Ok, lets break it down, last time I looked there were about 13,000 topics of discussion here, I'm disappointed that the implication seems to be that we're willing to suffer fools gladly, based on a handful of threads, and that is somehow symptomatic of a problem that you see.

It's not an implication, I'm asking: If you suffer fools gladly, is it because it's a moot point to you? Not to you, Thoth, or to this website--I mean anyone in general with an interest or involvement in this field. That's not to take away from the 13,000 topics at all. I'm just concerning myself in the question with the handful in this and all forums (and broadcasts and magazines, for that matter) that are more than sketchy.

Strieber isn't an example of what I'm talking about. People are always going to have their opinions one way or another about any abductee/contactee/ufo sighting and what not. That's the beauty of this field: It's all a giant gray area keeping us in a perpetual state of questioning. So knowing that, does it matter to you what you're focusing on? Is Strieber equal to Greer, equal to SERPO, equal to Roswell, equal to an anonymous poster claiming to be an alien? Are they all equally valid and worthy of investigation?--That's what I'm trying to get at.

For me, personally, no they are not equal and I'm asking the question, really, because of some things Noory & Rob Simone said at the X-Conference a few weeks ago. To them, this all a big exercise in imagination--we'll leave it up to the audience to decide what's what. That's fine. But I take issue with the people they promote for us to decide on. I mean they'll have on known hoaxers who will inevitably present their cases as legitimate for us to decide on--but they never preface the interview with "This is, of course, a well-known hoax." And so the circus carries on.

Professionally, it's completely lazy, in my opinion, and, as an experiencer, it's insulting. At the end of the day I don't just want mental masturbation and an open mind. If I can't get to the truth of this stuff I'd at least like to be able to cut out some of the noise to listen for the signal. I'm wondering how many people share that view. Lately, I've been hearing from friends and colleagues that what I'm talking about could evolve into a type of McCarthyism because--Who's to say what's real and unreal in this field?

We can't say with certainty what is real but there are cases where we can clearly see what's unreal. I'd love to know why those who engage the unreal do so. Is there no difference to them or does the difference not matter? [And I'll say here that the Striebers of the world don't count because they don't claim to have, say, photos and video of beautiful alien babies with four-boned craniums the way the Greers of the world do. If Strieber ever claimed to have that kind of proof but wasn't forthcoming then I'd say, have at him. That goes for me too--the moment I make a claim I can't back up that should be easily verifiable--trash me.]

And Dolphin - gee, if you'd read enough of my posts that so turned you off you only click on 'em cuz you're bored nowadays, you wouldn't make such ignorant statements as "From your later post, it seems you do not have much of a feel for UFOs, aliens, etc." Then again...of course you would. (Should I put a little LOL emoticon here to make it seem like I'm joking? Nah. I'll leave that insincerity to you.)


_________________
3...2...1

http://www.cultureofcontact.com

is launched

valiens wrote:

I'd love to know why those who engage the unreal do so. Is there no difference to them or does the difference not matter?

Speaking strictly for myself that one is simple in the extreme to answer. It's so simple that an old, old quote exists that says it perfectly: "One can not engage the unknown from the vantage point of the known."

To attempt to reach understanding of the new by shoehorning it into the already known and accepted is in truth nothing more than the age old quest for vindication of existing bias. Ratiocination reaches only so far then it collapses, as consequence of it's own rules.

Do I have my own biases and working guidelines? Of course, they're useful coping tools. I try hard not to be governed by them though because they are like fire... good servants and terrible masters.

So yes, I'll give a listen and interaction to anyone who addresses a topic of interest to me. Just because my knee jerk response is "BS" doesn't mean I have to react at it's dictates.

As this applies to the ufo topic, it's well to keep in mind that the only ufo referrents we have on tap are human ones. There's no hope in the world of ever unraveling the questions the topic engenders if one excludes data on any aspect, given that the whole field is a mystery at this stage.

All that can be achieved by pre-filtering is reinforcement of existing bias.




Tiger


_________________
"Logic and reason are as limited as faith. All three collapse under their own rules of exclusivity in the end, they simply do so at different rates."

I had to go back and see if I had actually said your posts "turn me off". I can't find where I said that. Nothing to be upset about. I don't watch advertisements on TV either unless they are really good. It seems a lot of your time here has been about advertising your book, website, and other works. Free advertising at a website this large is not a bad deal any way you look at it.

I am still wading through your old posts as I do not want to miss some important aspect. I have to say that I wonder how you are doing with that "possession" you were referring to. Did you get that all worked out?

I think the main reason I do not enjoy threads you participate in is because you like to cut folks to shreds just because you have a writer's touch. Doesn't impress me. What impresses me is the folks who come in with the stories they could not tell anywhere else, and yet they find the courage to post them here. There are those folks who have not had the nerve or opportunity to share the harshest part of their lives with those in this 3D world because it is just that.........a world where the non-believers and non-seers are in control of daily discussion.

I have to say that when you shared some small part of your experience, I had some interest. Name dropping does not impress me either, so I kind of throw those out. Some of the best UFO stories that I deemed to be truth came from folks who rarely told their stories. Their experiences were not unreal to them. In fact, mostly the rest of their lives were affected by one or two events. It seems that someone who has had paranormal experiences for the better part of a lifetime would be forever affected. I for one will never say what they believe is their reality is "unreal".

In my opinion, none of the paranormal field is for the big names. It is about little people having big events happen and how it affects their own reality. I, for one, do not care to be the judge and jury of them.

As far as my emoticons, get over it.

As far as whether I am being sincere, I am sincere with both my likes and dislikes. :

As far as being sincere in my discussion of the paranormal..... I am as sincere as the person I am talking to.

Back to your original questions for this thread, I am still confused as to whether you are needing input about UFOs or aliens and ETs. Do you automatically think there are no aliens or ETs unless there is a UFO? Is it that you feel UFOs are unnecessary for the interaction with aliens and ETs? It seems almost like you are not expressing an interest in the subject so much as a judgment call on the validity of the stories folks tell.

Enjoy your comeback.

dolphin

PS.....Thanks for pointing out my latest "ignorant" statement. I do love being judged by the best of the best.



Last edited by dolphin on Sat May 03, 2008 7:19 pm; edited 1 time in total
_________________
per ardua ad astra

At the risk of being villified also, I have to say that I agree with Jeremy in that there are a great many people into this whole area for the 'breads and circuses', ie entertainment, and not to get at any real truth about the ufo enigma.

I have been reading and thinking about it for over 30 years; long before the internet.
Personally I find the ufo enigma fascinating and one of ther most important yet underlooked areas where science (and other fields of human endeavor) has a chance to do some good work to uncover possible truths about mankind, alien intelligence , and human consciousness.

Unfortunately this has not really come to fruition and science and other disciplines have remained aloof while all kinds of fringe elements have taken over the field, which is why true creative scientists and thinkers like Dr Vallee have gone underground to the Invisible College to look for solutions.

At the same time I do agree with those who have said we should at least listen to the tales of alien contact some have claimed to have experienced but...we should keep a discriminating mind and look long and hard at these claims before we commit any relevance to them.
To a large degree the ufo/alien arena has become a circus and that is too bad.

Quote:

It's not an implication, I'm asking: If you suffer fools gladly, is it because it's a moot point to you? Not to you, Thoth, or to this website--I mean anyone in general with an interest or involvement in this field. That's not to take away from the 13,000 topics at all. I'm just concerning myself in the question with the handful in this and all forums (and broadcasts and magazines, for that matter) that are more than sketchy.

Lets read back then shall we ?

Quote:

And what I see on forums like this one (and many others) is a willingness to keep asking delusional or lying people more about their stories. I'm not talking about a gray area--I mean flat out "Duh. That's crap."

That's not asking 'if' that's saying that it happens here isn't it? If, you had read more here, you'd see that it's pretty far from accurate. Whether you want to dilute that original statement by referencing others or not is up to you but the point was made.

Quote:

Strieber isn't an example of what I'm talking about. People are always going to have their opinions one way or another about any abductee/contactee/ufo sighting and what not. That's the beauty of this field: It's all a giant gray area keeping us in a perpetual state of questioning.

Quote:

And what I see on forums like this one (and many others) is a willingness to keep asking delusional or lying people more about their stories.

I'd say that Strieber fits that bill according to some viewpoints. I am confused though between you saying thats the beauty of it now, but before you were saying it was crap?

Quote:

So knowing that, does it matter to you what you're focusing on? Is Strieber equal to Greer, equal to SERPO, equal to Roswell, equal to an anonymous poster claiming to be an alien? Are they all equally valid and worthy of investigation?--That's what I'm trying to get at.

There can't possibly be any consensus of opinion on that given the diversity of the subjects, and of course, the approach taken to begin with, ie what you want from the study. If you're out to cover all angles, then yes they are, but to what degree would be personal.

Quote:

For me, personally, no they are not equal and I'm asking the question, really, because of some things Noory & Rob Simone said at the X-Conference a few weeks ago. To them, this all a big exercise in imagination--we'll leave it up to the audience to decide what's what.

Sure, but that's your call, your standpoint, it may not be mine, mine may not be someone elses, that is the beauty of it.

Quote:

That's fine. But I take issue with the people they promote for us to decide on. I mean they'll have on known hoaxers who will inevitably present their cases as legitimate for us to decide on--but they never preface the interview with "This is, of course, a well-known hoax." And so the circus carries on.

That's a whole different ball game though, if someone is known to be a hoaxer or a charlatan, so be it, ditch them, but who are these known hoaxers? Noory et al are a different set up than BoT, different goals completely. So I'm not sure why they figure in on what you've said about the forums here.

Quote:

Professionally, it's completely lazy, in my opinion, and, as an experiencer, it's insulting. At the end of the day I don't just want mental masturbation and an open mind. If I can't get to the truth of this stuff I'd at least like to be able to cut out some of the noise to listen for the signal. I'm wondering how many people share that view.

I'm sure many do, but my point is you can't make decisions for them, people need to find their own way. We had some wild people on the podcasts yes? Are they representative of the signal ? I'd say not, I'd say they were worth listening to, to be able to decide. Take a read of Tigers post, you can't apply your filter set to everyone, simply because your criteria is different. Not better, not worse, just different as it is for everyone.

Quote:

Lately, I've been hearing from friends and colleagues that what I'm talking about could evolve into a type of McCarthyism because--Who's to say what's real and unreal in this field?

In terms of Mcarthyism, and the general gist of the post, then to me this causes far more damage than someone stating that they're an alien, they can be taken or left, but Mcarthyism the slating of other individuals involved in their research is infantile and completely counter productive. I stopped getting the UFO updates mailing list because of the childish bickering and name calling, it's a great way to ruin any credibility the subject may have if it's adherents are pointing fingers and backstabbing. It's not evolved like that, it's been like that for decades.

Quote:

We can't say with certainty what is real but there are cases where we can clearly see what's unreal. I'd love to know why those who engage the unreal do so. Is there no difference to them or does the difference not matter? [And I'll say here that the Striebers of the world don't count because they don't claim to have, say, photos and video of beautiful alien babies with four-boned craniums the way the Greers of the world do.

You see, that's my point precisely, you think you can clearly see what's real/unreal. To an outside observer there is no difference whatsoever between the claims of either Strieber or Greer. But by mocking and putting down Greer, you just end up creating artificial divisions, if people think Greer is crazy because of his claims so be it, if they think the same of Strieber so be it, it is individual. I think Greer did more to bring respect to the subject with his disclosure conference than Strieber did with his abduction stories, and the fact that he wrote best selling novels previously lends an air of suspicion too, but I keep an open mind. Greer may have since flipped, so what, move on, I see no need for the nonsense of subjugation for it's own sake.

Quote:

If Strieber ever claimed to have that kind of proof but wasn't forthcoming then I'd say, have at him. That goes for me too--the moment I make a claim I can't back up that should be easily verifiable--trash me.]

You were abducted right? Where's the proof? Am I saying it didn't happen ? no, but you see my point here. This is an area to be studied, not one where there's just endless finger pointing and name calling.

Quote:

And Dolphin - gee, if you'd read enough of my posts that so turned you off you only click on 'em cuz you're bored nowadays, you wouldn't make such ignorant statements as "From your later post, it seems you do not have much of a feel for UFOs, aliens, etc." Then again...of course you would. (Should I put a little LOL emoticon here to make it seem like I'm joking? Nah. I'll leave that insincerity to you.)

Completely unnecessary, Dolphin was having a little fun there given what seemed to be the approach you were taking. Dolphin is someone I would say hand on heart definitely does have a feel and a wisdom for this whole subject, in ways that most of us can only allude to.Again this approach sums my point up perfectly, people in glass houses Jeremy.


_________________
It is easier for mankind to destroy the light within, rather than the darkness around. Always face the light, that way the shadows will always be behind you.

dr_wu wrote:

At the risk of being villified also, I have to say that I agree with Jeremy

Villified? A question was asked. It and it's context and substance have been responded to. This is villification?




Tiger


_________________
"Logic and reason are as limited as faith. All three collapse under their own rules of exclusivity in the end, they simply do so at different rates."

dr_wu wrote:

At the risk of being villified also, I have to say that I agree with Jeremy in that there are a great many people into this whole area for the 'breads and circuses', ie entertainment, and not to get at any real truth about the ufo enigma.

Don't you think that's always been the case Dr Wu? It may not be what is desired, but as far back as I can remember its always been like that, the fring elements etc. I don't see any vilification here though, other than a statement regarding "forums like this".

Quote:

I have been reading and thinking about it for over 30 years; long before the internet.
Personally I find the ufo enigma fascinating and one of ther most important yet underlooked areas where science (and other fields of human endeavor) has a chance to do some good work to uncover possible truths about mankind, alien intelligence , and human consciousness.

Agreed, but science hasn't because of it's usual myopic approach to anything that challenges the paradigm so much.

Quote:

Unfortunately this has not really come to fruition and science and other disciplines have remained aloof while all kinds of fringe elements have taken over the field, which is why true creative scientists and thinkers like Dr Vallee have gone underground to the Invisible College to look for solutions.

You see I don't get "the field" there is none, if we're talking about those making the most noise, or the most outspoken in this area, then there always will be a huge diversity of opinion, for the simple fact that it has been left to individuals with little or no resources and finances to even begin to do the subject justice.

We can reflect on many notable figures from the past, Mack,Hynek, Vallee and Mcdonald etc, but even in their day the circus still existed. All that's happened is the internet has boosted their voice. To me the problem isn't down to the circus, or people claiming to be aliens, its down to the fact that so many are putting down others so readily. X is telling the truth, but Y is a complete liar, and all the infantile political overtones that entails.

Jeremy puts down Greer because of a claim that's been made, but forgets how important the disclosure conference was as an eye opener for so many. By mocking and worse it just gives the pseudoskeptics all the ammo they need to dismantle the subject, because of all the infighting.

Quote:

At the same time I do agree with those who have said we should at least listen to the tales of alien contact some have claimed to have experienced but...we should keep a discriminating mind and look long and hard at these claims before we commit any relevance to them.To a large degree the ufo/alien arena has become a circus and that is too bad.

If it has become so, it is because of reasons above. Thirty years ago, I was a member of a UFO group, we met, discussed sightings, interviewed witnesses that kind of thing. Our aim was to see if there were any "patterns", Vallee was publishing some great work then too.

But guess what, there were another bunch of people locally, who claimed they could charge cosmic prayer batteries on the top of a nearby hill, and that would attract UFOs. Didn't make us want to stop researching, or to give up because of the apparent craziness of their situation, or the fact they were getting mentioned lots in the newspaper. But, because the network we were a member of insisted that we all assume that UFOs were alien hardware only, that caused big rifts, people started mocking other researchers and we eventually disbanded. Being discriminating is indeed a good way to approach information, but I stop short when people start telling me who I should and shouldn't listen to.


_________________
It is easier for mankind to destroy the light within, rather than the darkness around. Always face the light, that way the shadows will always be behind you.

valiens wrote - "Professionally, it's completely lazy, in my opinion, and, as an experiencer, it's insulting. At the end of the day I don't just want mental masturbation and an open mind. If I can't get to the truth of this stuff I'd at least like to be able to cut out some of the noise to listen for the signal." - and - "We can't say with certainty what is real but there are cases where we can clearly see what's unreal. I'd love to know why those who engage the unreal do so. Is there no difference to them or does the difference not matter? [And I'll say here that the Striebers of the world don't count because they don't claim to have, say, photos and video of beautiful alien babies with four-boned craniums the way the Greers of the world do. If Strieber ever claimed to have that kind of proof but wasn't forthcoming then I'd say, have at him. That goes for me too--the moment I make a claim I can't back up that should be easily verifiable--trash me.]"

All you say here is really interesting valiens 'cause the movie you made does not even have you telling your story, which was somewhat promised in the title, "No One's Watching: An Alien Abductee's Story", & so occurs to me like the exact thing you yourself would discount.

I also agree with others about being careful with over-judgement. SOOO many things I called "crapolla" years ago I now accept as readily as margerine on toast, so let's give others a chance, okay?



Last edited by Juno54 on Sun May 04, 2008 3:25 pm; edited 1 time in total

Hi, White Tiger:

WhiteTiger wrote:

valiens wrote:

What I hear from other radio/podcast hosts is that they like to have on all types of guests, sane or not, and leave it to the listener to ferret out what's true and what's bunk.

Is this a problem? If so, why? There's an important distinction between journalism and editorialising. Even in this culture of "tell me what to think" there still remains a market segment that's open to material to think about that hasn't already passed through other filter sets.

It's a problem if you're allowing hoaxers on because you're a lazy host who doesn't know about his guests or if you believe, as at least one does, that all people in this field are lying, it's just a matter of to what extent.

Basically, I have a problem with people who are in it solely to make a name for themselves by adding to the circus. Do we want a circus or a study? Truth or story time? This is what it boils down to.

Quote:

And what I see on forums like this one (and many others) is a willingness to keep asking delusional or lying people more about their stories. I'm not talking about a gray area--I mean flat out "Duh. That's crap." -- Like anyone who comes on and says they're aliens and have answers for us but can't even spell.

WhiteTiger wrote:

That cutoff line is part of your filter set. Are you so sure that what comforts you is automatically right for your whole potential audience? The fact that a thing falls into your reject chute doesn't mean it's no good to anyone else for any purpose.

That's one of those "invisible assumptions" Thoth was alluding to.

But as I've told Thoth privately, I'm not suggesting he edit the threads--I'm asking people who do respond to them with interest, ready to believe, why that is. Why doesn't it fall into their reject chute?

Again I'm not talking about anything other than people who are CLEARLY lying or CLEARLY delusional. Not the gray area material. Just those two things. And if you tell me there's no way to judge that, you're wrong. We judge people everyday. It's part of what makes us higher thinkers than, for instance, grapes.



Last edited by valiens on Thu May 08, 2008 4:53 pm; edited 2 times in total
_________________
3...2...1

http://www.cultureofcontact.com

is launched

Hi, Juno:

Juno54 wrote:

All you say here is really interesting valiens 'cause the movie you made does not even have you telling your story, which was somewhat promised in the title, "No One's Watching: An Alien Abductee's Story", & so occurs to me like the exact thing you yourself would discount.

That whole thing IS the story. It's not just my testimony but how friends/family react to it. That's what I live with as well as the actual events themselves. But to your point that I've made something even I would discount...you might be right.

Juno54 wrote:

I also agree with others about being careful with over-judgement. SOOO many things I called "crapolla" years ago I now accept as readily as margerine on toast, so let's give others a chance, okay?

What is the limit to that? Anonymous teens who can't spell telling us they're time lords, aliens, or have some sort of super powers? People who use the word "energy" fifty thousand times a paragraph like we're all supposed to nod and agree we even know what's being said? UFO cases that have already been proven false?

Is there really no consensus reality here? So when John Lear says aliens are on the moon waiting to steal your soul when you die, I should give that some thought? When Alfred Webre says the towers were taken down on 9/11 by the U.S. government using reverse-engineered alien beam technology I should wonder if that's not what happened?

Are there no standards by which we judge?

That Webre example is perfect, come to think of it, because what some are saying is, "Well you believe you've been abducted and many people would call you crazy so who are you to judge?"

Same thing with 9/11--some call conspiracy theorists insane for thinking it was an inside job. But that is their ignorance of the evidence. There is ample evidence that 9/11 was an inside job. Doesn't prove it--but there's ample evidence. There is exactly zero evidence of what Webre proposes.

Same with abductions: Ample evidence that otherwise healthy, sane, honest people are reporting this phenomenon--whatever is behind it--zero evidence that guy-who-can't-figure-out-spell-check is from a superior alien race.

Heck, even ET made a phone with an umbrella and a Speak-N-Spell.


_________________
3...2...1

http://www.cultureofcontact.com

is launched

valiens wrote:

What is more important to you in this lil ufological endeavor: Obtaining facts or reading groundless bunk from the imagination? What is important to you?

I don't consider myself "in the field" ... I don't do (what you might consider) any serious research. I read what interests me. Sometimes I'm in a whimsical mood, and I read some interesting stories in the "it happened to me" board. What is important to me now- isn't what was important to me- say ... last year. I've never been abducted (that I am aware of) so, my passion might be a bit underwhelming in comparison to yours. In that regard, I don't let the tales of whimsy bother me.

Quote:

Do you seek answers or do you like the way seeking itself opens your mind?

I don't seek answers anymore - because I came to the realization that there really aren't any "one size fits all" answers. The search for answers left me tired .. took all
the fun right out of it

Quote:

If it's all about the open mind then does it matter to you if some of what you read and internalize is hoaxed or crazy or just plain incorrect?

Hoaxing isn't very nice I still read it Is it okay if I discern for myself (perhaps by engaging the poster) if it's a hoax? Or must I take the majority opinion and follow suit?

Quote:

Do you care what information you are being fed so long as it speaks to your imaginative impulse?

I love having my imagination fed !! What can I say ...




_________________
The problem with communication, is the illusion that it has been accomplished.- George Benard Shaw

Thanks, Rebel Angel. My pal Tim Binnall (not name dropping, just clarifying that he's not one of the radio show hosts I was referring to) believes that we'll never get to the truth and so he's more interested in the personalities of the field. What makes people tick, I guess. He won't promote known liars but he has no problem with crazy "out there" people. Sounds kinda like the place you're coming from.

So here's a question for you (and Tim): If you eventually grow bored with the subject and turn it off, will it have ever mattered in the first place? Or is it like pop music - kinda cool in the moment but a year from now it'll be irrelevant?


_________________
3...2...1

http://www.cultureofcontact.com

is launched

Some of my best friends are crazy "out there" people, so you've lumped me in good company so I'm cool with that



To address your question- I'll say what I said above, what was important to me last year isn't important to me now. Some things are just not worth expending the energy on. I've never been bored a single moment in my life. I've been disenchanted with the subject matter. (For example, I don't pay much attention to photographic evidence anymore...for obvious reasons) When I have my moments or months of disenchantment, I don't put myself in situations that would frustrate me. i.e. I don't visit BoT or other websites that deal with the subject matter. I wouldn't watch a TV show about it. I wouldn't read any books about it. I've got this way of turning off ... works well for me.

But, no - my mild passion for the unknown has been with me since I can remember, and I doubt that I would forsake it like umm disco ( I kinda like pop music ) Would it be irrelevant? Nope, not to me.

I've already decided it's the coolest question ever: "*knock*knock* is anybody out there?" Hope I'm alive for the "I told ya so'z" on that one ... Maybe that's when all the crazies, hoaxers, (you know anyone that would take the time to hoax, probably has a passion for the subject, right?) researchers will come together. When they can all stand together and tell the world they were right


_________________
The problem with communication, is the illusion that it has been accomplished.- George Benard Shaw

Quote:

So here's a question for you (and Tim): If you eventually grow bored with the subject and turn it off, will it have ever mattered in the first place? Or is it like pop music - kinda cool in the moment but a year from now it'll be irrelevant?

Umm, you are joking right?


_________________
"Knowledge speaks, but wisdom listens" - Jimi Hendrix

"Heck, even ET made a phone with an umbrella and a Speak-N-Spell." ...how damn clever is he?!
Of-course there are times I think "fruitcake warning" but I'm not going to stress about it After all when I was in highschool a friend told me she was a witch...at the time I'd not heard of such a thing outside of "Bewitched" & "Hansel & Grettel" so I concluded that she was lying. That was fairly closed minded of me considering I had been speaking with the "dead" my whole life. 10yrs. after that I found out what "witch" meant and became interested in that myself.

As to your film valiens I owe you an appology. The whole fake girlfriend thing kind of took over in my memory (I so don't get why you did that) also I watched it with my ex who is the sceptic of all sceptics, so I was probably not as in the experience or paying as much attention as I could have. It's funny, near the beginning of it you were questioning how to judge others stories, similar to here.
I'm most of the way through watching it again...yes I have again braved the Michael Jackson infested room & the bizarre bath meeting!! Your pose was very Venusesque there, btw.

valiens wrote:

Do we want a circus or a study?

Well, when dealing with a long standing yet still unresolved unknown, it's obvious that some key element or elements have been excluded from consideration... were that not so, resolution would have been arrived at previously. Since the topic itself is an unknown, then the requisite elements to be included in the study must remain open to have any chance of avoiding the study errors that have so far left the question unresolved.

Any other approach leaves researchers wide open to the "no, I won't look through your telescope" error of prejudice.

Quote:

I'm asking people who do respond to them with interest, ready to believe, why that is. Why doesn't it fall into their reject chute?

Again I'm not talking about anything other than people who are CLEARLY lying or CLEARLY delusional. Not the gray area material. Just those two things.

Well, there is where we differ. I don't presume to know about the unknown in advance. With the elements and forces at work in the unknown category, any exclusion of any material that has an obvious connection to the area of study is simple bias, imo. It's about equivalent to someone trying to figure the first internal combustion engine they've ever been exposed to, but deciding in advance that the people talking about gasoline and fire are full of crap and hoaxing things. The key point remains we don't know.

For all we know those seeming psychological side issues of hoaxing and fantasy yarns may hold vital clues to the very nature of the phenomenon itself.

Quote:

And if you tell me there's no way to judge that, you're wrong. We judge people everyday. It's part of what makes us higher thinkers than, for instance, grapes.

Of course we judge... but that is just our defense mechanisms at work, now isn't it? The question is whether we judge accurately, which is obviously not the case with the ufo topic or it would have been resolved long since, given the amount of effort put into it. We're missing something, and the odds are good that what we are missing that would pull the pieces together is something(s) in plain sight but hidden by the assumptions of faith and bias errors of those doing the studies.



Tiger


_________________
"Logic and reason are as limited as faith. All three collapse under their own rules of exclusivity in the end, they simply do so at different rates."

valiens wrote:

What is more important to you in this lil ufological endeavor: Obtaining facts or reading groundless bunk from the imagination? What is important to you?

Do you seek answers or do you like the way seeking itself opens your mind?

If it's all about the open mind then does it matter to you if some of what you read and internalize is hoaxed or crazy or just plain incorrect?

Do you care what information you are being fed so long as it speaks to your imaginative impulse?

If you answer, keep it honest. It's been on my mind lately.

Thanks!

I meet as many contactees, abductees and starseed types of people as I can. I want to talk with people about literal first hand experiences, then compare their experiences with my own in order to clarify.

Now I abhor the truely universal degrading and evil effects that lies have upon the lifeforce which animates everything, but I would not kill persons for lieing about the important [even though their lies have caused much loss and even death]. If I could I would remove the corruption from their existence but I have not the reach for this. For me it is all about the deeper truth of living which through right application and right reason reduces the pain, suffering and injustices caused by evil.

WhiteTiger wrote:

For all we know those seeming psychological side issues of hoaxing and fantasy yarns may hold vital clues to the very nature of the phenomenon itself.

Totally agree, this whole area (field?), has so many angles to it, that to selectively reject may indeed be missing part of the picture. I put together an article about UFO psychology http://www.book-of-thoth.com/article1771.html, in that I discussed the role belief plays. What concerns me the most is those who try to state what is acceptable, and that which is not. For sure, there'll always be fringe elements, even then that is down to the person as to whether they want to incorporate that into their take on the subject. If I had been heard discussing UFOs by those medical staff, what was to stop them saying I was crazy, or had problems? What is the difference between that and finger pointing at those you consider crazy Jeremy?

It seems from the posts so far, that you think if we don't finger point, we're all accepting whatever is put our way as the truth, or being genuine. If you take the time to read the threads here, you'll see that is not the case, and far from it in fact. That's the whole purpose of debate. If I see a picture of a UFO and think it is actually a bird in motion, I'll say so. The difference being, I won't attempt to force that opinion on people, or start drawing lines in the sand as to what we should consider acceptable, and that which we shouldn't. That choice is always personal, and as Tiger says, when you're dealing with the unknown as a subject, it would be foolish to dismiss arbitrarily.

The timelord poster readily admits he could be crazy, and that he doesn't know for sure what is going on, but I still noticed there was some ridiculing in that thread as if he'd stated outright that he was. He didn't, he just wanted to relate his experiences, and is no doubt disappointed at the sneers. There's some mocking of that in this thread also, Is he a timelord? I don't think he is, but I was still interested in reading what he had to say, because there's a good chance he's experiencing something he can't rationalise to himself and is describing it in terms only he knows how. Yet he's been mocked in there, and no doubt instantly disregarded by some. What I am saying is, that he obviously has had a set of odd experiences, surely those are worth listening to rather than just making snap judgements based on the title of his thread. The only reason I haven't pulled anyone up about making fun, was he said that he thought that was ok. But from what I can see that's not how he's being portrayed here.

A friend of mine dismisses things out of hand, has a very black and white view of everything. Most of us in this "field" know full well that things aren't black and white, least of all when it comes to UFOs and abduction reports. Yet what I see emerging from some that have a voice to the public, is a condemnation of others also involved in this field, occasionally justified, but largely not, and mainly because of ego. Richard Hall, a man I had a lot of respect for, because of the amount of time he's been investigating, posted something scathing when I asked for ideas for a new UFO DVD. That's all I did "what do people think would make a good UFO documentary, I am hoping to make one" and the response was "oh great another UFO DVD, with the same old stuff, same old people, same old rubbish" or words to that effect. Point of his comment was what? without being aware what it would contain, he'd already judged. I see it so many times, and I see signs of it with what you're saying Jeremy.

As I've said already, the fringe element is not what causes problems, we can take or leave those. What causes problems is the in fighting between those involved, when they try to force their view over others, and then when that doesn't work, begin mocking (or worse) those who think differently.


_________________
It is easier for mankind to destroy the light within, rather than the darkness around. Always face the light, that way the shadows will always be behind you.

Valiens, for what it is worth, I'd like to add my two bits. I think I am really just adding my own take to a basic agreement with some of what is said above.

The first point is about "what is TRUE". If any of us are going to stand in judgement of others and try to differentiate what is TRUE from what is not in what they have said then we are on very very shaky ground. If you get right down to it you cannot prove that your own hands there in front of you really exist. You can't prove to me that YOU are not a figment of my imagination. You can't prove that anything that appears real is so. Seriously. People that have tried to get to the root proof of the nature of matter have go themselves right back into the realm of philosophy and mysticism. So, how then are we to begin proving ANYTHING. Descartes handled the issue by coming to the conclusion that the only provable thing is "I think therefore I am". I'd take it further. In my meditations I have managed to stop thinking. I believe you have done this too. Neither of us stopped "am-ing" by stopping thinking. In fact stopping thinking allowed me, anyway, access to ever greater beingness. But that is a different story. The point is, it seems to me, the only thing we know for sure is that each of us in conscious. And what happens to each of our consciousnesses are our experiences. If I say something is my experience then you have but two choices: to believe that it was indeed my experience or to call me a liar. That's up to you. If it IS my experience then it is my truth that it was so. So much for truth. It seems to me there is no such thing as one great unifying unarguable truth. There is only the truth that each of us hold within ourselves based upon our choices and our experiences. We are each our own truth.

So what about the paranormal? People delving into this stuff are intentionally looking into areas that are not consensus-reality based. We are specifically going to places where there is no society sanctioned agreement to fall back on. So how are we to decide then what is so and what is not so when another being comes along with a story? I guess we can look at the story and see if there are internal inconsistencies. But some of my own experiences have logical anomalies that I can't explain. Did I not experience them, then? I did. What of that? Or we can look to see if the character in question is in the habit of making things up or has elsewhere been proved to be not a credible witness. But what if I lied today and told the truth tomorrow? You see what I'm getting at? I'm simply saying that, I for one, find it difficult to stand in judgement of the veracity of other people's claims. What I can do is say: "is this story in any way consistent with my experience or my interests?" If it is then there is scope for some engagement. If there isn't then I leave it be. Simple. The fact that I can find absolutely no way to engage with one persons story does not mean that it isn't their experience. And what if it is their experience but I think they are possibly a bit delusional, what then? Well, it seems to me there is no real way to prove that we aren't all a little delusional. It can be shown that all of our senses are fallible under the right circumstances.

So where does this leave us? I shall speak for myself. I like to share experiences with