From: Michael Hughes <michaelmhughes.nul> Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 15:00:38 -0400 Archived: Fri, 21 Jun 2013 08:46:47 -0400 Subject: Re: Scattered Not Unified >From: Jason Gammon <boyinthemachine.nul> >To: <post.nul> >Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 16:43:55 -0400 (EDT) >Subject: Re: Scattered Not Unified >Mr. Ledger, >You have misunderstood me. You are a confabulator, as am I, as >we are both human. Confabulation is the creation of a false >memory, something untrue. A memory can be completely invented. A >real memory can be warped to include details, even intricate >details, that were not part of the real experience. >Confabulation is a part of being human. We do not store memories >like in the manner of a machine. We alter, change, add to, and >even subtract from memories constantly. >I am not denying the reality of alien abducton. Nor am I >claiming abductess should not be believed at all. I am merely >stating the abduction narratives told by abductees can not be >taken at face value because they most likely contain >confabulation. This confabulation may be small, it may be large, >and in some cases the entire experience may be confabulated. The >job of the abduction researcher is to separate the wheat from >the chaff, if you will Yes it is. However, when our "proofs" are limited to scant physical evidence, we're left to interpret stories told by the experiencers. And evaluating stories is subjective business. What you might find convincing I might find questionable. >So let me give you a couple examples of confabulation. Jacobs >has spoken and written about how many abductees claim that the >aliens do something to them to preven them from seeing their >faces, making their faces blurry. These abductees who claim this >usually add that this was done to them to prevent them >experiencing fear and panic. Jacobs believes this is >confabulation, as in it is something the abductee has invented, >a fantasy, and not a part of the actual experience. Jacobs has >stated that if you push past this in hypnosis the person will >realize it's not true, that they can see the faces. Jacobs also >notes that the aliens have shown their faces many times to the >abductees in the past so it doesn't make sense that all of a >sudden the aliens decid to mask their faces. This is an example >of a small bit of confabulation. And you assume Jacobs is correct. I don't. Jacobs has his biases, and I find some of his conclusions to be questionable. How can you assume that people saying the alien faces are blurred are confabulating? Because that's what Jacobs said? >For a possible example of a larger, more detailed version of >confabulation you may recall the experienes of the alleged >abductee, Betty Andreasson. Her detailed, "spiritual >experiences" smack of fantasy, inventions she created herself. >Now, I know her case is controversial and that at least one >alleged relative came forward saying it was a hoax. However, if >she is a real abductee then her spiritualy-related claims can be >interpreted as being confabulation. Now, I'm not saying she >wasn't abducted. I'm not saying she hasn't had real experiences. >I'm just saying the spiritual-related claims of her experience >are suspect and may be confabulation. This is why we must be >cautious when dealing with the narratives from abductees. Again, you are making assumptions based on your own biases instead of just listening objectively to what Andreasson herself said about *her* experiences. You have shown your bias in favor of physical ETs in spaceships abducting people and you've dismissed their accounts of experiences that don't fit within that belief system, like poltergeist activity, increased psychic abilities, and other phenomena that don't fit within a technological framework. So what if an alien decided to use their projection abilities to induce a spiritual experience in Betty? Maybe they are interested in spiritual beliefs and used Betty to study them. It's certainly possible, isn't it? Even from your mechanistic reality tunnel, it's not outside the realm of possibility. But you're ready to dump it as "confabulation" while accepting other details. Think about it=97we're dealing with subjective experiences and what people remember or recall. We're not dealing with any physical, smoking-gun evidence that your preferred scenario is correct, outside of some scars, peripheral witness accounts, and occasional landing traces. I find *any* conclusion premature, and I think the most practical approach is to say "I don't know" when it comes to what the experiencers tell us. All we have are their stories, but selectively choosing the details we wan to believe are "true" because they fit what we want to believe is self-deception. Michael M. Hughes -------------------------- BLACKWATER LIGHTS My debut novel from Random House (Hydra) On sale July 16th! http://tinyurl.com/ln63fo4 Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast At: http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/sdi/program/ These contents above are copyright of the author and UFO UpDates - Toronto. They may not be reproduced without the express permission of both parties and are intended for educational use only.
[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp