, I see, you simply make up quotes to suit your belief system often then?

What quote have I made up?

… perhaps though your perception is merely a reflection of a guilty conscience? It happens you know… (there… now you can say I have accused you of lying – at least by implication! LOL)

Is this how this conversation is going to go? Because if it is, then I'm really not interested. You said you were interested in discussing the evidence. If you're spoiling for a fight, then you'll have to look elsewhere, I'm afraid.

Obviously you are not a woman then…

Meaning what? If you've got a point to make, then please make it. My guess is that you're implying that it's impossible for a woman to be pregnant and not know it, and that it's impossible for a woman to miscarry without ever having known she was pregnant. If that is, indeed, what you're implying, then I'm afraid that medical science disagrees with you.

 

[Bell]

[...] I'm afraid that medical science disagrees with you.

ftfy