A question for all guests and members of the Paracast forum about research

[matthew1977]

The whole Rh factor argument to me is just depressing. It's 1930s science, eugenics by any other name, and a breeding ground for racist, sexist, classist, or any other waste-of-my-time delusional narratives. To this day I can't take Nick Redfern as a credible author just because he wrote that massively stupid book on the RH factor. For the OP Sean Meers, if you want to come up with a convincing narrative, I would suggest coming up with a convincing narrative. That always helps.

Kathleen Marden & Denise Stoner did a commonalities list and the RH negative factor was a common trait amongst abducttees. Being RH negative and having differences then what is "normal" makes me think their is more to it than just a myth. I have a low core body temp typically 96.8 to 97.3 yet I sweat perfusly year round even when -20 degrees outside. I am easily startled too. Google RH negative traits and you will see these traits are common amongst RH negative (along with alien abductions). On podcastufo I often have the question asked of (alledged) abducttees what blood type they are and they ALL have said RH negative.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

 

[kruggutter]

Hello everyone,

Sean here again with another question.

In regards to documentation, if it meant having the proof contained in the document (e.g. in a large appendix)
would you be tolerant of documentation that was large in size (e.g. 100 pages of statements, with 300 pages of
quotes stored in an appendix to prove those statements)?

Many thanks everyone,

Sincerely,

Sean F. Meers

www.lindacortilecase.com

 

[Burnt State]

Hello everyone,

Sean here again with another question.

In regards to documentation, if it meant having the proof contained in the document (e.g. in a large appendix)
would you be tolerant of documentation that was large in size (e.g. 100 pages of statements, with 300 pages of
quotes stored in an appendix to prove those statements)?

Many thanks everyone,

Sincerely,

Sean F. Meers

www.lindacortilecase.com

I'm not sure about that as sometimes the material being quoted as a fact is questionable in the first place or the selectivity of quotes is done in such a manner to create a version of reality, as often seen in conspiracy theories. Instead of looking at what people say happened to them or by chasing various breadcrumbs used to construct stories of plausibility I find has no convincing value in Ufology. These are simply narratives and interpretations. At the end of the day unquestionable corroborating evidence, especially physical and technical evidence is what is most important as opposed to the usual "he said/she said" that much of the mythos of Ufology is based on.

 

[Sue]

I tend to agree with Burnt State there. If you've got a solid case it shouldn't take ages to explain it or at least present enough of your best stuff to make people willing to hang around to hear a little more. It's true that in some cases there are various historical, cultural and ideological biases against taking marginalized topics or events seriously. I've run into them myself. However if after repeated attempts at bringing your best evidence to bear you're still not making your case to others, it may be time to reevaluate your premises rather than expand your appendices.

 

[boomerang]

Hey Sean,

If such information was solid and verifiable, it would be of great interest. But I would still be wary of hypnotic memory retrieval as a means of re-playing real life, physical events. Even in the case of, say, multiple witness abductees who have the same or very similar renditions under hypnosis, interesting as this could be.

Good luck in your research and keep us posted.

 

[kruggutter]

I tend to agree with Burnt State there. If you've got a solid case it shouldn't take ages to explain it or at least present enough of your best stuff to make people willing to hang around to hear a little more. It's true that in some cases there are various historical, cultural and ideological biases against taking marginalized topics or events seriously. I've run into them myself. However if after repeated attempts at bringing your best evidence to bear you're still not making your case to others, it may be time to reevaluate your premises rather than expand your appendices.

Hi Sue,

Sean here.

Thanks for your input.

I want to primarily ensure one thing with the documentation that I put together. If the reader wants to see the
proof behind the statements made, all they have to do is locate and follow the footnote number next to the
statement, to its location in the appendix where the proof behind the statement is located.

The reason I favour this approach (the larger appendix approach) is because I've read many rebuttals, to many
different issues, and some of them present nothing in the way of evidence to corroborate the statements they are
making. Statements which are presented to address and correct certain points in the material they are rebutting.
It could just be my personal preference here, but I like, when possible, to see the proof behind statements. The
reason for this is because it is simply too easy to state something unsupported. Someone can easily state something
is real, just as easily as someone can state it isn't. If, however, there is material that can prove a statement, or an
aspect of a person's case, it should be presented, and referenced, so the area of contention can be put to bed.

The large appendix approach should not necessarily mean, however, that the written material isn't concise. If something
can be stated simpler it should be. The balance in the approach I'm seeking, is concise statements, accompanied by the
proof to substantiate them.

Many thanks,

Sean

 

[kruggutter]

Hey Sean,

If such information was solid and verifiable, it would be of great interest. But I would still be wary of hypnotic memory retrieval as a means of re-playing real life, physical events. Even in the case of, say, multiple witness abductees who have the same or very similar renditions under hypnosis, interesting as this could be.

Good luck in your research and keep us posted.

Hi Boomerang,

Sean here,

Thanks for your reply.

For the past few years, I've been going through two very interesting websites called An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie and http://psycnet.apa.org.
Through these websites I've been able to purchase articles from psychiatry and medical journals. In regards to hypnosis, one of the best
journals available there is called the "International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis". That journal has been a rich resource for
locating documented cases of hypnosis being used to accurately retrieve consciously inaccessible memories. Memories which were independently
corroborated.

Probably one of the most interesting cases there was the following.

"A Verified Childhood Memory Elicited during Hypnosis”
by Robert J. Howell
Pages 141 – 142,
American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis,
Volume 8, Issue 2, October 1965

Very briefly, the case involved a person recalling and reliving, under hypnosis, a very old memory about an injury they sustained at an infant age.
The memory recalled was independently corroborated and verified by the individual's mother and grandmother.

Of the successful cases this one was interesting. Hypnosis itself is unreliable due to the human element. Every person's memory, and degree to which
they remember and store that memory, is unique. Hypnosis also has the potential to create false, confabulated memories, as it does in retrieving real
ones. Independent corroboration and verification of what is recalled is the only way to overcome the problems associated with hypnosis. The case
studies where it is successful, accurate, and independently verified, demonstrate that hypnosis used correctly can have merit with regards to accurate
memory retrieval. In short, I personally wouldn't write it off based on this.

Many thanks,

Sean

 

[Randall]

Hello everyone,

Sean F. Meers here.

I wanted to ask everyone here, regardless of your positions on all matters related to UFO and
UFO abduction research, what would each of you like to see in the documentation produced
on such research?

The reason I ask is because I spend all of my time doing research on these subjects and putting
together such documentation. As a result of that work, I've become very curious to know what
each of you out there would like to see, and what you each would personally value, in such
material.

It does not matter what position or viewpoint you hold, this question is for everyone and all
input (pro, con or debunker) is valued.

I want to produce the best research documentation possible and I feel that the more people can
tell me about what they feel should be included in such material, the better the resulting
documentation will be.

Thank you all very much for your time and I look forward to hearing from each of you.

Sincerely,

Sean F. Meers

www.lindacortilecase.com

When it comes to contentious claims it's important IMO to search out the best quality pro and con perspectives and weigh them using the principles of critical thinking so as to arrive at the most reasonable hypothesis given the available evidence, and in particular, avoid making definitive statements unless the evidence fully substantiates it, and that includes avoiding any weasel wording that might lead readers to draw biased conclusions.