If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Discovery)   Apollo astronaut Edgar Mitchell clarifies his UFO comments -- by making more of them   (dsc.discovery.com) divider line 217
    More: Followup  
•       •       •

19057 clicks; posted to Main » on 27 Jul 2008 at 2:27 AM (6 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



217 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2008-07-27 04:31:55 PM
WraithAscendant - ninjakirby said:
"To everyone attempting to use Mitchell's credentials as evidence of his credibility, I ask you what evidence do you have as evidence of his factuality?"

And what evidence do you have to his lack of factuality? I am talking about hunches and guilt by association but cold hard proof.



Why don't you get the fact that the burden isn't on anyone else to prove he's wrong?

If he wishes to have credibility, the burden is on him to prove he's right.
 
2008-07-27 04:34:13 PM
After review this and the other thread on aliens, I'm feeling very amused and quite pleased. Yes, I know it makes me sound like a schizo lunatic, but there is something very, very satisfying in knowing that I know something that no one else, apparently, does.

And something that is so farkING obvious....
 
2008-07-27 04:37:50 PM
WraithAscendant: But I am not 100% on MK Ultra and etc but they are possiblities.

MK Ultra Radiation First Church Committee meeting. There are several transcripts available, but the radiation experimentation on US soldiers was relatively mild compared to the other allegations of misconduct.

MK Ultra Child Abuse Victim's video testimony before the Church Committee. Testimony A, Testimony B, Testimony C.

The Witness testimony for child abuse is the only evidence available for that aspect of the MK Ultra programming. CIA director Richard Helms destroyed most of the evidence pertaining to the behaviour modification research and received a suspended 2 year sentence for obstruction of justice.

And for the canuckers here, MK Ultra eh?
 
2008-07-27 04:39:16 PM
that_other_internet: 2) The human psyche is given to generating specific visual hallucinations that are somehow subconsciously produced (and tailored to one single type of phenomenon) and universally experienced in a similar fashion, regardless of culture.

A tall order.


The non-reliability of observers of unfamiliar phenomena is well known. Perhaps you are familiar with the apparent motion of point sources of light at night? You might call that a hallucination, I suppose. A mis-observation given a lack of reference would be better.

And then, you'll say, "not as statistically improbable as alien visitation". What statistics are there for alien visitation? Isn't science the objective evaluation of empirical data? Wouldn't you have to observe extraterrestrial life in order to begin deriving a statistical probability for visitation? You're comparing a minute statistical improbability to a statistical unknown. Is that scientific? What compels you to make that decision without sufficient data?


Sort of arguing with yourself, there?

Wouldn't you have to demonstrate that extraterrestrial life exists, has developed a means to cross interstellar distances, has located Earth and is observing it in craft which seem to crash with amazing regularity in order to give this any sort of credence?

As opposed to, say, lenticular clouds, observation of aircraft navigation lights, observation of LEO satellites, and the like. Hm. Which is more likely? Observation of phenomena which we know exist and which have rational explanation, or that they're all UFO's from Zeta Reticulae?


You begin by believing their reports are the result of projection and then make your own projection.


Not at all. Evolution is a statistical process. There isn't any particular magic quality to the shape of a terrestrial hominid. It's not particularly reasonable to expect that the product of a separate evolutionary chain would look like a small man with gray skin and big eyes. You don't look like a bee, although you share common ancestry with them.


Citing Jung immediately after attacking the Mitchell's notion of the Noetic institute? You're full of contradictions. You may want to consider reading about Jung and the Noetic consciousness. Oh, irony.


Hardly. Perhaps Jung was more into psi and remote viewing than I thought, but not that I have been able to determine.



Too many viewpoints? Is that what`s wrong with America?


Maybe too many people churning crap memes into the mainstream for people with no scientific education to sort through. In the past, there was more of a barrier to the dissemination of garbage - it cost too much to publish, for the most part.



MK Ultra (government sponsored child abuse), Operation Ajax (US sponsored terrorism against democratically elected leaders), Operation Paperclip (Nazi Gestapo networks working for the US), Phoenix Program (US sponsored mass killings by US regular armed forces in Vietnam), and Operation Mockingbird (manipulation of mainstream media news like the BBC and other popular outlets) have all had their FOIA documents released.

This is a bit of a non-sequitur, don't you think? Perhaps you're stating "Gubmints are evil" and "gubmints can keep secrets". Well, the latter is certainly true, and at times the former. But by extension, your putative aliens have to be like them, since they would have to be in league with them to keep the secret, no?

Your last statement is just off the wall. The "common" world view rarely seems to be an accurate representation of reality, at least as far as science goes.

There's also quite a bit more to Ultra and Paperclip than your single phrase mischaracterizations. Most of the MK series projects were pretty crazy, though.
 
2008-07-27 04:44:46 PM
that_other_internet:
MK Ultra Radiation First Church Committee meeting. There are several transcripts available, but the radiation experimentation on US soldiers was relatively mild compared to the other allegations of misconduct.


Ah, jeez, that crap. I thought you were actually talking about what did happen during Ultra. The Ewen Cameron stuff, that was real. But someone saying they were controlled by mindbeams, that's pretty typical of schizophrenics, and there's no evidence that it happened.

Ultra was way wacky and abusive enough for the parts that really did occur. Random "victim" testimony of inviso-beams controlling their thoughts isn't proof of anything except possibly mental illness.
 
2008-07-27 04:45:30 PM
technicolor-misfit: that_other_internet - What evidence would you accept?

I don't know... try me.

Verifiable videotape of an alien skulking around some Spanish kid's birthday party, an artifact that demonstrates intelligence and can be confirmed to have extraterrestrial origins, a response to Voyager...

Who knows? We'll see what it is is if it ever shows up.


Ain't that the trick? Until someone on TV tells you what you're seeing is real, you'll never have any reason to believe any video or photograph is evidence of extraterrestrial life. It really depends on how much you have invested in your current worldview and how different that worldview is compared to the "incoming" reality.

Take MK Ultra and Operation Ajax. If the government hadn't released that information themselves, how many "rational" Americans would have been able to accept that reality on evidence alone?

As an experiment, why don't you pull up the FOIA on AJAX and use it to source some direct evidence from the library. Present the case without the use of the FOIA document itself, using only the evidence that is corroborated by the report. Provide the paperwork proving the change of ownership of oil, probable funding of terrorist groups, etc. See if anyone will believe you based on evidence alone.

They'll only accept an outright admission by the perpetrators themselves. Without that, factual data is completely useless. The FOIA documents were never necessary to prove the involvement of the British and US covert forces. They were simply a confirmation.
 
2008-07-27 04:48:14 PM
erewhon: Ultra was way wacky and abusive enough for the parts that really did occur. Random "victim" testimony of inviso-beams controlling their thoughts isn't proof of anything except possibly mental illness.

Victim testimony before the United States Church committee is random?

Also, what "inviso-beams" did they claim? These ones?

Didn't watch the video, eh? Not very scientific of you to deny plausibility without actually watching the Church Committee testimony.
 
2008-07-27 04:49:30 PM
that_other_internet: Take MK Ultra

I prefer Naomi. :)
 
2008-07-27 04:50:59 PM
And the avalanche of ad hom begins:
"Why don't you get the fact that the burden isn't on anyone else to prove he's wrong?
If he wishes to have credibility, the burden is on him to prove he's right."


Too bad what you think largely doesn't concern me all that much and you (both of you) have done very little to change that beyond a bunch cohersive BS like "what sounds more likely?" and "if they said it was this way I'd find it more believable". And put your complete trust in the "all knowing" men and women with PhDs, which sounds painfully alot like the people telling me to put my trust in the "all knowing" men in silly hats and robes.

You can offer me abstractions to hide your complete lack of proof and try to slide the burden of proof to your opponents, but unfortunately the burden of proof goes both ways (you both have stances that need justifying with facts) and facts are largely lacking on both sides. But I doubt the self-righteous will ever understand that.
 
2008-07-27 04:51:18 PM
erewhon: There's also quite a bit more to Ultra and Paperclip than your single phrase mischaracterizations. Most of the MK series projects were pretty crazy, though.

Do tell. I'm an amateur with an above average interest in these topics. Educate me about my mis-characterizations.
 
2008-07-27 04:52:54 PM
Heard the same arguments AGAINST water being on Mars btw. Yet. That seems to have changed now.
Hmmmmm.
 
2008-07-27 04:54:35 PM
that_other_internet: erewhon: Ultra was way wacky and abusive enough for the parts that really did occur. Random "victim" testimony of inviso-beams controlling their thoughts isn't proof of anything except possibly mental illness.

Victim testimony before the United States Church committee is random?

Also, what "inviso-beams" did they claim? These ones?

Didn't watch the video, eh? Not very scientific of you to deny plausibility without actually watching the Church Committee testimony.


Oh, I've seen it before. I can find you hundreds just like them on the net. But why stop there? Perhaps the CIA was behind the mind control attempt on James Tilly Matthews. Accusing the gubmint of mind control beams has a long time honored history.

And the Soviets? Go look for Theremin's bug. I've no doubt you'll be intrigued.
 
2008-07-27 04:54:41 PM
bookman Quote 2008-07-27 04:34:13 PM
After review this and the other thread on aliens, I'm feeling very amused and quite pleased. Yes, I know it makes me sound like a schizo lunatic, but there is something very, very satisfying in knowing that I know something that no one else, apparently, does.

And something that is so farkING obvious....


Actually, upon further reflection, I find I need to apologize, Seriously. It is NOT farking obvious. That is, the obviousness depends on the assumptions you "bring to the table" when letting your mind go over the evidence or lack there-of. And a good number of those assumptions are totally unconscious, so most people would never b aware that they ARE assumptions...

You need to think outside the boxes....
 
2008-07-27 04:58:11 PM
WraithAscendant: And what evidence do you have to his lack of factuality? I am talking about hunches and guilt by association but cold hard proof.

What evidence do I have that Mitchell lacks proof? Seriously? You're asking me to provide proof for a negative. Mitchell has made a claim of positive existence of highly advanced extraterrestrial life visiting the planet, and you aren't asking what proof he has that the claim is true, but instead you're instead asking me what proof I have that it isn't?

Maybe my skepticism stems from the fact that this Astronaut (which is where his credentials lie) has never personally witnessed the thing he is claiming.

"There haven't been any sightings as a result of my flight service there [at NASA]"


By his own admission is knowledge of the claim is second and third hand, spawned from an area and time period steeped in UFO paranoia and mythology.

"My major knowledge comes from what I call the old-timers, people who were at Roswell and subsequent who wanted to clear the things up and tell somebody credible even though they were under severe threats and things -- this was back in the Roswell days. Having gone to the moon and being a local citizen out in the Roswell area.."


He claims verification by an unknown source within the Pentagon, which flies contrary to the entire idea of a massively successful government cover-up. He then links together a tiny amount of 'absence of evidence' brand evidence, in order to conclude the existence of a vast government cover-up which yet again has no first hand knowledge of, but is reiterating something he was told, by yet another unknown party.

"...the MAJIC 12. And they did pass a National Security Act, or so I'm told..."

"(Webster) Hubbell.. Barry Goldwater...Gerry Ford...got rejected."


Which then culminates in some blurry photos of an unexplained event.

www.ufopictures.info


and then finally, again entirely by his own admission, what caused him to begin to believe in UFO's was a universally human psychological phenomena that is found in every culture in the world, and is the foundation for religious belief.

a transformational, transcendental experience where you see things as you perceive them but experience them viscerally and emotionally as one, as a part of it -- is called samadhi. In doing more research, I found that it has taken place in every culture on Earth. The political and cultural expression of that turns out to be religion.


Blurry photographs, 3rd hand accounts, openly talkative people sworn to secrecy, and 'absence of evicence'-evidence does not make for 'Extraordinary Evidence'. It makes for shiatty, anecdotal evidence, and should be entirely unsatisfactory to anyone with an ounce of skepticism.
 
2008-07-27 04:58:43 PM
that_other_internet: erewhon: There's also quite a bit more to Ultra and Paperclip than your single phrase mischaracterizations. Most of the MK series projects were pretty crazy, though.

Do tell. I'm an amateur with an above average interest in these topics. Educate me about my mis-characterizations.


If you're basing your characterization of Ultra as a "child abuse program" on the mindbeam testimony, it's offbase.

On the other hand, quite a bit of crap did happen during Ultra, some of the most egregious was Cameron's part of the project, as well as surprise dosing of CIA and military with BZ and LSD. There were some deaths.
 
2008-07-27 05:02:08 PM
erewhon: Oh, I've seen it before. I can find you hundreds just like them on the net. But why stop there? Perhaps the CIA was behind the mind control attempt on James Tilly Matthews. Accusing the gubmint of mind control beams has a long time honored history.

There were hundreds of testimonies of CIA sexual abuse before the Senate Church Committee for MK Ultra?

Link to just ONE other than the 3 provided.

Stay on topic. Remember, if you watched the Church Committee investigations testimony, there was no mention of "inviso-beams".

These individuals testified to the use of psychological trauma to induce dissociative states in young children. The idea being that the dissociative personality would be easier to manipulate. Is that an "inviso-beam"? Dissociative personalities generated by extreme psychological trauma can be called just that, no need to invent an "inviso-beam" to build your strawman.

You're very good at being casually dismissive. Not very good with providing evidence.

It's just as well. Time to enjoy my weekend. I'll check back later.
 
2008-07-27 05:04:45 PM
erewhon: If you're basing your characterization of Ultra as a "child abuse program" on the mindbeam testimony, it's offbase.

Go ahead a provide a timecode for any of the three videos where "mindbeams" were the basis for the majority of the damning testimony.

Any other person who bothers to watch those 3 video testimonies would realize that you are completely mischaracterization all of their testimonies. Go ahead and watch before you comment. Otherwise, you'll have a difficult time convincing anyone of your rational investigative abilities ;)
 
2008-07-27 05:04:58 PM
WraithAscendant: You can offer me abstractions to hide your complete lack of proof and try to slide the burden of proof to your opponents, but unfortunately the burden of proof goes both ways (you both have stances that need justifying with facts) and facts are largely lacking on both sides.

There is a Neon Green Flip-Flop located at the gravitational center of the Solar System.

With whom does the burden of proof lie?
 
2008-07-27 05:09:03 PM
ninjakirby: WraithAscendant: You can offer me abstractions to hide your complete lack of proof and try to slide the burden of proof to your opponents, but unfortunately the burden of proof goes both ways (you both have stances that need justifying with facts) and facts are largely lacking on both sides.

There is a Neon Green Flip-Flop located at the gravitational center of the Solar System.

With whom does the burden of proof lie?


Depends, are you attempting to appropriate funding to explore the flip flop? If so, then the burden of proof lies on you.

If you merely wish to state that you know of the flip-flop's existence, then it is beyond your ability to prove and beyond my ability to disprove. The burden of proof does not exist unless the Flip Flop's existence is involved in a practical consideration such as allocation of resources or some other calculation.

Like ET's, what difference would it make to my life to disprove your account of the universe?
 
2008-07-27 05:14:53 PM
that_other_internet: erewhon: Oh, I've seen it before. I can find you hundreds just like them on the net. But why stop there? Perhaps the CIA was behind the mind control attempt on James Tilly Matthews. Accusing the gubmint of mind control beams has a long time honored history.

There were hundreds of testimonies of CIA sexual abuse before the Senate Church Committee for MK Ultra?



No, but supposed victims of mind control beams are a dime a dozen.

Your first clip:

"I am here to talk about a possible link between radiation and mind control experimentation that began in the late 1940's. The main reason that mind control research is being mentioned is that people are alleging that they were exposed as children to mind control radiation"

She mentions "mind control radiation" several times in her opening statement. Puh-leeze.

Remember, if you watched the Church Committee investigations testimony, there was no mention of "inviso-beams".

Another concrete thinker. Ok - I'll be literal for you. Mind control radiation = inviso-beams. Belief that your mind is being controlled by outside agencies through the use of "radiation", "beams" or by something like Tilly's "air loom" (his drawing below) is a common facet of schizophrenia.

upload.wikimedia.org

Having Ewen Cameron put a bag over your head and strap you to a bed 20 hours of the day with headphones playing "psychological drivers" into your ears, that's reality, offensive as it might be.

"Mind control radiation" as the basis for your complaint is the flashing red light of bogus-ness. And no, I don't mean it's done by flashing red lights, literally.
 
2008-07-27 05:19:17 PM
that_other_internet: Like ET's, what difference would it make to my life to disprove your account of the universe?

The thousands of dollars spent by people who believe they have been abducted by aliens and their plight is being covered up by a Global Conspiracy isn't enough of a resource investment for you to consider the topic worthy of discussion in terms of proof?

We should just let them continue living untreated, being taken advantage of by quack crystal healers and regressive memory therapists who feed their delusion, all because of some quasi-mystical reverence for 'the unknown'? Its no skin off your back, so you're fine with people believing any little thing regardless of its evidenciary support? You're cool with the President of the United States scheduling meetings around an Astrological calendar, or believing that Nuclear War is a sign of the Rapture, because hey, they just believe it, they haven't tried to prove it.
 
2008-07-27 05:23:31 PM
erewhon: No, but supposed victims of mind control beams are a dime a dozen.

Your first clip:

"I am here to talk about a possible link between radiation and mind control experimentation that began in the late 1940's. The main reason that mind control research is being mentioned is that people are alleging that they were exposed as children to mind control radiation"

She mentions "mind control radiation" several times in her opening statement. Puh-leeze.


Are you sure you're not cherry picking testimony in order to capitalize on your initial "inviso-beam" comment? Remember, these people are not claiming success of this technique, they are merely testifying to the use of the technique. The majority of the testimony has to do with sexual abuse. Are you attempting to deny this?

Here's the video again for everyone else. Compare erewhon's characterization to the total content of the testimony.
 
2008-07-27 05:23:51 PM
I'm not sure, but I think "samadhi" might be illegal in many states...
 
2008-07-27 05:28:22 PM
ninjakirby: The thousands of dollars spent by people who believe they have been abducted by aliens and their plight is being covered up by a Global Conspiracy isn't enough of a resource investment for you to consider the topic worthy of discussion in terms of proof?

We should just let them continue living untreated, being taken advantage of by quack crystal healers and regressive memory therapists who feed their delusion, all because of some quasi-mystical reverence for 'the unknown'? Its no skin off your back, so you're fine with people believing any little thing regardless of its evidenciary support? You're cool with the President of the United States scheduling meetings around an Astrological calendar, or believing that Nuclear War is a sign of the Rapture, because hey, they just believe it, they haven't tried to prove it.


This is true of all cases?

No? Then are you attempting to extend these instances of predatory capitalism to the theory of the existence of UFOs itself? Wouldn't that simply confuse your argument?

Are you trying to attack predatory capitalism or UFO theory?

If you're trying to attack UFO theory, then you shouldn't use predatory capitalism as a proof that the UFO theory is false, but rather as proof of greed. Academically, that's got to be kept separate from the UFO theory itself. It's up to you to discount evidence based on probable profit motive. You should pick examples to attack where there is no potential profit motive involved.

Context matters.
 
2008-07-27 05:29:13 PM
soyelmocano: I'm not sure, but I think "samadhi" might be illegal in many states...

Unless it's with barn animals.
 
2008-07-27 05:34:06 PM
that_other_internet: Are you sure you're not cherry picking testimony in order to capitalize on your initial "inviso-beam" comment? Remember, these people are not claiming success of this technique, they are merely testifying to the use of the technique. The majority of the testimony has to do with sexual abuse. Are you attempting to deny this?


Dude - it's her very first words.

"I am here to talk about a possible link between radiation and mind control experimentation that began in the late 1940's. The main reason that mind control research is being mentioned is that people are alleging that they were exposed as children to mind control radiation"

I'm not going to sit here and write up a transcript for you. The title emblazoned across the screen "The President's Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experimentation" might be a giveaway as to the main topic of discussion.

more:

"40 therapists across the country (and I had about a week and a half to prepare) contacted me to talk about clients who had reported being subjects in radiation and mind control experiments"

No, I'm not mischaracterizing it, the focus of the thing is "mind control radiation". Not with any proof, just anecdotal stories of having this invisible mind control radiation used on them. Given that many a schizophrenic also thinks this is true, I'd say that anecdotal 'evidence' of mind control beams is in general probably not that trustworthy.

I see that you focus on the sexual abuse part - let me hazard a guess here - do you think you, personally, were sexually abused or mind controlled by the CIA?
 
2008-07-27 05:34:50 PM
that_other_internet: If you're trying to attack UFO theory, then you shouldn't use predatory capitalism as a proof that the UFO theory is false, but rather as proof of greed.

I have yet to make any claim as to the falsity or truth of the UFO hypothesis. My claim, which I have supported with evidence, is that there is no credible evidence to support the Extraordinary Claim. I happen to think it quite possible that we may have been visited, but I recognize the burden of evidence, and that such evidence presented is neither strong, nor the best explanation.

My discussion of predatation was tangenital to that point, in discussing the requirements for burden of proof. You brought up money, I did not.
 
2008-07-27 05:36:36 PM
ninjakirby said:
"There is a Neon Green Flip-Flop located at the gravitational center of the Solar System.
With whom does the burden of proof lie?"

Too bad your analogy is WAY out of wack as to perportion. But that is par for the parcel I am noticing.

bookman

The whole thing is a clash of bias and preconceptions.
To quote a quote I can't remember where I heard before,

"What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way."-Bertrand Russell

or

"Believe nothing just because a so-called wise person said it. Believe nothing just because a belief is generally held. Believe nothing just because it is said in ancient books. Believe nothing just because it is said to be of divine origin. Believe nothing just because someone else believes it. Believe only what you yourself test and judge to be true. [paraphrased]"
-Buddha

or

"It is not bigotry to be certain we are right; but it is bigotry to be unable to imagine how we might possibly have gone wrong."
-G. K. Chesterton

or

"Beware of assumptions! Whatever you ''assume'' to be possible -- or impossible will have a tendency to become real for you."
-Unknown Source
 
2008-07-27 05:46:49 PM
WraithAscendant: Too bad your analogy is WAY out of wack as to perportion. But that is par for the parcel I am noticing.

It isn't an analogy, nor was it proportional. It was an illustration regarding burden of proof. In regards to your quotations, are you really trying to get all Bevetsy, or do you have actual information to support your 'knowledge' of extraterrestrial visitation? That would be far more convincing than unknown quoters.

to whit; If I make a claim as to the existence of an object or entity, is it my job, or your job, to prove or disprove that claim?

"I am typing on a Mac" - Is this true until you disprove it, or is the burden of proof on me, the person making the claim?
 
2008-07-27 06:04:14 PM
ninjakirby said:
"or do you have actual information to support your 'knowledge' of extraterrestrial visitation?"

Too bad I never made any such claim that I have "knowledge" of extraterrestrial visitation. I have an opinion and have stated it as such and also stated that I could be wrong though I obviously don't think I am.
And if you can't get such a simple thing as my stance right or understand the gist of what I meant with the quotes, I COULD try to explain it to you but I am percieving that as a complete waste of energy as you will most likely believe whatever best fits your preconceptions about me. No matter how much I try to clarify myself.
Those on the extremes of a debate always seem to forget the matter's a spectrum (not dualistic as in black *wrong* and white *right*) and there is a middle ground. I guess it helps them maintain their stance. Unless like you can blow me away with complete proof of a negative answer to compliment your negative stance.
 
2008-07-27 06:05:39 PM
WraithAscendant - "What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way."-Bertrand Russell


You do know that Russell is talking about you, don't you?

You "want to believe," therefore you do... You accept nearly any claim that supports what you wish to believe "even on the slightest evidence."

Moreover, there's been a lot of talk of bias on the part of skeptics and humanity in general to want to feel as if the human race is special or unique... What's funny is that it hits on one of the primary psychological motivators for "wanting to believe."

People who buy into this stuff have a desire to be special... To feel they possess knowledge or understanding that superecedes the mundacities of accepted knowledge.

The ones who claim contact or abduction or first-hand involvement take it a step further... Their need to be special is so elevated that they need to insert themselves right in the thick of it, front and center. They often suffer from past abuse, low self-esteem, feelings of inadequacy and underachievement, and quite often some genuine serious psychological maladies.

This is very well-documented (seriously), but I shall not bother with any cites, because you clearly don't find evidence to be terribly important.
 
2008-07-27 06:11:19 PM
Gyrfalcon: Finally, again by his own admission, Mitchell is not repeating his own experiences of alien contact, but that of others, and usually second or third hand experiences. "My major knowledge comes from what I call the old-timers, people who were at Roswell and subsequent who wanted to clear the things up and tell somebody credible even though they were under severe threats and things -- this was back in the Roswell days." Roswell allegedly occurred in 1947, over sixty years ago. It is in no way current information, and has been thoroughly contaminated by media, memory, and time.

If your own grandfather or an old friend of the family told you a few series of stories of a few peculiar occurances that he and many of the locals all witnessed, that was documented as swept under the rug by authorities, and then you repeated the stories, we can dimiss you as someone who is full of shiat, right?
 
2008-07-27 06:12:23 PM
technicolor-misfit

You obviously didn't read (or comprehend) the whole thing.
And you like the aformentioned don't even have my stance right, but you take it farther, I never stated anything about abduction pro or con or how it fits in to what I think to be true, you assumed otherwise though and thats rather indictive of something I say.

And also I find it not worth my energy to explain it to you. But the quote talks about how BOTH ways are in error. Not just the one you favor.
Don't expect you to see that though. In your own special way you prove the point. Thank you.
 
2008-07-27 06:27:31 PM
How did Fark have a thread this long about moonbat space explorers without at least some mention of Jack Parsons, the co-founder of JPL? He was one of the most important rocket scientists in the 20th century and also one of the most enthusiastic occultists. A good friend of Aleister Crowley, he used to offer a prayer to Pan before each launch test. Totally nutters.
 
2008-07-27 06:28:01 PM
WraithAscendant: Unless like you can blow me away with complete proof of a negative answer to compliment your negative stance.

ERROR, ERROR; DOES NOT COMPUTE.


For a person who complains about me misaddressing their viewpoint, you certainly do not have a grasp on mine. Your stance is that people only recognize evidence in support of their previous biases. Since I do not accept the (anecdotal) evidence for extraterrestrial visitation, and you do, that must speak of our biases, yes?

You are biased towards fanciful thought involving vast government conspiracies and alien species with FTL travel, abduction and paranoia.

I am biased towards requiring firm concrete evidence which supports the claims believed by people like yourself. You can overcome that bias quite simply - provide the evidence. I can support quite easily my position that eye-witness testimony is insufficient and problematic.
 
2008-07-27 06:32:02 PM
Skyrmion: He was one of the most important rocket scientists in the 20th century and also one of the most enthusiastic occultists.

Heh, interesting. Mitchell, our friendly UFO loving astronaut also conducted 'experiments' testing ESP while onboard Apoll 14, which speaks for his bias towards such fanciful ideas.
 
2008-07-27 06:46:34 PM
ninjakirby said:
"You are biased towards fanciful thought involving vast government conspiracies and alien species with FTL travel, abduction and paranoia."

You accuse me of having a bias the exact opposite to yours.
Though I have repeatedly stated I could be wrong. Any such statements from you? Of course not. Cause "yous right and there is no two ways about it" despite the fact the question is hardly resolved one way or the other.

You choose to go left. I choose to go right.
You do it loudly proclaiming how right you are. Coupled with copous amounts of treating your own assumptions as fact. For the second time now, I have not said ANYTHING about abduction, does it need to be in big blinking lights before you'll notice that fact?
While I admit I could be making a misake as to my beliefs on the subject.

The matter is not resolved unless we have somehow found all the intelligent life in the universe (if any) that ever existed and asked them if they have been here and gotten honest answers along with honest answers as to their capabilities and willingness to do such things.
 
2008-07-27 06:53:51 PM
WraithAscendant - You obviously didn't read (or comprehend) the whole thing.

Actually, I do.

And you like the aformentioned don't even have my stance right, but you take it farther, I never stated anything about abduction pro or con or how it fits in to what I think to be true, you assumed otherwise though and thats rather indictive of something I say.

I never said 'you.' I wasn't attributing those positions to you. I can't even understand how you concluded that I was. I never even so much as implied such a thing.

I was countering your claim (and the claims of several others in this thread) of the bias of skeptics and non-believers by pointing out that bias exists on the other side of the equation.

My only bias against believing in extraterrestrial visitation is my bias against believing something without evidence to support it.

I have no desire for there to NOT be alien visitation... In fact, I think it would be kind of cool if it were true. However, the fact that I think it would be cool is not enough to override the fact that there is no credible evidence to support such claims.

And also I find it not worth my energy to explain it to you. But the quote talks about how BOTH ways are in error. Not just the one you favor.
Don't expect you to see that though. In your own special way you prove the point. Thank you.


You're actually quite mistaken, I promise you... I'm quite a long time fan of Russell, and I can assure he was not encouraging people to believe things without evidence. If you doubt this, I suggest you learn a bit more about him.

He is one of the fathers of analytic philosophy and believed quite firmly in logic and reason and applying the sort of scrutiny to philosophy as is applied in science.

The fact is, you're most definitely seeing what you want to see, and your statement about me "proving the point" could not be more off-base and most certainly needs to be directed back at yourself.
 
2008-07-27 07:01:11 PM
WraithAscendant: For the second time now, I have not said ANYTHING about abduction, does it need to be in big blinking lights before you'll notice that fact?

You'll notice I mention a lot of things you haven't specifically stated, but are common themes that emerge within the vast majority of UFO believers. Why have you yet to address the primary point in every one of my responses? Where is the evidence which supports your belief, whatever that belief may be?

Do you think ET's have visited us?
Do you think the government has been complicit in covering up those visitations?

Yes no maybe so, why do you think it.
 
2008-07-27 07:01:55 PM
WraithAscendant - You accuse me of having a bias the exact opposite to yours.
Though I have repeatedly stated I could be wrong. Any such statements from you? Of course not. Cause "yous right and there is no two ways about it" despite the fact the question is hardly resolved one way or the other.



But he IS right. There is no credible evidence, which is what he has said.

You keep trying to equate the two positions but they're not comparable positions.

"I believe UFO's are alien spacecraft."

"I believe there is no credible evidence to support such a position."

Let's try it another way:

"I believe Wilford Brimley has made a pact with Satan and as a result commands supernatural powers which he will employ to bring about the endtimes and secure the reign of the prince of darkness."

"I believe there is no credible evidence to support such a position."


"Well, at least I admit I might be wrong... You're SOOO certain, it's clear you're biased!"
 
2008-07-27 08:05:22 PM
WraithAscendant: ninjakirby said:
"You are biased towards fanciful thought involving vast government conspiracies and alien species with FTL travel, abduction and paranoia."

You accuse me of having a bias the exact opposite to yours.
Though I have repeatedly stated I could be wrong. Any such statements from you? Of course not. Cause "yous right and there is no two ways about it" despite the fact the question is hardly resolved one way or the other.

You choose to go left. I choose to go right.
You do it loudly proclaiming how right you are. Coupled with copous amounts of treating your own assumptions as fact. For the second time now, I have not said ANYTHING about abduction, does it need to be in big blinking lights before you'll notice that fact?
While I admit I could be making a misake as to my beliefs on the subject.

The matter is not resolved unless we have somehow found all the intelligent life in the universe (if any) that ever existed and asked them if they have been here and gotten honest answers along with honest answers as to their capabilities and willingness to do such things.


This ninjakirby (also uses another ID chimp_ninja) is a pure certified troll. This troll hang out on this forum just to let every one know what a world class assh*le he is.

/yo chimp_ninja / ninjakirby -> aliens make crop circles.
/bwhahahaha
 
2008-07-27 08:19:09 PM
Here's that a different photo of those three lights in Phoenix - much clearer than the one above:



i161.photobucket.com


And you thought they were flying. Ha!
 
2008-07-27 08:23:49 PM
IK: Why do you think the government hasn't acknowledged that there is life outside of Earth? I thought that was sort of the point of NASA.

EM: Well most people in government don't know. The government is highly compartmentalized. You could work next door to somebody for 30 years not knowing what they're doing in certain areas. The whole point of all of this ... goes back to World War II. This Roswell incident took place right at the aftermath of World War II when the U.S. Army Air Corps was split off and became the Air Force and the OSS (Office of Strategic Services), which was the intelligence service of World War II, was disbanded and eventually became the CIA. At that point the Cold War was just starting to move under way and we were at odds with the Soviets.

The Air Force was brand new and supposedly in control of the skies and didn't know what they were doing, and the CIA didn't know what they were doing, so Pres. Truman was in a big problem here: Here people were telling him there were aliens around and nobody knew if they were hostile or what they were and what was he going to do about it?

So he formed a committee, a very high-level military and academic and intelligent people -- politically powerful people -- and said 'You guys work on this.' And that was called ... the MAJIC 12. And they did pass a National Security Act, or so I'm told, under highly classified auspices, that gave this committee virtually unlimited power to deal with this issue, which they have done for the last 60 years, slowly excluding everybody -- including presidents.

You may remember that Pres. Clinton tried to send (Webster) Hubbell to find out about this at Wright Patterson. He got rejected. And Barry Goldwater, back in the '60s when he was getting ready to run for the presidency and who was a brigadier general in the Air Force Reserve tried to get information about it. He got rejected. And I'm told that Gerry Ford tried to do some finding out and he got rejected.

Jimmy Carter announced his observation of UFOs, but that never went anywhere so obviously he made no progress. Only in recent years has the public interest become acute enough and enough stories leaked out so that people are starting to believe that it's all real. And the fact of the matter is, it is.

They're still around and there's a lot of stuff going on.

Are you aware of the so-called Phoenix Lights Incident? That wasn't our stuff.

IK: I'm sorry. Can you say that again?


HAHAHA
 
2008-07-27 08:35:00 PM
bolzy: This ninjakirby (also uses another ID chimp_ninja) is a pure certified troll. This troll hang out on this forum just to let every one know what a world class assh*le he is.

First time I've ever been called a Troll, or an Alt. That it came in the same post is adorable. I'll also note, as it simply strengthens my own point; People who believe in ET visitation are biased towards seeing conspiracy when their views aren't met.
 
2008-07-27 09:43:22 PM
pics or it didn't happen.


/can't believe nobody has said this before...
 
2008-07-27 10:35:23 PM
ninjakirby:
Do you think ET's have visited us?
Do you think the government has been complicit in covering up those visitations?


Meh. It's all backwards. The visiting ET's...it's us. They're we. Whatever.

The REAL truth *cough* is that we've been running around the local area for (counts on toes) some 30 years and change. Just not very well. We're getting much better at it, though: lots of the ships actually make it back now with most everyone alive, and hardly a panicky disaster per flight, anymore.

All the UFO stuff is cover story for our own flights. The abduction stories are implants that cover up what the unfortunate witnesses observed when they shouldn't. A lot of their stories have weird non-sequiturs in them, like the guy in Navy uniform with a clipboard taking notes in the middle of the butt probe sequences.

Here's a secret, revealed again on Fark: what happens when you're an unfortunate witness depends on the service running the UFO you see. If it's Air Force, the PJ's running security will leave you with a memory of angels descending from above, who touched you with a wand and then you woke up and it's tomorrow! If it's Army, the SF will tune your car and leave you with a six pack for when you wake up. If it's Marines, they'll drink the beer and leave you with empties, and your gas will be siphoned off. But if it's Navy, well, there's a butt probin' coming your way.
 
2008-07-27 10:36:42 PM
erewhon:Dude - it's her very first words.

"I am here to talk about a possible link between radiation and mind control experimentation that began in the late 1940's. The main reason that mind control research is being mentioned is that people are alleging that they were exposed as children to mind control radiation"

I'm not going to sit here and write up a transcript for you. The title emblazoned across the screen "The President's Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experimentation" might be a giveaway as to the main topic of discussion.


Here is the Video (new window) again.

Here is MY transcript of the testimony is available to compare against erewhon's. Start from timecode 00:25.

My Transcript: "...is because people are alleging that they were exposed, as children, to mind control, radiation, drugs, and chemical experimentation..."

I've italicized the part of her sentence that you magically erased from your quote.

erewhon's Transcript: "...is that people are alleging that they were exposed as children to mind control radiation"

Pretty disingenuous of you to remove the punctuation at your leisure even though there was the danger of conflating separate issues. Did you intend to conflate the separate issues of Mind Control experimentation AND radiation experimentation solely to support your false assertion? Way to completely misrepresent a video testimony. What, were you hoping that people would take your word for it and not watch it themselves?

No, I'm not mischaracterizing it, the focus of the thing is "mind control radiation". Not with any proof, just anecdotal stories of having this invisible mind control radiation used on them. Given that many a schizophrenic also thinks this is true, I'd say that anecdotal 'evidence' of mind control beams is in general probably not that trustworthy.

You have mischaracterized it and poorly, too. I can only assume that you did so intentionally because the video does not leave very much doubt that she was discussing separate experimentation rather than conflating them as you did. I encourage anyone else to click the video link provided and match it to erewhon's summation. Dishonest? Yep.

I see that you focus on the sexual abuse part - let me hazard a guess here - do you think you, personally, were sexually abused or mind controlled by the CIA?

Developing a habit of attacking the messenger, are we?

How's that working out for you today?
 
2008-07-27 11:15:55 PM
that_other_internet:
Pretty disingenuous of you to remove the punctuation at your leisure even though there was the danger of conflating separate issues. Did you intend to conflate the separate issues of Mind Control experimentation AND radiation experimentation solely to support your false assertion? Way to completely misrepresent a video testimony. What, were you hoping that people would take your word for it and not watch it themselves?


No, they can watch it all they'd like, and they'll see people who claim to have been not only mind controlled, but drugged, irradiated and tortured all at the same time. However, there's not much evidence that any of that happened, other than their testimonies. And it's a bit odd that they got every sort of thing at once, considering you generally want to sort of alter one variable at a time in an experiment. The fact that they're mental - is that a result of such experiments, or is it the source of a delusion? There's not much evidence that MK Ultra ever resulted in a successful method of "mind control", although IIRC Gottleib stated that he was convinced you could use Ericksonian techniques to make a patsy.

Actually, I'm pretty sure that the entire alternate personality thing was an Erickson trick, he had previously managed to totally delete the primary personality of one woman and create a new one in its place at her request, at least that's how it was documented.



Developing a habit of attacking the messenger, are we?

How's that working out for you today?


Pretty well in this case considering you avoided answering me - a lot of people who are really into this are also convinced they are being mind controlled by the CIA. Tell me, were you diagnosed with schizotypal pd, or just schizophrenia?
 
2008-07-27 11:19:55 PM
technicolor-misfit: I've been in Nevada, that doesn't mean I know what goes on at "Area 51."

Nevada? You have? What can you tell us!?! It's true isn't it! I knew it!!
 
2008-07-27 11:31:54 PM
erewhon: Developing a habit of attacking the messenger, are we?

How's that working out for you today?

Pretty well in this case considering you avoided answering me - a lot of people who are really into this are also convinced they are being mind controlled by the CIA. Tell me, were you diagnosed with schizotypal pd, or just schizophrenia?


Oh, you wound me, sir.

Well, I'm very surprised that such a rational skeptic as yourself is willing to jump to conclusions so readily. Isn't that the sort of behavior that a rational thinker like yourself is here to discourage?
 
Displayed 50 of 217 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report