From: Jason Gammon <boyinthemachine.nul> Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2013 22:53:42 -0400 (EDT) Archived: Sat, 22 Jun 2013 09:16:49 -0400 Subject: Re: Scattered Not Unified >From: Michael Hughes <michaelmhughes.nul> >To: post.nul >Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 15:00:38 -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 <snip> >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? Because Jacobs presses forward with hypnosis and catches them. According to Jacobs if you press forward with hypnosis on this subject the abductee realizes it's not true and they can see their faces. Apparently they just need help from the researcher for them to realize it's not true. Jacobs also added that the whole notion of the abductess hiding their faces makes no sense as abductees have seen their faces on many occasions. >>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. Actually, and to be honest, with the alleged Andreasson abduction I lean toward it being a hoax. When I first read the books back in the late 80s or early 90s, I was put off by the claims. I wanted to believe that she had real experiences and just perhaps confabulated the spiritual aspects. As time went on I began to lean toward it being a hoax. When the family member came forward saying it was a hoax, that was the icing on the cake for me. >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. Possible only in the sense that nothing is ever a zero percent chance of being a reality. I've touched on this practice by various Ufologists of tacking things on to the UFO phenomenon. So not only does science have to accept that UFOs are real, but they must also accept psychic abilities, E.S.P. reincarnation, astral travel, crystal healing, though projection, dowsing, and just about anything else that people seem so obsessed with combining with the phenomenon. All this practice does is guarantee that mainstream science won't touch this subject with a 1,000 foot pole. >Think about it=C2=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 Michael it's real simple. Do you believe that the U.S. has crashed wreckage and/or bodies in it's possession? If so then you can not claim the phenomenon is this wispy, ephemeral phenomenon that humans will never be able to solve or comprehend. Because there are people who must deny that the U.S. has wreckage because it would disprove their cherished magical beliefs concerning the phenomenon. These people literally do not want the phenomenon to be 'real'. They want to keep it a mystery at all costs. Of course if the U.S. does have wreckage then it would be 100% proof of the nuts-and-boldts theory. Just thought I would remind folks about this. -Jason Gammon 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