|
Post by auntym on Aug 13, 2013 13:15:06 GMT -6
dailygrail.com/Skepticism/2013/8/Is-the-Week-Organized-Skepticism-Imploded Is This the Week that Organized Skepticism Imploded?Posted by Greg 11 Aug 2013 For many years on this site I've critiqued the demagogic tendencies of a number of the 'leaders' of the modern skeptical movement (see the bottom of this post for some links). I've often faced resistance (and sometimes hostility) from card-carrying skeptics for pointing out the foibles of these so-called champions of science, and the dangers of having such people as figureheads of a movement dedicated to truth and reason - but I had no inkling that in the space of just a few short years the reputations of a number of them would begin coming undone at their own hands. The first tremors began, perhaps, two years ago with the 'Elevatorgate' scandal within skepticism, in which Richard Dawkins outed his 'drunk uncle' persona to those within skepticism by entering a controversial argument he didn't need to engage in, and making comments that were always going to set off a firestorm. Just a few months later, the previously Teflon-coated James 'The Amazing' Randi was caught at the center of his own scandal when his partner of more than two decades, Jose Alvarez, was caught and pleaded guilty to identity theft, after overstaying his visa in the 1980s. Though many felt sympathy for both Randi and his partner's dilemma, there were also questions over how much Randi knew or was involved in the crime - a not-particularly-good look for the much celebrated champion of truth and honesty. Randi's credibility devolved further earlier this year when Will Storr's book The Heretics brought Randi's Social Darwinist-like philosophies into the spotlight, as well as Randi's own confession that he sometimes lies to win his arguments. A few months later, prominent skeptical voice bob Dunning (of the popular Skeptoid podcast) pleaded guilty to one charge of wire fraud for his part in a scheme to 'hack' eBay's affiliate marketing porgram which netted millions of dollars for the group. This week, Richard Dawkins once again put his foot it with a provocative tweet about the lack of Nobel Prizes in the Islamic world (if you want to understand why it was a stupid tweet, swap 'Islam' for 'women' in the tweet and his later 'reflections' on the matter). This time, it seems that Dawkins may have put the final straw on the camel's back: Owen Jones wrote that Dawkins could no longer "be left to represent atheists"; Martin Robbins wrote that atheism "will leave Dawkins behind"; Tom Chivers asked him "to please be quiet"; and Nesrine Malik said Dawkins himself was as irrational "as an Islamic extremist". CONTINUE READING: dailygrail.com/Skepticism/2013/8/Is-the-Week-Organized-Skepticism-Imploded
|
|
|
Post by auntym on Aug 31, 2013 14:21:09 GMT -6
ufocon.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/our-resident-skeptics-and-believers.htmlSaturday, August 31, 2013 Our Resident Skeptics (and “believers”)posted by RRRGroup August 31, 2013 Kevin Randle’s blog attracts, mostly, the same skeptics that “haunt” this blog: Lance Moody, Christopher Allan [aka CDA], Gilles Fernandez, and sometimes Zoam Chomsky [known in UFO circles as “The Iron Skeptic”]. You know the definition of “skeptic” or “skepticism” so I won’t enter it here, but I do want to point out how I see skepticism applied by these blokes…. Lance Moody is no so much a staunch skeptic as a guy who hates stupidity, illogical and/or igannant conclusions and hypotheses by UFO buffs. (David Rudiak really irks Lance.) CDA is, like me, I think – we’re about the same age – a fellow who was thrilled and excited in his youth by flying saucer reports and UFOs, believing them to be the vanguard of an extraterrestrial visitation. But as time went on and CDA matured, he saw no proof of extraterrestrial saucers and the elusive UFO phenomenon merely deepened as an odd mystery. Roswell became an obsession but the goofy research by such UFO dignitaries as Stan Friedman, Kevin Randel (yes), and others offput CDA and he finds the whole Roswell affair to be a bête noire of ineptitude, with the idea that science wouldn’t have kept an alien crash quiet for almost 70 years if one actually happened near Roswell. Gilles Fernandez, a cognitive psychologist, is squeamish about anything in “ufology:” that smacks of extraterrestrialism. He’s the only skeptic with a serious effort and internet site that addresses, academically mostly, the hodge podge of UFO reports over the years that are flush with errors and errant conclusions. (He gets testy when someone inserts a definitive statement that, on the face of it, is just plain full of merde.) Zoam Chomsky is anti-UFO all the way: UFOs do not exist, reports are bogus from the get-go and people who believe in UFOs are an igannant lot who have made UFOs into their “religion.” Then we have PurrlGurrl [PG] who, like me, has had a UFO sighting/experience. She isn’t anti-UFO but she is anti-Ufology, finding the whole field of UFO study to be replete with charlatans and phonies. (While Gilles finds ufology to be a joke, PG finds it to be a vast wasteland of *bullcrap*.) Paul Kimball has an open mind about UFOs, thinking the phenomenon is worthy of scant, occasional study and attention, but the phenomenon is a mystery that remains and may remain elusive to human beings. Nick Redfern uses UFOs as a vehicle for writing books and making a living. He also, like Paul, sees the mystery as intriguing but also elusive to the point that we may never know what UFOs are or have been, a feeling he also holds for Roswell – an event that is hidden from explanation by the botched investigations of UFO “researchers” over the years and even now. Frank Stalter is fascinated by some UFO events such as Socorro, which he sees, definitely, as a hoax event in the same way that Anthony Bragalia does. (How he feels about UFOs in general is not clear to me.) Frank Warren is a UFO addict, like me, collecting and studying UFO reports, past and present, as if they are worthy items for serious study. He is cautious about what UFOs are and what some UFO events have been seen as.) CONTINUE READING: ufocon.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/our-resident-skeptics-and-believers.html
|
|
|
Post by auntym on Sept 1, 2013 12:34:22 GMT -6
carloz.newsvine.com/_news/2013/08/31/20271607-can-ufo-investigation-be-scientificwww.csicop.org/specialarticles/show/ufo_research_is_up_in_the_airUFO research is up in the air: Can it be scientific?Sounds Sciencey Sharon Hill August 28, 2013 A few months back, a British anomaly investigation organization announced the possible death of UFOlogy. They admitted that failure to provide proof that UFOs were extraterrestrial craft and a decline in the number of UFO reports suggests that aliens do not exist after all. Was this the end of “UFOlogy”—the study of UFOs? “No way! It's alive and well here,” said the U.S. UFOlogists. So it is. But what is the real status of the study of UFOs? The UFO research field is having a bit of a crisis these days. Reports come in by the hundreds. There are not enough people to investigate them. Yet, decades of UFO research by private and military organizations have resulted in disappointment for those who surely thought there was something out there to reveal. Many of the historic figures of UFOlogy are aging or have passed away. Who is doing the work now? And what exactly are they doing? The major organization remaining in the U.S. for investigating UFO sightings is MUFON, the Mutual UFO Network. MUFON is not in good shape. Their stated mission is to conduct scientific investigation of UFO reports for the benefit of mankind. But there is dispute about their ability to actually do that. The current version of MUFON, according to those observing the situation, is focused on everything except proper UFO investigation and is nowhere near scientific. Membership in the organization has fallen off and some local MUFON groups are disgruntled. Leadership upheavals over the past few years may have been distracting and overall, they are experiencing a serious case of mission creep. MUFON consists of chapters covering each state across the country who operate somewhat independently with members paying dues to the main headquarters. They promote a scientific method. But do they actually accomplish that goal? Recent commentators say no, they do not. The focus in local MUFON chapters meetings these days is decidedly unscientific with talks on alien abduction, conspiracy theories, human-ET hybrids, hypnotic regression, and repressed memories. That's a wide range of pseudoscience in one place. It's dragging down the credibility of the entire subject as well as missing the point of improving actual UFO investigations. A comprehensive two-part piece recently appeared online describing the changing of the guard at MUFON that is installing its fourth director since 2009. The UFO Trail blog critiques the current status the field and takes note of the rising voices in the community, some of whom wish to elevate the investigations and methods out of the realm of pseudoscience. Author of The UFO Trail, Jack Brewer, is critical of the current methodology, characterized it as “sham inquiry”—a label I used to describe amateur paranormal investigation and one he thought also applied in this case. The newly named director of MUFON, Jan Harzon, states that UFOlogy is a science and intends to put a scientific face back on UFO investigations. Their latest symposium, held in Las Vegas this past July had the theme “Science, UFOs, and the Search for ET.” The conference featured presentations from several science professionals (current and former) but did not provide any blockbuster information or do much to promote science. "We hope to bridge the gap between science and UFOlogy," said Jan Harzan, state director of network's Orange County bureau. "They're one in the same." - Las Vegas Sun (19 July 2013). Many skeptical critics would dispute the claim that UFOlogy is a science but that depends on how you wish to define “science.” A general definition such as a “systematically collected body of knowledge” is not very descriptive of a subject area that contains a lot of data but few constructive hypotheses to provide a framework. The UFO sighting data is mostly witness reports and much of it is of questionable veracity or too old to be of much value any longer. The National UFO Reporting Center has a database of reported sightings but I haven’t found any compelling reports about flaps or trends to make sense of the data. It could be that I’m not reading cutting-edge UFO research but if there really was a good report that solidly concluded that there was a pattern and subsequent explanation for UFO flaps, I would be interested. I would hope I’d have heard of it, at least from those who have a more in-depth knowledge. But, as with claims of proof of psychics or hauntings, we only have popular, often biased reports about particular events from individuals that have a belief to promote. Those case studies in addition to being problematic in their accuracy (since it’s hard to confirm many of the events via witnesses), are not robust enough to aid in explaining the phenomenon. CONTINUE READING: www.csicop.org/specialarticles/show/ufo_research_is_up_in_the_air
|
|
|
Post by auntym on Oct 6, 2013 12:47:35 GMT -6
ufocon.blogspot.com/2013/10/the-roswell-addiction.htmlSunday, October 06, 2013 The Roswell Addiction Even with the recent Roswell brouhaha, some of the so-called Roswell Dream Team members remain committed to its Roswell research. And why not? The Roswell Incident is so entrenched within the whole panoply of UFO lore that it can’t be ignored or dismissed by some (many?) in the UFO community. The straggling remnants of Roswell that haven’t been adequately answered or addressed completely keep the matter vibrant for some UFO mavens. But as we’ve seen with the recent Roswell slide imbroglio, Roswell aficionados really get worked up about the ongoing Roswell matter. Roswell is addictive for those aficionados, psycho-dynamically so. It’s not a mentally healthy situation but the devoted persons see it otherwise; they think that Roswell, if proven to be something extraterrestrial, will legitimate UFOs and their obsession with the phenomenon. But showing the Roswell episode to be extraterrestrial is not only problematic, it’s loopy, in that nothing has surfaced which gives aid and comfort to the ETH or its proponents. The ongoing perusal of Roswell detritus is obsessional, not forensically pursued. The purveyors of the Roswell alien scenario have nowhere to go to obtain proof of their bias or belief that Roswell was an extraterrestrial accident. The evidence is not only skimpy, it is non-existent, and barely circumstantial. But the Roswell-entrenched hope against hope that they will uncover new, startling information that confirms their belief – that Roswell had a flying saucer crash, with alien bodies, in its environs in 1947. CONTINUE READING: ufocon.blogspot.com/2013/10/the-roswell-addiction.html
|
|
|
Post by auntym on Oct 9, 2013 10:48:11 GMT -6
ufocon.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/ufological-bozos.htmlTuesday, October 08, 2013 Ufological BozosIt’s not only tiresome to read, at some blog venues (Kevin Randle’s among them) the igannant and/or idiotic ramblings (sometimes ravings) of UFO aficionados about the open disclosure of falsehoods which Paul Kimball (mostly) and others presented in open forums, but it’s also maddening. That society is suffused with igannant, stupid people is a given, but those in UFO circles are the worst of the lot, in that they think they are intelligent and intellectually meaningful, about UFOs, ethics, morality, and truth (or lies). Take a look at comments, written by persons with bizarre and funky pseudonyms, at Mr. Randle’s blog, Above Top Secrets site, or the Unexplained Mysteries internet locale. And, of course, there is UFO UpDates which harbors the absolutely worst of the lots: Philistines flush with Neanderthalian observations. Igannant redundancies abound everywhere and even try to sneak in here, but we are vigilant and stem the tide of moronic meanderings. That e-mails from Kevin Randle were provided to the UFO community, after being given assurances that they would remain private, has the patina of what one expects in a lawyer/client relationship, or a doctor/patient relationship, and even in priest/confessor situations. But the Randle e-mails fall in none of those categories, and required disclosure in light of the onslaught of spin and obfuscations that were attempted to be shoved down the throats of the unknowing UFO community. Some Roswellian researchers, and you know whom I mean, tried to cover their *bleep* and newly discovered information by pretending that there was no such thing as new information when, in fact, that alleged new information was leaked all over the place, to Nick Redfern, Paul Kimball, Frank Warren, and even me. Should any of us, privy to the leaked, supposed new information, sit on it? I’ve provided my rationale for not holding information in secret, and you know my views, which are journalistically based, and Wikileak oriented. Nick Redfern sat on the information because he had promised, not the originator of the disclosure he received but a secondary person who supplemented the original tale Nick was told, that he would hold it in private, which he did, until the matter ended up out in the open. Frank Warren sat on his information; he didn’t want to get involved in a squabble with anyone. CONTINUE READING: ufocon.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/ufological-bozos.html
|
|
|
Post by auntym on Oct 10, 2013 11:04:20 GMT -6
www.skeptiko.com/224-john-searle-and-the-science-bullies/ Dr. John Searle and the Science BulliesOctober 8th, 2013 by Alex Tsakiris Interview with esteemed Berkeley philosopher and consciousness researcher Dr. John Searle examines the state of academic consciousness research. Alex Tsakiris: What we’ve been exploring is some of the evidence suggesting that consciousness may not be purely biological. We really started with parapsychology and folks like Rupert Sheldrake from Cambridge and Dean Radin who used to be at Bell Labs and is at IONS. But put all that aside because the real kicker is near-death experience science. Here are these doctors, in hospital, carefully controlled experiments over and over again, and the brain you’re talking about, Dr. Searle, is gone. It’s non-functioning; it isn’t there; and yet some kind of conscious experience that’s able to see and recall what’s going on continues. That evidence is pretty overwhelming at this point. What do you do with that? How does that fit into your model? Dr. John Searle: I don’t know. The stuff that I know about this tends to be rather anecdotal. Now maybe there is some really systematic, large-scale study of near-death experience that shows you can have consciousness without a brain but I don’t know of any such study. What I’ve heard is largely anecdotal. The mistake that people tend to make is they think, look, either these people are lying or there’s a miracle. Of course, both of those are probably wrong. People are perfectly sincere who report near-death experiences but it doesn’t follow that you can have consciousness completely separated from the brain; that this miracle is actually taking place. I’d have to know a whole lot more about it and see more systematic studies, as I said. The accounts that I’ve heard tend to be anecdotal. They tell a story about a guy who has had some unusual experiences. Alex Tsakiris: There is actually a lot of published work on this. The best compilation is probably The Handbook of Near-Death Experiences edited by Jan Holden at the University of North Texas and Bruce Greyson at the University of Virginia, who is very well-known in this area. Dr. John Searle: I don’t know enough about this stuff to have an intelligent opinion. Of course, it might turn out that 100 years from now we’ll have this conversation in heaven or in my case more likely the other place. The idea that you have to have a brain in order to be conscious, that’s a kind of silly idea people had back in the 21st Century. It might turn out that way; I don’t think it will. CONTINUE READING: www.skeptiko.com/224-john-searle-and-the-science-bullies/
|
|
|
Post by auntym on Oct 17, 2013 11:50:38 GMT -6
badufos.blogspot.com/2013/10/nasas-ufo-related-correspondence-mostly.html Bad UFOs: Skepticism, UFOs, and The Universe by Robert Sheaffer Reflections on UFOs, skepticism, and practically anything else by Robert Sheaffer, author of "UFO Sightings," and "Psychic Vibrations" (book, plus column in The Skeptical Inquirer). Tuesday, October 15, 2013 NASA's UFO-Related Correspondence - Mostly from Schoolchildren!When the British government released the last of its UFO files in June, 2013 (all except for “copies of MoD papers, records or other information relating to internal discussion, policy and/or briefings in response to public statements made to the media and via the release of Open Skies, Closed Minds by Nick Pope during the period 1995-96,” that Pope insists must remain hidden), much was said about the apparently frivolous nature of much of the correspondence from the public. For example, "A letter from a school child in Altrincham, Greater Manchester, to the MoD, dated January 2009, asking if aliens exist after she had seen some strange lights, and including a drawing of an alien in a UFO waving." At that time I wrote, When my name was included on a list prepared by NASA of people who might have information on UFOs (since they did not), I used to receive dozens of letters like this from school children requesting information. I would usually reply with just a page or two of skeptical materials, but I suppose that was not what they wanted to receive. Now it's time to look at the correspondence I received when I was listed by NASA (along with several other groups) as a source of information about UFOs. Each and every such letter I received was from someone who had written NASA, asking for information about UFOs. NASA replied that they did not have any such information, but here is a list of organizations that do. The time frame is mostly about 1978-1983. Unfortunately the box where these letters were stored was damaged in a flood, resulting in much discoloration, but most of them are still readable. Many letters were received from Latin America, most written in Spanish or Portuguese. Brazil was among the most avidly interested countries. Other letters were received from Poland, Austria, the UK, and even India. The foreign letters seemed to be from somewhat older correspondents, apparently college students. Some of the letters were from adults, but in a business-related context, not a personal one. This one, for example is from a Public Relations firm in Japan anxious to make money by promoting UFO sensationalism: CONTINUE READING: badufos.blogspot.com/2013/10/nasas-ufo-related-correspondence-mostly.html
|
|
|
Post by auntym on Oct 25, 2013 12:42:32 GMT -6
ufocon.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/ufo-skepticism-good-or-bad.htmlThursday, October 24, 2013 UFO Skepticism: Good or Bad?posted by RRRGroup I don’t think the skeptical brood found in the UFO arena really know the vicissitudes of skepticism, its historical and philosophical antecedents; they just block, from their mind, any possibility of UFO truth. They’ve adopted, unknowingly, the view of Pyrrho [ circa 360 B.C.—270 B.C.], the Greek philosopher who held that one must suspend all judgment, about everything. The Augustine/Cartesian views that allow for probabilities is not even considered by this gaggle of UFO commenters. The dismiss probability out of hand, usually. They would do well to enlighten themselves by reading Richard Popkin’s book, The History of Skepticism from Eramus to Descartes [1960] or find skepticism in the Dictionary of Philosophy Religion : Eastern and Western Thought, edited by W.L. Reese [New Jersey Humanities/Harvester Press, Sussex, 1980]. In the UFO field, I like Robert Sheaffer’s skeptical entries, even though I’ve excoriated him for taking on a hipster look when making TV appearances, His skeptical approach is refined by analysis of a serious kind. There is Gilles Fernandez whom we/I laud here often. He tells me he uses Tim Printy’s skeptical ideas as a basis for his ufological skepticism. Tim Printy, a model for skepticism? Tim Printy, whom I once extolled at this blog, lost my admiration when he went to Anthony Bragalia imploring him to chastise me publicly for outing the Roswell Dream Team’s slide investigation. That’s sneaky and leaves a taste in my mouth that his skepticism may be rooted in sneaky motivation, much as Phill Klass’s was, both men acting despicably behind the scenes. Zoam Choamsky is the extreme Pyrrhonist: he accepts nothing about UFOs as true. But I like ZC because he shoots from the hip, and while, an irrational unbeliever, he attacks with verve and commitment, even though his observations are vibrantly in philosophical error: illogical and biased in an opposite way (to UFO believers). Lance Moody and CDA (Christopher Allan) pretend to be skeptics, but down deep they know that UFOs exist and may even have, possibly, an ET explanation. (They’ll deny this, of course, but one can read between their comment lines.) Skepticism is a trait I like to think I have, in moderation, but I’m prone to think that anything is possible; probable is another matter, obviously. That I like Paul Kimball and Nick Redfern, they are, both, open to the varieties of philosophical and paranormal truths, while looking at both intellectually, and philosophically. They don’t argue points to make points, as some skeptics noted here do. They make points to make points. Being heard is not their primary ambition, as it is with some who belabor UFO argumentation just to be argumentative. Yes, skepticism is irksome, as it’s practiced in the UFO arena. But its remains a viable alternative to what William James called “The will to believe” (even when that will to believe accepts that which is outrageously ridiculous on its face). RR
MORE: ufocon.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/ufo-skepticism-good-or-bad.html
|
|
|
Post by auntym on Nov 3, 2013 10:32:31 GMT -6
www.theufochronicles.com/2013/11/paul-kimballs-ufo-debunking-and.html Saturday, November 02, 2013 Paul Kimball's UFO Debunking and Irrationality By Stanton Friedman www.stantonfriedman.com/11-1-13 "The definition for balderdash is senseless prate, a jargon of words, noisy nonsense.” Every so often I find a UFO debunking piece that illustrates the irrationality of the debunkers’ arguments despite the educational background of the debunker. For example, Dr. Isaac Asimov who wrote more than 300 books, mostly on scientific topics and many Science Fiction tomes made the following claim, “If aliens were visiting Earth, they would either land and make themselves known, or keep hidden. If they do neither, they are not visiting.” How extraordinary that a world class sci-fi writer can’t think of other scenarios, some place in between the noted extremes. He certainly gives no rationale. He has not claimed to be himself in touch with ETs or to have studied the evidence presented by witnesses to actual ET behavior. One might say it illustrates arrogance combined with igannance. My nephew Paul Kimball has a law degree and has spent a lot of time “studying UFOs”; in mid August he penned a piece about which one can only shake one’s head and ask where that nonsense came from. He starts by saying “here are the reasons why I am completely convinced there was no ET Crash. If aliens had sufficiently advanced technology of the kind that would permit travel to the stars (and I have talked to enough scientists to know just how mind blowingly advanced this would have to be, Stan Friedman and his nuclear rockets balderdash not withstanding) then it beggars belief that they would crash in spaceships that looked like something out of a 1950s sci-fi B movie once they got here (much less crash multiple times, as some posit, including Stan).” As noted in the book “"Science Was Wrong"” by myself and Kathleen Marden, there were loads of scientists who were totally negative about flight in the air and then flight in space. I don’t know how Paul knows what the Roswell crashed saucer looked like . . . lots of reports of small light weight pieces of wreckage . . . not like a spaceship at all. Notice the assumption that the same small vehicle that crashed at Roswell, or Aztec, or the Plains of San Agustin came to earth directly from another star system. Is he really unaware that flight in the atmosphere of a planet is a very different business than flight in deep space between stars? Wow! Lift, drag, heating, gravity etc., are very different for airborne vehicles than for deep space rockets. We have many reports of huge mother ships into and out of which the small earth excursion modules fly. The Lunar excursion modules which landed on the moon were extraordinarily different from the huge Saturn V rockets which were launched from Earth with the LEMs on Board. Surely he (with a very strong background in history) is aware that even as far back as the epic battles of World War II, there were huge aircraft carriers which carried a bunch of small airplanes to the locations from which these aircraft flew. The carriers didn’t fly, and the aircraft didn’t float on the water. The carriers carried fuel for the airplanes and provided housing, food, ammunition for the pilots, etc. The aircraft are far more maneuverable than are the carriers. Despite all the aircraft in a huge variety of sizes, speeds, etc., there are loads of crashes. Two huge and expensive space shuttles crashed. Paul has another sword which he wields, ”However, allowing for the equally infinitesimal [based on what?] possibility that Murphy’s Law applies to super advanced aliens, It beggars belief that they would just leave the remains of the ship and their dead comrades to be found by beings, who, as Stan puts it, were here to observe us because we might be dangerous someday soon.” In actuality, I have suggested more than 20 reasons for coming here. Furthermore we are already dangerous. We killed 50 Million of our own kind in WWII. We destroyed 1700 cities. We have exploded 2000 nuclear (there is that word again) warheads. Not dangerous? CONTINUE READING: www.theufochronicles.com/2013/11/paul-kimballs-ufo-debunking-and.html
|
|
|
Post by auntym on Dec 9, 2013 12:04:34 GMT -6
ufocon.blogspot.com/2013/12/muting-ufo-skepticism.htmlSunday, December 08, 2013 Muting [UFO] Skepticism… …tempering rabid [UFO] belief systems.posted by RRRGroup UFO skeptics (sometimes debunkers) are a lousy lot, not really thoughtful skeptics, rather wilding anti-thinkers. Fortunately, I’ve been able to quell the irrational skepticism of French skeptic Gilles Fernandez here but nudging his vaulted ego with assailing asides. He’s withdrawn to the cloistered halls of Facebook, where he’s protected from assault by Facebook’s blocking mechanism. Only his “friends” and like-minded skeptics can read his narrow views. Christopher Allan [aka CDA] is a skeptic I admire. He’s anti-UFO/Roswell views are laced with subtle British humor and the vicissitudes of age; he, like me, has been around a while, and doesn’t take UFOs seriously, having read and seen all the hogwash that has ensued since the Kenneth Arnold sighting of 1947. Lance Moody, UFO’s angry man, is also admired by me. He remains, generally, polite and dignified while skewering UFO nonsense, as he defines it. Tim Printy and Robert Sheaffer are reasonable skeptics. I don’t find their views offensive nor obnoxious; Sheaffer’s UFO invectives are substantiated by reasoned analysis and counter data that is germane. Zoam Chomsky [aka The Iron Skeptic] has been quiet of late. Did he die? I like the counter views of intelligent skeptics. Then we have the die-hard UFO promoters; everything about UFOs are true: abductions, MJ-12, Extraterrestrial agencies working with Earthian governments, Roswellian bodies, Vast interplanetary visitors (for millennia), and so on….you know the lore they laud as authentic and valid, even in the face of that lore’s absurdities. There are iffy issues that one has to contend with, such as The alleged Travis Walton abduction. Walton maintains to this day that he was abducted by a UFO and examined by creatures within it. His tale is recounted by him in ways that belie falsehood, For example, Dan Frederiksen provided this, in a comment to an old posting of ours: CONTINUE READING: ufocon.blogspot.com/2013/12/muting-ufo-skepticism.html
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2013 13:37:34 GMT -6
Guess I'm a lousy lot because I AM skeptical. I did have an experience...but...being 100 percent honest... I can not say the beings were from outer space or inner space or not some planted material. I AM open minded but I would also like to have some tangible proof..I'll save the faith for the spiritual...aliens had better prove themselves. Open minded is good but tempering it with a bit of skepticism keeps us from falling into the hoax trap which so many do. Why does anyone need to believe in aliens so badly that they are willing to believe any bs that comes along even when it is totally ludicrous. The 'I had sex with lizard people from outer space' or the 'aliens are building me a new body so I'll never age' stuff...needs a whole lot of skepticism.. I definitely believe that we have been visited by critters from other dimensions or from other worlds. Cool..they are explorers as we might be to other worlds. Isn't that enough? Why do we have to see them as saviors? Yep I believe my encounter was with some entities from god only knows where..and they were so friggin alien they couldn't even relate to our nervous systems and the pain they caused OR...they did not care. They were NOT saviors..they were terrorists who didn't need bombs. I'm still willing to accept an alternative explanation as anyone who is being honest with themselves would. When Han Solo comes visiting with c3po and r2d2...I'll believe without question
|
|
|
Post by skywalker on Dec 9, 2013 18:42:04 GMT -6
I'm skeptical also. Like I always say I question everything but I'm open-minded to anything. I think it's that open-mindedness that separates us from the rabid debunkers. (besides also the frothing at the mouth ) Rabid debunkers are just as bad as the tin-foils who believe every crazy word they hear. People need to have a little bit of common sense instead of just jumping to conclusions one way or another.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 10, 2013 17:47:23 GMT -6
I agree...extreme in either direction tends to traipse into wack territory
|
|
|
Post by auntym on Jan 9, 2014 12:45:21 GMT -6
theparanormalanalyst.com/isnt-definitive-proof/What is and Isn’t Definitive Proof Analyst vs. Believer, Evidence, Methodology By theparanormalanalyst December 14, 2013 This one has really been bugging me lately. Believer collect a piece of evidence, a video, a photo, even a hair sample and shoot from the rooftops this is definitive evidence. Then they stand aghast when the world doesn’t believe them. Here’s the problem, definitive evidence isn’t easy. Definitive evidence will probably never be a video or photo or even a footprint. Now a collection of hundreds of these, analysed by experts is getting closer, but the point is these things can be faked or misidentified too easily to accept as proof positive. Now there are things like DNA tests which could be considered definitive, however in order for these to be definitive the results must be replicated. That means if a lab claims to have found DNA from a Bigfoot, the results will need to be independently verified by others. And there is good reason for the this – proof of the paranormal is well, extremely significant. It would rock many accepted notions in science and leave many skeptics (including some influential scientists) red in the face. Definitive proof is not a word to be used lightly. The reality is if something like ghosts really existed to actually prove their existence is going to be a task that takes decades to accomplish, not a couple of field investigations. This is something paranormal investigators and skeptics need to understand. There is no easy way to prove anything paranormal. Paranormal events by their very definition are outside of our current scientific understanding. If they are true they have gone unproven for so long because of the extreme difficulty in proving them. To expect every photograph, video or witness testimony is definitive proof is unrealistic. To actually get to a point of definitive proof there are two paths. The first is to wait until technology advances to a point where we can measure the phenomenon or test possible hypotheses until we find a match. The other method is to build a mountain of research; but this research cannot be loosely gathered testimony and samples. The collection and analysis practices must be improved and we need a methodology to see how this evidence influences the validity of competing hypotheses. Hint: I’ve already been working on one. Many skeptics claim there is no way to disprove the paranormal in the eyes of believers but this is in fact not true. Most believer are rational minded human beings and would accept a scientific explanation if it could be demonstrated repeating all of the characteristics of a phenomenon. In other words you can’t expose one UFO video as a hoax and condemn every UFO sighting as the same. We need to see your hypothesis put into practice and it has to match the reports. The fact of the matter is all of the cases of suspected paranormal have a root cause. These cases don’t remain controversial because two sides can’t agree the phenomenon is proven or dis-proven; they remain controversial because neither side has demonstrated their hypothesis for a root cause is actually true. Until both communities can accept and understand this fact we will continue to have both sides on single-minded journeys to prove their own viewpoints when w really need to focus on improving the investigations and analyses of these phenomenon. theparanormalanalyst.com/isnt-definitive-proof/
Participation Paradox: Why I Am Not Surprised We Don’t Have Proof of ParaAnythingtheparanormalanalyst.com/participation-paradox-surprised-dont-proof-paraanything/
|
|
|
Post by auntym on Jun 29, 2014 11:45:40 GMT -6
www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/06/the-hard-data-on-ufo-sightings-its-mostly-drunk-people-in-the-west/373645/ The Hard Data on UFO Sightings: It's Mostly Drunk People in the West At least, that's one interpretation.by Derek Thompson Jun 28 2014 Cloud? Or UFO?? (Cloud.) / Wikimedia Commons Tuesday is the 67th anniversary of the rumored alien crash-landing in Roswell, New Mexico. But extraterrestrial aviators have been rather busy in the last few decades. The National UFO Reporting Center has received about 90,000 reported sightings of UFOs in the last 40 years, according to the Economist. That's about six per day—with the majority happening on Fridays, in the West, and during, um, drinking hours. When and Where Americans See Aliens The fact that this graph is going viral online today suggests many are persuaded by the correlation. It would irresponsible for me, as a statistical analyst, to not point out the problems with it. And so, for the Roswell fans out there, I present three veins of countervailing interpretation: 1. The correlation is weaker than it appears. Utah, the state with the lowest beer consumption by far, has a higher share of UFO sitings than North Carolina, the state with the highest beer consumption. Washington, the state where you're most likely to report a UFO, drinks less alcohol than all but six states. There is more to the story than alcohol, sheeple. 2. We have several omitted variables, including direct line-of-sight to the sky and light contrast. It's plausible that people don't see UFOs while they're working or sleeping because ... they're working in-doors and completely unconscious. What the Economist calls "drinking hours" are also the hours we're most likely to be outside looking at anything bright contrasting with the dark sky. CONTINUE READING: www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/06/the-hard-data-on-ufo-sightings-its-mostly-drunk-people-in-the-west/373645/
|
|
|
Post by auntym on Jul 1, 2014 13:56:06 GMT -6
www.theufochronicles.com/2014/06/three-prominent-ufo-researchers-debunk.html Monday, June 30, 2014 Three Prominent UFO Researchers Debunk MJ-12: Thirty Years On, the Hoax Still Lives By Robert Hastings www.ufohastings.com6-29-12 Following Alejandro Rojas’ recent article about MJ-12 at Open Minds, which discusses the fraudulent nature of the affair, I decided that the time was right to begin reposting summaries of my own, 1980s-era investigations into the matter. In brief, I was one of the first persons to expose the disinformational aspects of MJ-12, involving now-retired Air Force Office of Special Investigations (AFOSI or OSI) agent Richard Doty, whose infamous duping of Linda Moulton Howe and other gullible members of ufology is now legend. But the origins of MJ-12 were more complicated than that, involving the fraudulent actions of now-disgraced ufologist Bill Moore, whose almost-certain forging of certain “documents”, to serve his own financial motivations, were co-opted by OSI in the furtherance of the overall scheme to mislead (misdirect) researchers and the public regarding government interest/disinterest in UFOs. Another researcher, Barry Greenwood, together with the late Bob Todd, discovered early on that Moore had made highly-incriminating statements, and engaged in highly-incriminating actions, which inadvertently exposed the early stages of the hoax. Greenwood is best known for his co-written book Clear Intent, (with the late Larry Fawcett), which examined UFO activity at nuclear weapons sites, among other topics, and remains a standard for rigorous ufological research. Greenwood has just restated his initial MJ-12-related findings, first published in the mid-1980s, as adjunct commentary to a just published summary of the affair by another leading researcher, Dr. Kevin Randle, whose important work relating to the Roswell Incident is well-known. My own 2009 summation of my 1980s-era findings relating to MJ-12 will also fill-in a few blanks. While Greenwood, Randle and I have different interpretations of some aspects of the still-kicking hoax/disinformation scheme—not to mention the UFO phenomenon in general—we have independently discovered enough overlapping, incriminating, noteworthy facts to warrant this joint presentation. Alas, Linda Howe’s regrettable willingness to be a doormat for disinformationalists is well-established and ongoing, despite her self-perceived role as Disseminator of Truth in the UFO arena. One only has to review her many wholly unsubstantiated and highly misleading statements about MJ-12 “documents” and “witnesses” at the May 2013 mock congressional hearings to understand that her well-meaning but nevertheless damaging actions have only served those who would mislead, rather than inform, the public about UFOs. Nowadays, when being a UFO “historian” apparently means that one has participated in one or more of the current crop of trashy UFO “documentaries” on the History and H2 Channels (which in the past aired UFO programming worth watching) it is important to remember that there are actually serious researchers out there, whose work would be considered valid in an investigative journalism or even an academic context. Greenwood’s and Randle’s commentary is required reading for anyone claiming to have an informed understanding of the MJ-12 Affair. www.theufochronicles.com/2014/06/three-prominent-ufo-researchers-debunk.html
|
|
|
Post by auntym on Aug 15, 2014 12:44:07 GMT -6
zenoferox.blogspot.co.uk/2014/08/the-ufo-letter.htmlWednesday, August 13, 2014 The UFO letter The truth is way out therePosted by Zeno Oh, look what I found in the archives! While rifling through a stack of old print-outs (yes, some of them even had perforated tractor-feed margins), I discovered one of my unpublished letters to the editor. We all know what happens to our unsolicited expressions of concern, outrage, agreement, etcetera: nothing, usually. As a rule, unless you're writing to a small local newspaper, your letter to the editor will vanish without a trace. Despite examples like that of one of my mentors, who actually got a letter published in the New York Times, writing to a newspaper is usually a waste of time (although the process of venting might be salubrious). In this instance, however, my unpublished letter garnered a surprising response from the editor of the Letters section: “I really LOVE this letter. But I'm still not going to publish it. Sorry. We just don't have space for stuff like this.” I was charmed, of course, and regretfully but stoically set my missive aside. The Internet, however, has plenty of room for “stuff like this”! Therefore today I share with you not only my previously unpublished letter, but the original letter to the editor to which it was a response. The year is 1998: UFOs are real Re “The reality of UFOs,” letters, March 1: It is amazing that we are still discussing whether UFOs exist. It has been more than 50 years since the UFO crash at Roswell, N.M., not to mention sightings over the past several hundred years. My own observations and interest go back to 1953, when, with several other skeptics, I co-founded one of the first “flying saucer” groups in the United States. Our club was called Civilian Saucer Intelligence and was based in New York City.
Whether the letter writers are part of the government disinformation coverup, I do not know. I do know, as do millions of others, that UFOs exist.
I recommend that doubters read “The Day After Roswell” by a former Pentagon official, Col. Philip Corso (Ret.). It contains a foreword by Sen. Strom Thurmond. It is doubtful that a man such as Thurmond would lend his name to any hoax.
G.E.H.F. SacramentoUpon first reading this letter, I naturally reacted to the writer's use of “skeptic” in a way I found original and amusing. In his mind, “skeptic” obviously meant someone who refused to accept the debunking of flying saucer stories and was ready to embrace the notion of aliens joy-riding their round spacecraft all over the earth. I sat down at my PC keyboard and banged out the following: CONTINUE READING: zenoferox.blogspot.co.uk/2014/08/the-ufo-letter.html
|
|
|
Post by auntym on Aug 17, 2014 11:26:25 GMT -6
www.davidreneke.com/the-nuttier-side-of-ufology/# The ‘Nuttier’ Side Of Ufology by Dave Reneke Aug 17th, 2014 UFO The real deal? Nah, a simple cut and pasteYou wonder why we call ourselves an “intelligent species.” More and more, we see outrageous claims from amateur internet sleuths with zero technical qualifications who make all sorts of statements online. They claim to have exposed ‘coverups’ (their favourite buzz-word) by NASA showing evidence of aliens, their cities and giant spaceships on the moon. None of which, by the way, have ever been seen by the millions of sensible amateur and professional astronomers around the world. He reports from a website called Tech and Gadget News expounding on an oblique NASA image: “The gigantic shape actually looks like the leading edge of an immense, triangular space ship, similar to, so far, super secret stealth aircraft technology, but is much larger than any airplane ever built on Earth.” Really!!!! All this from a blurred over-pixilated extreme enlargement of a lunar crater. The rubbish goes on for their legion of followers who lap it all up….”The anomaly is so huge, it’s possible it is some sort of moon base used as a facility for storing and launching alien UFO spacecraft.” The same YouTube user also claims to have found a similar mystery structure on Earth, nestled under the ice in Antarctica.(are you starting to understand how this nutcase…sorry, this individual thinks?) It gets worse …. CONTINUE READING: www.davidreneke.com/the-nuttier-side-of-ufology/#
|
|
|
Post by auntym on Aug 28, 2014 14:09:16 GMT -6
ufodigest.com/article/believers-debunkers-0828 THE NEVER-ENDING BATTLE BETWEEN BELIEVERS AND DEBUNKERS - DOYLE VS. HOUDINI – HOPKINS VS. KLASS
- NOTHING EVER CHANGES IN THE WORLD OF THE PARANORMALBy Sean Casteel August 28, 2014 Is it possible to literally “speak” to the dead? Can a gifted medium actually help us to converse with a loved one who has passed on? The supreme logician, Arthur Conan Doyle, believed it IS possible, while his rival, the magician Harry Houdini, decried the practice as a cruel fraud. Read the story of their sometimes bitter feud in “Revealing the Bizarre Powers of Harry Houdini.” Did Houdini possess supernatural powers he kept hidden from the world, even his wife? Were his seemingly impossible feats of magic and escape really a product of bizarre, otherworldly gifts and not mere stagecraft? Who was the angelic “voice” who guided him through the public displays of his amazing defiance of immutable physical laws? Budd Hopkins and Philip Klass, both now deceased, fought a grudge match over the truth behind alien abduction that lives on today and was much like the debate between Doyle and Houdini over Spiritualism. What are we to learn from such hard-fought battles over the crucial truths of phenomena we can as yet only dimly understand? Which side will be proved right when the answers are finally known? Escape artist Harry Houdini and Sherlock Holmes creator Arthur Conan Doyle are what people used to call “household names,” personages so familiar and instantly recognizable that they require almost nothing by way of introduction. What some may be less familiar with, however, is the fact that they were not only contemporaries of one another but also intimately acquainted rivals. They differed greatly on the subject of Spiritualism, specifically the practices of mediums who conducted séances and claimed to be able to speak to the dead. Surprisingly, it was Doyle, whose fictional detective relied on the keenest logic to solve crimes, who believed that spirit contact was real and that the dead could communicate from the “other side” through a skilled and genuine medium. Meanwhile, Houdini, the master of deception and sleight of hand, quite strenuously decried the Spiritualist movement and its medium minions as cruel charlatans who exploited the grief of the living and led them to believe they could converse with souls who had passed over. In the newly updated book from Global Communications, entitled “Revealing the Bizarre Powers of Harry Houdini,” publisher Timothy Green Beckley writes in his introduction that Doyle and Houdini had initially been good friends but their disagreements over Spiritualism put an uncomfortable strain on their relationship. Doyle professed to have actually caught Houdini deceiving an investigating committee from the prestigious magazine “Scientific American” into believing that one of the best documented mediums of the time was fraudulent. Houdini never admitted to his part in the deception, and the rift between the two men widened. In an even more interesting twist, Doyle became convinced that Houdini’s own secret supernatural powers played an essential role in the latter’s feats of escape and magic. According to Doyle, Houdini achieved something in his performances that could not be accomplished by even the most supremely complex trickery of a mere mortal. Houdini must have possessed some kind of mysterious paranormal ability that he covered with tales of standard human stagecraft. Houdini did confess at one point to hearing an angelic voice in his head that guided him through his often extremely dangerous escape performances. He added that he once tried to do a performance without his angelic companion and had fallen quite badly. He never tried to go solo again. CONTINUE READING: ufodigest.com/article/believers-debunkers-0828
|
|
|
Post by auntym on Oct 22, 2014 11:59:17 GMT -6
ufodigest.com/article/debunkers-1022UFO DEBUNKERS JOIN UFO GROUPS TO MONITOR ABDUCTEESBy Paul Schroeder October 22, 2014 Alien and UFO debunkers clearly join UFO groups to closely monitor those who claim to be alien abductees and to plant seeds of ridicule. From their abject denials, to their deliberate planting of Pollyanna disinformation, about alien creatures and their sinister motives, it can initially and wrongly make one wonder, whether there is intelligent life, on Earth. Some debunkers, however, seem not to be purposeful, governmental planted cynics. When someone like THAT surfaces, one must feel sorry for them because they are so very poorly informed, and one must tell them that there is no longer room for such igannance, (ignoring evidence) in this endeavor, given the mountains of evidential details available. But, a true debunker, is one who purposefully attempts to muddy the UFO fountain, such that none may drink. Some debunkers are those who accept the phenomenon, but color it, from their wearing blinders, perspective. The lunatic fringe religious, stubbornly hold that alien encounters are not with aliens, but only with demons, and every 'spirit' , to them, is strictly a demon, as well, because their one and only reference BOOK, the Bible, does NOT remotely mention aliens, but DOES repeatedly, mention demons. These stubbornly inculcated religious people can only consider, what their thumped BOOK does refer to, or lobsters will crawl out of their ears, for the sin, of Original Thought, if they dare accept aliens as space aliens, and not 'fallen angels'.. But if one realizes that ancients called the skies above, 'Heaven', then flesh and blood aliens and not ,'Gods' are more illuminated as the authors of the Old Testament and of the Greek's myths. But debunkers are not the only threat to attaining truths, in this paranormal endeavor. When, however, alien abductees get too close to finding or reaching truths about aliens and their involvement in our broad history, and in their personal lives, they are universally diverted to and distracted with a new- found keen interest in ghosts, haunting and demonics, a common alien ruse and ploy, which works well, as a distraction and a diversion from alien realizations. Paradoxically, reptilians and small dark greys, the gangster fringe element of space aliens, relish any chance to imposter as ghosts and poltergeists, since they enter and exit our physical reality from the same astral dimensional portals that ghosts and demons use, and they do especially delight, in muddling the E.T. picture, for any astute researcher. The rub remains, that rather than a flotilla of UFO aliens enslaving Earth enmasse, Earth is under invasion, one person at a time. ufodigest.com/article/debunkers-1022
|
|
|
Post by auntym on Nov 12, 2014 13:21:13 GMT -6
ufodigest.com/article/noted-skeptic-1112 NOTED SKEPTIC, PROFESSOR BELIEVED ABDUCTED BY ALIENSBy Michael Horn November 12, 2014 In apparently separate, unrelated developments at least two “experts”, with opposing views on UFOs, are missing and presumed to have been abducted by aliens. The James McGaha CaseJames McGaha (pronounced McGayHay), an astronomer from the Grasslands Observatory in Southeastern Arizona, was recently quoted as saying, "You know the whole UFO phenomenon is nothing but myth, magic and superstition, wrapped up in this idea that somehow aliens are coming here either to save us or destroy us." While not entirely incorrect, McGaha also stated that evidence in one UFO-related case was actually due to spider webs, which in fact can be the cause of such sightings, according to information from Billy Meier. Several recent attempts to reach McGaha, who’s also an avowed skeptic, and get his expert opinion on the latest expert analysis that authenticates the evidence in the Billy Meier case went unanswered. I concluded that alien abduction was the most likely reason, especially since McGaha is an avowed skeptic and certainly any opportunity to debunk the Meier case would have to be irresistible. I mean how likely is it that someone with such strong convictions would suddenly have run away from the truth and gone in…hiding? Previously readily available and outspoken about all this UFO nonsense, it’s doubtful that anything other than being abducted could possibly prevent McGaha from duplicating the protocols in the new photo analysis and also debunking the WCUFO photo that anyone can prove is authentic. Since he would get the same amazing results that everyone else has gotten, McGaha would have to debunk…himself. But that should be no problem for a credible scientist, although defining himself as a skeptic already contradicts his being purely scientific. The other possibility is that McGaha – like virtually all of the other notable skeptics – recognized the unassailable authenticity of the Meier evidence and chose to not respond at all, thereby giving the famous “No answer is also an answer”…answer. The John Weiskopf CaseAlso now apparently missing is John Weiskopf, a film producer and professor who created a university program pertaining to extraterrestrial life. To his credit Weiskopf appears to have cracked through the bureaucratic wall in getting this topic into American University. So it was with great enthusiasm that information on the Meier case was sent to him, which included the offer of a live, in-class presentation and/or screening of “And Did They Listen?”. Initial attempts to reach him – and CNN’s Miles O’Brien who’s somehow also involved in the project – were fruitless. However, a fourth email attempt was replied to by Weiskopf who said that, “I am in the hospital. When I am able, I will give your email the attention it deserves.” Having expressed that I would patiently await his response, I didn’t try to contact him again until almost two weeks later. However, no response has been forthcoming. Perhaps he suffers from Attention Deficit Disorder? I am naturally concerned that, barring any possible health related complications, it appears that Weiskopf may have met the same fate as McGaha. A Pattern DetectedIt has occurred to me that these abductions are part of a pattern that I’m only now detecting. For instance, I originally contacted another self-proclaimed expert on extraterrestrial life, Prof. Paul Davies of ASU. Davies is the author of several books on the topic and, obviously, fancies himself to be some kind of an…expert. However, when I submitted information to him on the Meier case, he responded that his “interests and expertise do not extend into this area.” When I informed him that mine did, apparently the extraterrestrials that he writes about removed him from the line of fire. After all, how embarrassing it would be to publicly admit his actual lack of interest and expertise. After Davies, I reached out to Prof. Lawrence Krause, also at ASU, the same university that…banned a showing of my film. Krause, who also sees himself as some kind of an expert in these matters was conspicuous by his lack of response. Come to think of it I tried to contact Michio Kaku, who also didn’t deign to respond. Obviously he too was either busy trying to be famous, or had been whisked away by those bald-headed, big-eyed aliens. While many people would be tempted to call McGaha, Weiskopf, Davies, Krause and Kaku cowards, wimps, poseurs and celebrity seekers, who are more interested in maintaining their own status than attaining the truth, maybe all these geniuses really have made secret pacts with those hard working aliens at Area 51 and chosen the get-me-outta-here option. Certainly it’s less embarrassing than publicly admitting that – because of their own stubborn, egotistical denial and defiance – they’ve chosen to be among the last to know the truth. MORE: ufodigest.com/article/noted-skeptic-1112
|
|
|
Post by auntym on Jun 29, 2015 13:04:37 GMT -6
www.ibtimes.co.uk/world-ufo-day-2015-why-do-people-believe-unidentified-flying-objects-aliens-abductions-1508163World UFO Day 2015: Why do people believe in unidentified flying objects, aliens and abductions? By Hannah Osborne June 26, 2015 Belief in UFOs is a global phenomenon, with millions of people subscribed to ideas of unidentified flying objects, aliens, abductions and government conspiracies about the likes of Roswell and Area 51. A survey from the National Geographic Society in 2012 showed 36% of Americans (around 80 million people) believe UFOs exist. A further 47% said they were undecided, while just 17% gave a firm no. While the survey used UFO in the strictest sense, ie not aliens visiting our planet but flying objects we cannot scientifically account for, the ardent beliefs some people hold is indicative of a wider phenomenon psychologically. There are around 4,000 members of the Mutual UFO Network and according to URL metrics, the site UFO Sightings Daily gets over a quarter of a million monthly page views – with an estimated value of $27,453 (£17,450). And this belief has led to the creation of World UFO Day on 2 July, an event set up in 2001 to commemorate the supposed UFO crash in Roswell in 1947. Susan Krauss Whitbourne, professor of Psychological and Brain Sciences at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, says evidence suggests certain personality traits make people far more likely to believe in UFOs and all that goes along with it. She told IBTimes UK the data suggests people who are open to new ideas are more likely to believe in UFOs. Krauss Whitbourne said: "You get the sense that there's kind of a dimension of suggestibility, so if you're high on that spectrum ... [you may be more] willing to entertain new ideas and fantasies. You start to get into the domain where people believe things that seem highly improbable." One study that looked into the belief in alien abductions used a false memory test to show a correlation between susceptibility to lures and belief in abductions. In another test called the Australian Sheep-Goat Test, researchers assessed belief in paranormal activities – those who were termed "sheep" believed, while those who did not were termed "goats". CONTINUE READING: www.ibtimes.co.uk/world-ufo-day-2015-why-do-people-believe-unidentified-flying-objects-aliens-abductions-1508163
|
|
|
Post by auntym on Feb 24, 2017 15:34:52 GMT -6
www.scientificamerican.com/article/anomalous-events-that-can-shake-one-s-skepticism-to-the-core/ Anomalous Events That Can Shake One’s Skepticism to the Core I just witnessed an event so mysterious that it shook my skepticism By Michael Shermer / www.scientificamerican.com/author/michael-shermer/ October 1, 2014 Credit: Credit: Izhar Cohen Often I am asked if I have ever encountered something that I could not explain. What my interlocutors have in mind are not bewildering enigmas such as consciousness or U.S. foreign policy but anomalous and mystifying events that suggest the existence of the paranormal or supernatural. My answer is: yes, now I have. The event took place on June 25, 2014. On that day I married Jennifer Graf, from Köln, Germany. She had been raised by her mom; her grandfather, Walter, was the closest father figure she had growing up, but he died when she was 16. In shipping her belongings to my home before the wedding, most of the boxes were damaged and several precious heirlooms lost, including her grandfather's binoculars. His 1978 Philips 070 transistor radio arrived safely, so I set out to bring it back to life after decades of muteness. I put in new batteries and opened it up to see if there were any loose connections to solder. I even tried “percussive maintenance,” said to work on such devices—smacking it sharply against a hard surface. Silence. We gave up and put it at the back of a desk drawer in our bedroom. Three months later, after affixing the necessary signatures to our marriage license at the Beverly Hills courthouse, we returned home, and in the presence of my family said our vows and exchanged rings. Being 9,000 kilometers from family, friends and home, Jennifer was feeling amiss and lonely. She wished her grandfather were there to give her away. She whispered that she wanted to say something to me alone, so we excused ourselves to the back of the house where we could hear music playing in the bedroom. We don't have a music system there, so we searched for laptops and iPhones and even opened the back door to check if the neighbors were playing music. We followed the sound to the printer on the desk, wondering—absurdly—if this combined printer/scanner/fax machine also included a radio. Nope. At that moment Jennifer shot me a look I haven't seen since the supernatural thriller The Exorcist startled audiences. “That can't be what I think it is, can it?” she said. She opened the desk drawer and pulled out her grandfather's transistor radio, out of which a romantic love song wafted. We sat in stunned silence for minutes. “My grandfather is here with us,” Jennifer said, tearfully. “I'm not alone.” Shortly thereafter we returned to our guests with the radio playing as I recounted the backstory. My daughter, Devin, who came out of her bedroom just before the ceremony began, added, “I heard the music coming from your room just as you were about to start.” The odd thing is that we were there getting ready just minutes before that time, sans music. Later that night we fell asleep to the sound of classical music emanating from Walter's radio. Fittingly, it stopped working the next day and has remained silent ever since. What does this mean? Had it happened to someone else I might suggest a chance electrical anomaly and the law of large numbers as an explanation—with billions of people having billions of experiences every day, there's bound to be a handful of extremely unlikely events that stand out in their timing and meaning. In any case, such anecdotes do not constitute scientific evidence that the dead survive or that they can communicate with us via electronic equipment. Jennifer is as skeptical as I am when it comes to paranormal and supernatural phenomena. Yet the eerie conjunction of these deeply evocative events gave her the distinct feeling that her grandfather was there and that the music was his gift of approval. I have to admit, it rocked me back on my heels and shook my skepticism to its core as well. I savored the experience more than the explanation. The emotional interpretations of such anomalous events grant them significance regardless of their causal account. And if we are to take seriously the scientific credo to keep an open mind and remain agnostic when the evidence is indecisive or the riddle unsolved, we should not shut the doors of perception when they may be opened to us to marvel in the mysterious. This article was originally published with the title "Infrequencies" www.scientificamerican.com/article/anomalous-events-that-can-shake-one-s-skepticism-to-the-core/
|
|
|
Post by auntym on Sept 3, 2017 18:00:11 GMT -6
www.skepticalaboutskeptics.org/controversies/anomalistics/academic-pride-and-prejudice/Academic Pride and Prejudice Dogmatic Skepticism in Academiaby Stephen Braude / userpages.umbc.edu/~braude/From the Preface to: The Limits of Influence: Psychokinesis and the Philosophy of Science, University Press of America, Lanham; Revised edition (1997).I began serious study of the parapsychological literature in the mid 1970s. Something else began shortly thereafter: [my] growing disenchantment with the intellectual community. Before I began to investigate the evidence of parapsychology, I still believed that intelligence was a weapon in the war against evil, that my colleagues in academia (especially in philosophy and science) were committed to discovering the truth, and that intellectuals would be pleased to learn they had been mistaken, provided the revelation brought them closer to this goal. I now realize how thoroughly naïve I was. Since dipping into the data of parapsychology, I have encountered more examples of intellectual cowardice and dishonesty than I had previously thought possible. I have seen how prominent scholars marshal their considerable intellectual gifts and skills to avoid honest inquiry. I have seen how intelligence can be as much a liability as a virtue in particular, how it sometimes affords little more than complicated ways of making mistakes, entrenching people in views or opinions they are afraid to scrutinize or abandon. I have seen, in effect, how intelligence often expands, rather than limits, a person’s repertoire of possible errors. I have also come to realize that members of academic and other professions tend to be strikingly deficient in the virtue that, ideally, characterizes their field. I have seen how scientists are not objective, how philosophers are not wise, how psychologists are not perceptive, how historians lack perspective, not to mention (while I’m at it), how physicians are not healers, attorneys are not committed to justice, psychiatrists are crazy, artists lack taste, etc. Some of my revelations (however long overdue they may be) spring from personal experiences. I have observed with amazement, and, I suppose, ill-concealed disdain how academics proclaim confidently that the evidence of parapsychology is insubstantial, and then display that they don’t even know what the evidence is a lacuna about which they could hardly have been unaware. I have seen college professors and a now famous, ambitious and (I believe) thoroughly unscrupulous magician move from relative obscurity to considerable notoriety by cultivating reputations as debunkers and defenders of clear-headedness in large part through their sedulous avoidance of evidence they know they cannot explain. More disappointing still, I have discovered from my investigations of nineteenth century mediumship that none of this is new, and that prominent intellectuals have been behaving in these dishonest ways all along. I must add, however, that there is a further and somewhat embarrassing personal reason for the present clarity of my perceptions. Frankly, I cannot pretend always to have achieved the sublimity of thought whose absence I criticize in my colleagues. Some of what I now understand about the varieties of intellectual dishonesty and cowardice I owe to having observed them in myself; they are demons with whom I am intimately acquainted. For many years, I was content to dismiss reports of ostensibly paranormal phenomena as, at best, the result of confusions or delusions of various sorts. Of course, I hadn’t bothered actually to read any of the evidence and assess it for myself. My opinions were fashioned after those of my mentors, who (I later learned) were equally igannant of the evidence, but with regard to whom I was too insecure and intimidated to display much independence of thought (especially on a matter that so easily provoked their derision). Even after I became tenured and finally began to study the experimental evidence of parapsychology I continued to accept uncritically the received view that laboratory evidence was inherently cleaner and more reliable than non-experimental evidence. Admittedly, I had no idea at the time how few of those who promulgated this wisdom had bothered to examine the latter body of evidence with any care. In fact, only recently have I come to appreciate how few parapsychologists are familiar with the material. But at no point along the way was my igannance benign; it was, in fact, a lazy and craven expedient. For one thing, it facilitated the disgracefully scornful attitude I occasionally adopted, initially toward parapsychology in general, and then later toward those who defended the non-experimental evidence. For another, it simply reinforced the complacency with which I held my beliefs. Even after I began to study the evidence of parapsychology and develop a respect for the field and its data, it allowed me to remain smugly comfortable with my moderate radicalism. I made no effort to examine the non-experimental evidence for myself. I was content not to have to admit into my universe, phenomena that seemed to me bizarre and frightening (both personally and professionally). Of course, in my heart, I knew what I was doing. But at that stage in my career I lacked the courage to challenge, not only an increasing number of orthodox academicians, but also the majority of active parapsychologists. Because of my sympathetic interest in parapsychology, my alliance with the former was in a state of flux, collapsing in some places and solidifying in others, and I was insecure about its future. And my alliance with the latter was new and presumably fragile. I have now spent nearly twenty years carefully studying the non-experimental evidence of parapsychology, in fact, just that portion of it which is most contemptuously and adamantly dismissed by those academics who all along have been blithely igannant of the facts. I started with the expectation that the received wisdom would be supported and that my belief in the relative worthlessness of the material would merely be better informed. But the evidence bowled me over. The more I learned about it, the weaker the traditional skeptical counter hypotheses seemed, and the more clearly I realized to what extent skepticism may be fueled by igannance. I was forced to confront the fact that I could find no decent reasons for doubting a great deal of strange testimony. It became clear to me that the primary source of my reluctance to embrace the evidence was my discomfort with it. I knew that I had to accept the evidence or else admit that my avowed philosophical commitment to the truth was a sham. I am hardly comfortable about announcing to my academic colleagues that I believe, for example, that accordions can float in mid-air playing melodies, or that hands may materialize, move objects, and then dissolve or disappear. I have taken abuse and ridicule for the far more modest opinions expressed in my first book on parapsychology, ESP and Psychokinesis. But I have reached my present position only after satisfying myself that no reasonable options remain. Actually, I find that my discomfort tends to diminish as I discern more clearly how little the most derisive and condescending skeptics really know about the evidence and how their apparent confidence in their opinions is little more than posturing and dishonest bluffing. In fact, I am less comfortable about stating my present views on parapsychology than I am about confessing how my intellectual independence was won, in part, through learning not to respect my colleagues. So it was no accident that my second book The Limits of Influence and various articles written thereafter have occasionally taken a polemical and antagonistic tone. In the past, those who defended the evidence for large scale psychokinesis have too easily allowed themselves to be put on the defensive. In my opinion, they have responded too timidly, or graciously, to their most vocal opponents, especially to those motivated more by the love of publicity than by the love of knowledge. However, I believe that the skeptic must be put on the defensive. The more evangelical of the lot inveigh against the forces of irrationalism. But I believe that their greatest enemies might be full information and an open mind. It is a simple (and often profitable) matter to be a professional skeptic about parapsychology, especially when one suppresses the best cases and perpetuates misconceptions among those who know even less about the field. I hope, therefore, that my writings (especially Limits) have managed to inject some relevant data and clear reasoning into a debate where those commodities have been in short supply. I believe that the evidence I’ve presented will seem respectable, if not coercive, to anyone without a scientific or metaphysical axe to grind. And I hope that my discussions of the evidence will make it more difficult for the self styled debunker to dismiss that evidence with feigned confidence, bogus or irrelevant facts, and facile arguments. www.skepticalaboutskeptics.org/controversies/anomalistics/academic-pride-and-prejudice/
|
|
|
Post by jcurio on Jan 27, 2018 11:40:43 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by auntym on Sept 20, 2021 21:59:09 GMT -6
Check out this little gem from Phil Klass.The UFO Chronicles Retweeted Erica Lukes @ericalukesuap
|
|
|
Post by paulette on Sept 21, 2021 2:09:01 GMT -6
"Houdini did confess at one point to hearing an angelic voice in his head that guided him through his often extremely dangerous escape performances. He added that he once tried to do a performance without his angelic companion and had fallen quite badly. He never tried to go solo again..."
The whole topic of angels came up for me two nights ago. I was dreading the memorial for my husband (Sept.19)and was not sleeping well. I confided to a friend on Messenger that I was very caught in my grief. She asked if I was suicidal and I said no, but that I would lie to her if I was, because I knew all the options. Counselling, drugs..... She said I should talk to my angel. I said that I had had an encounter with a being of light in my youth, and he had given me practical advice. Basically, go home, eat something, take a shower and get some sleep. Pack, and get out of town. Having no better plan I had followed his advice and my life had gone on.
I don't think that angels are a judeo-christian constuct. The Sumerians had angels. Lots of cultures have beings that materialize and provide guidance. I said that I was up for contact but wasn't going to go out of my way.
I had been listening to an alternative country music channel. Literally 30 seconds later, the song It Ain't Over Yet played. It's about, yup, carrying on. I couldn't help but notice the coincidence. As I lay awake the night before the memorial, at about 4 am it came to me. This is Terry's party. A party for him like a BD party. Friends, family,Bahai'is and delicious food. Terry loved me bringing him home a dessert from a potluck I might have attended. So we told everyone that Terry wanted them to take home some food to enjoy later.
People cleared out most of what was there. Perfect. The whole event was perfect. I can't think of one thing that I wanted to happen that didn't or that I didn't want to happen that did. Like that.
Prayers were said for him by some Bahai'is and they struck my heart. I experienced a lifting of painful feelings I had been carrying and a calmness coming over me. I slept 4 pm to 8 pm in my recliner and then shuffled off to sleep 10 - 9 in bed.
So that's me, on some angel's must-do list. Maybe its fun to come in and change things up. So it is for me.
|
|
|
Post by jcurio on Sept 28, 2021 7:33:57 GMT -6
“ Three months later, after affixing the necessary signatures to our marriage license at the Beverly Hills courthouse, we returned home, and in the presence of my family said our vows and exchanged rings. Being 9,000 kilometers from family, friends and home, Jennifer was feeling amiss and lonely. She wished her grandfather were there to give her away. She whispered that she wanted to say something to me alone, so we excused ourselves to the back of the house where we could hear music playing in the bedroom. We don't have a music system there, so we searched for laptops and iPhones and even opened the back door to check if the neighbors were playing music. We followed the sound to the printer on the desk, wondering—absurdly—if this combined printer/scanner/fax machine also included a radio. Nope.
At that moment Jennifer shot me a look I haven't seen since the supernatural thriller The Exorcist startled audiences. “That can't be what I think it is, can it?” she said. She opened the desk drawer and pulled out her grandfather's transistor radio, out of which a romantic love song wafted. We sat in stunned silence for minutes. “My grandfather is here with us,” Jennifer said, tearfully. “I'm not alone.”
(Please see article/post above ) 🤗
|
|
|
Post by paulette on Sept 30, 2021 13:13:16 GMT -6
So so many things have happened to me jcurio. I was getting ready to get in bed a couple of nights ago and I had gotten as far as putting my head on my pillow (but still standing beside the bed.) I began to sob deeply, feeling so alone and not up to the task of carrying on. I then felt a hand on my head, gently stroking and lightly scratching my skull. It was Terry. He was the only person in my life who had touched me like this. I lay quietly beneath his touch, soothed and comforted. Then I realized that it was my right hand doing the stroking. Now I am extremely left-handed. I don't hold eating utensils with my right (I switch around). And I have never touched my head like that. In a loving way. It continued for awhile after I realized what was happening. Then I got myself into bed and curled up in a ball. At least I could move on that far... You know that when one touches oneself, it does not feel like someone else is doing it. Just so, someone cannot tickle themselves. Even after I realized that it was my hand, it did not feel like my hand. I immediately thought of Ghost Story, where Patrick Swayze just wants to touch his surviving partner one more time. He moves into Whoopi Goldberg's body and they dance. A moment of gentle possession. One other thing since I'm crying now, my nose is stopped up, and tears are welling...I was upset that my last memories of him were of him in his deteriorating body. There was a smell, now gone, of, I suppose, the cancer's ravages. I didn't want to remember him that way! (tears). My eyes fell on a little metal box. Inside were faded pictures of him and his young family. He had his shirt off and he was a golden god. He was on the volunteer fire fighting team and worked out a lot. I was so glad to see him in that body! I didn't care that he wasn't "mine" then. But there were also two more pictures that opened my heart, and dispelled my fears. He was holding his first born - as an infant - so carefully and reverently. He was manifesting love and I felt it, even holding the old picture. He was not sick and in pain that day - he was forever young. He SHONE out of that picture to me and I knew he had guided me to find it. We do not take our old bodies with us, wherever we might go. So it goes for me. I also discovered (yesterday) that he had paid into a life insurance policy where he worked. I got a totally unexpected huge amount of money as a one-time death benefit. I will be able to pay off our/my remaining house mortgage and maybe do a little fixing up. I had to call them to make sure they hadn't made a mistake. I didn't want to spend money that wasn't mine. But no, they meant to send it to me. I could hardly breathe. I am grateful and tearful at the same time. I wish he (before the dementia he) could have lived on and shared whatever we had in time and resources. But I do not doubt that he was beaming love; much like that radio. I'm not alone.
|
|
|
Post by jcurio on Oct 2, 2021 10:17:30 GMT -6
Thank you for this 🙏🏼❤️❤️❤️.
|
|