Abduction

[bluecat]

It is so hard to know where to begin.

First, there's flawed methodology. It's called "selection." Selecting only those cases that you believe support you hypothesis, which in turn, are used to support you hypothesis. This is circular and begs the question.

There is also self selection in the sense that others have pointed out. People who approach Jacobs and Hopkins are aware of their views and their expectations. This automatically filters their data.

There is experimeter bias. This is why double blind studies were developed. When a researcher or even a subject has expectations about an outcome, through no fault of their own, they can skew the results.

Leading a subject can be very, very subtle, so subtle that it's absolutely invisible in a transcript. Just vary the inflection of "I see" or "un huh." Approval, indifference, distain . . . it's all in the tone of voice. Just think of all the ways you can say "I see."

Wouldn't you think at least once in a while a hybrid would get run over by a car and get taken to an emergency room?

Do other researchers see what Jacobs and Hopkins see? If this is so pervasive how can they not?

It reminds me of a line from Dylan: You know something's happening here, but you don't know what it is, do you Mr. Jones . . . or Jacobs . . . or Hopkins.

I hasten to add that none of this makes them wrong.

Bluecat

 

[UBERDOINK]

it's a case of confirmation bias. They find what they are looking for, and they won't find things they aren't looking for.

Sounds simple, but even the economists in a recent issue pointed out that a anonymous poll on main stream scientists shows 14%- 49% "fudge" their numbers to fit their hypothesis.

Interesting study, and only one of quite a few that can infer how unreliable science is.

 

[conor]

it's a case of confirmation bias. They find what they are looking for, and they won't find things they aren't looking for.

Sounds simple, but even the economists in a recent issue pointed out that a anonymous poll on main stream scientists shows 14%- 49% "fudge" their numbers to fit their hypothesis.

Interesting study, and only one of quite a few that can infer how unreliable science is.

True enough, but do Budd and David go through the rigour of peer review as any reputable scientist must? I wonder if either of them have ever had or tried to get any of their work published in a scientific journal, perhaps one dealing with psychology? If not, then that means that any "fudging" that goes on is not assessed by other people, and thus the fudging stays present in their work without being pointed out by a peer (unless they read each other's work, after which they might end up debating the finer points of alien-human hybrids!).

 

[threed]

I must be a terrible person, but I still feel myself tending toward the "manifestation of the collective unconscious" for abductions. Reading Jacobs' book -- THE THREAT -- I see nothing particularly imaginative in these reports. Encounters with the Alien/Other are depicted in a rather hackneyed way. The ideas were frankly old in B-grade sci fi movies from the fifties.

I see nothing being described under hypnosis that seems like evidence of a true encounter with something from beyond human experience. It all seems pretty consistent with rather unimaginative human imagination. If they even read modern sci fi, they would get better ideas worked out in greater detail.

I'm not discounting the possibility that alien cultures really are boring and based on B-grade movies from the fifties. God knows they must be getting enough of our transmissions. [BTW -- Is this the "real" reason for the recent switch to digital? ] But nothing really persuades me that this is not just a manifestation of the human unconscious.

I know, I'm a terrible person.

 

[Ally]

threed,
I think some of these experiences could very well be that. I don't think it explains everything.

I am also curious about the "real" reason for switching over to digital.

 

[mikec]

Okay - I am gunna defend both Dave & Budd.

Lemme start by saying this: I am involved with a documentary, I am doing research - and I have events in my life that “seem” to indicate (maybe) some sort of abduction event.

I visited and interviewed both of them and in the last two years. I'll add that on a personal level, I like 'em both.

Each of them showed me their offices where they log their work. I am not kidding, it was amazing how much they have amassed. Dave Jacob's has (literally) an entire ROOM full of cassette tapes of interviews. It was all organized and tidy, but the volume of tapes was impressive.

I also looked at the drawings done by the alleged abductees of Budd. These were neatly stored in flat files, and it was - again - a very impressive collection. I'll add, this was some very creepy stuff.

Later, Budd showed me a laundry basket full of letters. The letters were stored and separated into a series of manila folders, with titles on the files like: probable abduction and interior of craft. He took out a letter at random, and read it aloud. It was an apology and a cry for help all wrapped up together.

“I’m sorry to bother you but something is happening and I am desperately seeking your help...”

Budd commented that he gets a LOT of these letters. I looked at the laundry basket and asked, “Are these from last year?” and he replied: “These are from last MONTH!” And he went on to explain he gets the same volume of mail week after week, and year after year - since the MISSING TIME book in the late 80’s.

He is a caring guy, and he was genuinely sad that he was unable to help each of these people. He spoke of how he had to simply ignore most of these letters, simply because he doesn’t have the time.

Okay - paranoia is a psychological malady. It can be defined by a specialist, and it has been seen, documented and treated over the centuries.

I feel strongly that the alien abduction phenomenon is something different. People are reporting SUCH similar things, all without knowing what others are reporting. Some of the details are of such specificity (and these reoccur) that it is VERY difficult to dismiss the pattern in these reports. But, there is something in our nature that is very quick to dismiss them, and with contempt.

I am intrigued at how this subject can cause such divergent views, even on a very open-minded forum like the PARACST. The abduction thing is the bastard child that everyone wants to ignore or dismiss.

Budd and Dave are cataloging a LOT of information, and they are reporting very disturbing patterns.

The details that they are reporting are just TOO similar (sometimes, literally identical) to be written off as manipulative hypnotherapist leading a gullible patient.

Could it ALL be just a few leading hypnotherapist creating something out of nothing? This simply does NOT fit the data (and yes, the data is suspect, but there is a LOT of it). In my opinion, the reports are just TOO consistent to ignore.

QUESTION: If there was some unknown psychological flaw in the human psyche that could create such bizarre stories with such exacting similarities between so many people?

If Budd and Dave say they are seeing patterns in their research, I believe them. They go on to make a conclusion on what these patterns indicate, and this is speculation, true enough. But, I want to hear what they have to say. They are NOT talking off the cuff, if they are verbalizing their conclusions on a public forum (like THE PARACAST) they have thought about it long and hard. They do NOT make these claims lightly.

Do Budd and Dave make conclusions that seem hard to back up? Dear Lord - Yes.

Do Budd and Dave maliciously (or unconsciously) bolster the data to make their claims? No, I truly don’t think they do.

If they are tinkering with the data (and they may be doing it on a subconscious human level) and it impacts their conclusion, I understand that. I personally think the “real” truth is even WEIRDER than what they conclude. Whatever that might mean.

If there is a flaw in this messy business of abduction research, it might be that these two are somehow focusing on their own data in a way that doesn’t include some other conclusions. For instance, someone like Dr. Leo Sprinkle (who I LOVE!) makes claims that are wildly divergent from theirs (he’s very expansive in his thinking, and he factors in all kinds of “fringe” concepts). Both Dave & Budd are at odds with Leo’s conclusions. Personally, I think both sides are incomplete, but they bring some very real (and very important) puzzle pieces to the table.

It may be impossible to have this pool of researchers to come to agreement on their data. All I can do is try and fit these divergent puzzle pieces together in a way that allows for a slight bit more clarity. But THAT might be extremely difficult.

I am truly impressed with these two researchers. Do I agree with their data? From what I’ve seen, they are amassing something quite impressive. And I feel that much of it is valid and honest.

Do I “BELIVE” that their conclusions are correct? Some stuff, maybe? This is a slippery subject, can I even “try” to answer this. I find their conclusions fascinating, something to contemplate. But part of me is just too freaked-out to say that it could be literal truth.

I strongly suggest folks read SIGHT UNSEEN. In it, Budd shares some extremely strange stories that fall outside the boundaries of the “standard” abduction scenario.


I just posted this exact same reply on another thread titled: JUNE 14th Jacobs/Hopkins

 

[Jonah]

I'm just gonna throw this out there as I don't think it's been addressed.

We -assume- that those who work with Abductees - Hopkins, Jacobs, Mack and I'll include Martin Jasek here because I think he's a sort of magnet for very credible Abductees to share their stories with - see "A Praying Mantis Account" and "Abduction on the North Canol Road", we assume that they do so in an attempt to prove the reality of the phenomena to the world at large. It could be that they think so as well. I don't know. But I think that their efforts work on another level, one that -could- be motivated not by them, but by those who are perpetrating the phenomenon themselves. There is a benefit to the work that only those who have experienced such things realize. I know I'm not being clear here, but it seems as though they are led somehow. Jacobs alluded to this in the show, although not directly.

What I do know is that Abductees/Experiencers find solace, comfort and companionship in the work of these men. There is value, when one leads as Jacobs refers to it- a "Secret Life"- in knowing that one does not lead it alone. And as funny as it sounds, it may explain why some remember nothing while others remember more and some are driven to seek these men out to share their stories. And why many often find reflections of their own experience while reading the experiences of others. Is this on purpose?

So I suppose what I'm trying to say is that the criticisms towards the methodology and motivations of these researchers expressed by anyone non 'experienced' is, I think, totally understood by "Secret Life" livers. It's hard enough to believe, let alone live with themselves.

That said, maybe the work was never truly meant for the "non experienced" in the first place. Could it be that they are simply bystanders in something whose working may be much more profound?

Not sayin its the way it is, but simply something I've entertained.

FWIW...

 

[Ally]

As an experiencer I have always wanted the truth. It is comforting to have people understand what you are talking about and be heard at first. After having the label abductee many of my life experiences were pointing in other directions.

If I were to use Jacobs/Hopkin's worldview the people that I remembered in these experiences were all screen memories. I don't buy that explanation for my particular case. I am at the point of wanting someone that is as objective as possible to look into this.

If I went to an old school psychiatrist and just told that person about certain memories I could only imagine what kind of diagnosis I would get to fit the established view of that era. If the shrink put me on whatever medication that would not be helpful to me. If the old school shrink asked to bring in my mother in to blame her that would also not be helpful to me.

I know this is a stupid analogy but that is how I view at least what I heard on the paracast about Hopkins and Jacobs. It doesn't reflect their intentions as much as their conclusions and how does this help the individual? I have had very caring doctors trying all kinds of antibiotics to bring down a fever but the fever kept getting worse. It wasn't until a different doctor was brought in that found out that the cause of my fever was not bacterial.

 

[skunkape]

- see "A Praying Mantis Account"

I have seen the beings described here. I couldn't make out the faces of the hooded beings, but the mantis thing, I have seen. Creepy bastards.
<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden">
<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden">

 

[Gareth]

I think everyone is missing the main the key point of the thread. Lucky Im here to get to the bottom of things...

UBER - what the fuck is that in your avatar? And will something bad happen to me now because I stared at it for like 10 seconds and the eyes shifted and looked straight at me?

 

[DavidRavenMoon]

I'm not discounting the possibility that alien cultures really are boring and based on B-grade movies from the fifties. God knows they must be getting enough of our transmissions.

That whole thing needs to be put to rest, and is the same reason we don't hear anything with SETI. I doubt we ever will either. (Why would they use radio if they can talk to you telepathically?)

Even if some civilization was in the path of our signals... how would they view them? They wouldn't, and couldn't.

They would need exactly the same equipment that the signals were designed to be played on. I have old computer disks I can't read with files I can't open, even if I could read the disks. And they are only about 15 years old!

It's just a big myth that somewhere out in space aliens are watching our old TV shows or listening to our old radio shows. That's sci-fi, forget the abductions!

And threed, I'm not picking on you, but you always seem to bring these tired ideas up.

Nothing in the abduction phenomena is from sci-fi. If it was, it would look like sci-fi, with human looking beings with funny ears and green skin, and silly sci-fi names like Zorak or something, and silver clothes with pointy collars. And they would talk with their mouths and have a funny accent... just like in movies. Then they would tell us their grand scheme and all about some federation of planets or some crap. That's sci-fi.

But we don't get that... we get small and larger gray beings, with no ears, no nose and not much of a mouth, no clothes and little indication of gender, who did not come from any sci-fi we had up until they started being reported, and we get a lot of high-strangeness. They don't behave like humans, as they would in sci-fi. They have no facial expressions, and don't gesture with their hands when they "talk" as humans do. They move in unison in a really freaky way. Why would people just keep making up the same story? Ego would prevent that. People come up with their own stories.

They do things that make very little sense to us. If people confabulated the stories they would have motives for their actions. You wouldn't see things that you can't understand, because you can't make up things you can't understand... they all come from your mind... you thought them up. It would only be as much as your imagination could create. That's why all our sci-fi is very similar, and even our art and music. It's from human experience. That's not what's seen in these cases though.

Then you have the fact that many people had no idea any of that happened... they have no memory of it. The hypnosis brings out things there people didn't know about.. so they hadn't sat and made up a story.

It also happens to very young children who interpret it not as sci-fi.. because they don't understand that stuff yet. And many of these people have years of anxiety and emotional problem from the trauma of something they didn't even remember happening. You don't get that if you make up a story.

Then there are the unpublicized facts that are repeated all over the world and the fact that abductions have happened to multiple people at the same time, and have been witnessed as they were happening.

All those things preclude them being all from the imagination of the abductees. Plus an imagined abduction would not be the horrible traumatic experience that it is. You cannot think of pain. You remember it, but you cannot make your self experience it.

Then you have to explain how I was shown information that I didn't know before hand, and some at an age where I wouldn't have known such things.

Sorry, but it's a weak argument at best. It's like saying all UFO sightings are the planet venus or swamp gas. It's a blanket statement that ignores the facts on hand. Some abductions are confabulated, but this is why the researches screen the people, not as a form of selection.

 

[threed]

Sorry, but it's a weak argument at best. It's like saying all UFO sightings are the planet venus or swamp gas. It's a blanket statement that ignores the facts on hand.

That's the problem. You have no "facts on hand." This is why mainstream science generally ignors you.

The fact that a minor industry has emerged in (frequently self-published) books on the paranormal does not constitute proof of anything.

In another thread, you assured me that you can distinguish when something is real. You demonstrated this fact by correctly identifying a duck and a computer keyboard. But a duck and a computer keyboard are quite distinct from abduction by little grey aliens onto a spaceship to perform anal probes...

Even your personal example provides difficulties in dealing with the phenomenon. I merely disagreed with you and provided a few brief reasons why. To this you became very personal and repeatedly insulting. Had I continued, I have little doubt that you would have resorted to threats of physical violence.

Clearly, this demonstrates that you are mentally unstable. Combined with the fact that you think you are a "witch" (which has generally been regarded as a form of fantasy folk, along with elves, hobgoblins and fairies...) and it is further clear that you engage in delusional thinking.

How then can anyone take seriously anything you claim to have witnessed?

This is what makes the entire matter very hard to deal with.

 

[DavidRavenMoon]

That's the problem. You have no "facts on hand." This is why mainstream science generally ignors you.

There is plenty of evidence, and not all mainstream science ignores it. So you are obviously ignorant of the facts.

In another thread, you assured me that you can distinguish when something is real. You demonstrated this fact by correctly identifying a duck and a computer keyboard. But a duck and a computer keyboard are quite distinct from abduction by little grey aliens onto a spaceship to perform anal probes...

OK, you just demonstrated that you are not very smart. I'm not insulting you, I'm stating a fact based on you not being able to discern a simile.

You asked an asinine question that would only be satisfied if it agreed with your predetermined idea of what was the correct answer.

I said you were a skeptic who didn't read up on the data, and you went on to tell me that I didn't know you, blah, blah, blah, so I said if you walk like a duck, and quack like a duck, you are a duck. That means you are a skeptic based on everything you post. Unless "science" says it's true, you don't believe it. That's terribly naïve. That had nothing to do with knowing if something was real.

The other example that went over your head was you asked me how I knew something was real, so I asked you how you knew you were sitting and typing that message, and what color your shoes were. So how do you know? You didn't answer.

Was that clear enough for you? You might actually glean some new ideas if you opened up your thinking.

You assume that your limited thinking is the concrete answer of things based on what I assume is your incomplete understanding of science in general. The only people agreeing with you are people like Michael Shermer and James Randi, and they also don't look at any of the data. They go into a situation with their minds made up. And neither is even qualified to make any determinations on the subjects that they investigate. Same is true of Penn Jillette. They aren't even scientists!

You have not yet backed up any of the nonsense you are spewing that you think has any basis in science, or whatever... like the whole sci-fi thing. I showed you why that was totally flawed thinking, but since you didn't get a simple simile, you surely didn't understand any of that.

Be happy in your little confined world.

 

[cyberknight]

I have old computer disks I can't read with files I can't open, even if I could read the disks. And they are only about 15 years old!

LOL... me too... and I can't seem to throw them away either..

But we don't get that... we get small and larger gray beings, with no ears, no nose and not much of a mouth, no clothes and little indication of gender, who did not come from any sci-fi we had up until they started being reported, and we get a lot of high-strangeness. They don't behave like humans, as they would in sci-fi. They have no facial expressions, and don't gesture with their hands when they "talk" as humans do. They move in unison in a really freaky way. Why would people just keep making up the same story? Ego would prevent that. People come up with their own stories.

They do things that make very little sense to us. If people confabulated the stories they would have motives for their actions. You wouldn't see things that you can't understand, because you can't make up things you can't understand... they all come from your mind... you thought them up. It would only be as much as your imagination could create. That's why all our sci-fi is very similar, and even our art and music. It's from human experience. That's not what's seen in these cases though.

Very good point... The stories about the visitors has not change all that much in 60 years and I don't see the next 60 years being any different.

Someone is going to have to speak to their choreographer.. I mean, 60 years and no dance routine?? .. c'mon ...

 

[DavidRavenMoon]

LOL... me too... and I can't seem to throw them away either..

I still have a SCSI Iomega Zip drive hooked up to my Mac via a SCSI card.. just in case I need someone on one of the dozens of Zip disks I have in boxes in the basement!

I keep telling myself to let it go...

Very good point... The stories about the visitors has not change all that much in 60 years and I don't see the next 60 years being any different.

Someone is going to have to speak to their choreographer.. I mean, 60 years and no dance routine?? .. c'mon ...

I certainly don't think every story I read is real... but the "explanations" that so-called "experts" propose are just lame! It's an ego thing, it's based only on what they know in their own head, and their personal opinion. If it makes no sense to them, it can't be happening. Except it's never preceded by "in my opinion..." and is made out to be some universally known fact.

I think a good example would be people reporting ghosts. People will continue to see them, even if they don't know that a certain place is haunted. But science can't detect them, so it's all in the people's minds, and has nothing to do with them not being able to detect it.

It's like the "phantom" cat thing in the house where I grew up. A lot of people saw it, and without me saying anything about it. People who would come to my house for the very first time would inevitably comment that they saw a cat, or they didn't know I had a cat, etc. I'd ask them what they saw, and it was a black cat with green eyes. And even before I was born my brother and his friends saw it.

So there's an example that just by experiential evidence we can state factually that people saw a cat in that house where there was no cat. That's not explaining the cause, and that remains unknown. But you can't prove it with science, until science figured out what causes it. And most scientists just aren't interested in studying the paranormal because they can't get research grants for that work. So they might be interested but don't want to ruin their carrier. And that really has nothing to do with science as much as it does making a living.

If we didn't study unknown things, we wouldn't learn anything new. And science studies unknown things all the time.. as long as they can make some money off it.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

You assume that your limited thinking is the concrete answer of things based on what I assume is your incomplete understanding of science in general. The only people agreeing with you are people like Michael Shermer and James Randi, and they also don't look at any of the data. They go into a situation with their minds made up. And neither is even qualified to make any determinations on the subjects that they investigate. Same is true of Penn Jillette. They aren't even scientists!

I recently saw what Penn and Teller had to say about Alien Abductions, and I have to say that they brought up a lot of good points. Also, the people they interviewed were complete nut jobs.
I have a lot of respect for James Randi and people like him. They have proved a lot of people to be complete frauds.

 

[DavidRavenMoon]

I recently saw what Penn and Teller had to say about Alien Abductions, and I have to say that they brought up a lot of good points. Also, the people they interviewed were complete nut jobs.
I have a lot of respect for James Randi and people like him. They have proved a lot of people to be complete frauds.

Come on man... Penn and Teller? You trust Penn and Teller to give you their opinion on an important subject like this? They, as well as Randi are not scientist! They are stage magicians! Entertainers! All they know is how to trick people. So therefore they think everything that they can't explain must be a trick! They are not open minded people. They have their mind made up. They are debunkers.

So what is their motivation? They make money doing this stuff. They are not ufologist, or any other kind of researchers. Penn wants you to buy his book.

Maybe we should stick to asking entertainers about these things... let's see... we can get Howard Stern and Ryan Seacrest to teach us about physics!

Also you mentioned it yourself that they hand picked "nut jobs" to use as subjects. because they can find some hoaxers doesn't prove that everyone is hoaxing. That's faulty and self serving logic.

Also, you say they make good points. What literature on the subject have you read to compare it to their points?

There have been very educated professional people, with a lot more credentials than Penn & Teller or James Randi, and even Michael Shermer (who is also not a scientist), who have had abduction experiences. But you don't see them being debunked by these people, because they can't.

All Penn and Teller and Randi can do is to figure out how to fake something that resembles something else. That's not proof of anything, except that they are clever stage magicians.

I liked The Amazing Randi when I was a kid. He was entertaining. I like Penn and Teller too for their stage act. They are funny. That doesn't make them an expert on anything but what they do.

They are not qualified to be investigating UFO related subjects. Their opinions mean nothing. They have done no research, and haven't looked at any data. And there is a LOT of data to look at.

Instead of wasting everyone's time proving people are hoaxers, they can pt that energy into really looking into the subject to figure out what's going on. But they would never do that, because they have their minds made up on the subject without doing any research. Just their personal opinion based on the limited knowledge they have on the subject. If you respect them, it's because you don't think that abductions are really happening, and they validate your feelings. And none of that has anything to do with the truth of what's going on.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

Dude, you have chillax a little. There have been no absolute irrefutable facts that people have been abducted by beings from other planets. Sorry...
So until someone serves it up on a dinner plate for me showing me pictures and video that it's definitely someone from another planet experimenting on people, I won't believe it.
Don't think I'm calling all people who have experienced things liars or kooks - I am not. All I am saying is that we can't be certain what has happened to them. We can't jump the gun and say "OMG it's aliens!!!!!" There's a strong possibility that it's something that it's something much more plausible.
Also, just because someone isn't a scientist, it doesn't mean that they can't use scientific method to come to a conclusion.

 

[DavidRavenMoon]

Dude, you have chillax a little.

Dude, you need to use real words. Slang is for morons. I don't need to "chill", because I have no patience for stupidity. Nor am I intent on getting any in the foreseeable future. And don't call me "dude". If you want someone to take your seriously, learn to communicate like an adult.

There have been no absolute irrefutable facts that people have been abducted by beings from other planets. Sorry...

And there has not been any proof to the contrary. Has there? No. Sorry...

On the other hand, there have been hundreds of creditable people reporting the exact same experience, down to small details that are never published. Please explain that.

And the real number is likely in the tens of thousands, since the majority of experiencers probably don't report it, or have an experience that is not overtly "alien" such as myself. Also a good number of them just can't remember the experience. These are the facts based on the sheer number of reported cases.

So until someone serves it up on a dinner plate for me showing me pictures and video that it's definitely someone from another planet experimenting on people, I won't believe it.

Pictures and video don't prove anything. And we have a lot of photos and video of UFOs. You can't deny that they exist. That also doesn't mean they are extraterrestrial. We don't know that these entities are from another planet. We don't know anything about them. We probably couldn't understand it either. That's YOU making assumptions. You have your mind made up, so why are you even here? So don't believe it. I wont lose any sleep, and you will be in your safe little world.

Don't think I'm calling all people who have experienced things liars or kooks - I am not. All I am saying is that we can't be certain what has happened to them. We can't jump the gun and say "OMG it's aliens!!!!!" There's a strong possibility that it's something that it's something much more plausible.

Why? Why is it not plausible that it might be non human entities? We have a large volume of evidence that NHEs have been here as long as we have. But people have been brain washed to not believe in such things. It might be a normal part of existence. We don't know everything.

Some of the "plausible" explanations are less plausible than saying what happened to these people is exactly what they experienced. Debunkers get more out on a limb to come up with some kind of explanation, and if they really researched the subject, they would see that the explanation is more ridiculous than saying that non human entities are interacting with humans.

Also, just because someone isn't a scientist, it doesn't mean that they can't use scientific method to come to a conclusion.

They aren't using the scientific method! They aren't even that smart. Also, the scientific method is flawed when it comes to things that we really can't understand. You need to come up with a hypothesis before you can do any testing, and if you haven't a clue about the underlying mechanism of something, how are you going to reach a testable hypothesis? They can reach any conclusion they like, they still can't prove any of them. It's only their biased opinion.

And sometimes you just can't come to a conclusion. That's assuming we know everything. Did you know, we don't even have "absolute irrefutable facts" that matter is made from atoms? None whatsoever. It's a theory based partly on some observations of single particles. But the "standard" state of matter is waves, and they contain no particles, or even matter that can be detected, without changing reality, and collapsing the wave, which then renders a particle.

My point in that is that we really know very little about reality. We have a number of assumptions based on observations and math that seems to work, most of the time, but is flawed and has serious holes.

My suggestion to you is to actually read up on the subject by some reputable authors. If you have done no research, how can you make up your mind on a subject? That's not the scientific method either. Not knowing the facts is ignorance about a subject. No conclusions can be reach based on ignorance.

And using some show biz entertainers to tell you what's real and not is just absurd. No one can take that seriously. What's next, cartoons?

 

[Angel of Ioren]

Listen DavidRavenMoon, I'd appreciate it if you didn't start your reply by calling me a moron. Really, was that necessary? It's quite childish.

I am open to any explanation as long as there's decent proof, but you don't seem to be. You think that it has to be something other than what is in the known universe. I also understand that there's a hell of a lot we don't know about the universe, that still doesn't mean that's what this is. Have you ever read "The Demon-Haunted World" by Carl Sagan? It's an excellent read on critical thinking. I highly suggest that you read it. Especially the chapter about Aliens.

Another thing, I never denied that UFO's exist. They definitely do and there are many credible eye witnesses. My main point is that we do not know what they are! We can't jump the gun and say they are aliens or non-human-entities. Please point me to the large body of evidence showing that there are non-human-entities around us. I'll gladly read it.