From: Jason Gammon <boyinthemachine.nul> Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2013 23:28:18 -0400 (EDT) Archived: Sat, 22 Jun 2013 09:21:06 -0400 Subject: Re: Scattered Not Unified >From: William Treurniet <wtreurniet.nul> >To: post.nul >Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 13:31:23 -0400 >Subject: Re: Scattered Not Unified >>From: Jason Gammon <boyinthemachine.nul> >>To: post.nul >>Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 16:13:19 -0400 (EDT) >>Subject: Re: Scattered Not Unified >>>From: William Treurniet <wtreurniet.nul> >>>To: post.nul >>>Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 08:42:03 -0400 >>>Subject: Re: Scattered Not Unified >><snip> >>>In the absence of confirmatory evidence, the use of the word >>>'confabulation' is equivalent to the use of the word >>>'pareidolia'. The experiencer is said to be confabulating when >>>he/she describes something too odd to accept. >>>I suggest that, like 'pareidolia', 'confabulation' is not an >>>explanation, but a succinct expression of ignorance of the >>>facts. >>I'm not sure you properly comprehended my reply so let me try >>again. >>Several abduction researchers have spoken out that parts of the >>abduction narratives are fantasy. Jacobs gave an example of >>abductees who claim the aliens do something to them to cause >>their faces to appear blurry, to prevent the abductee from >>seeing their faces. The abductee usually responds this is done >>to lesson their fear. >>Jacobs believes this is confabulation, a fantasy the abductee >>has invented and added to the narrative. Jacobs argues the >>aliens have shown their faces to the abductees many times before >>so it makes no sense to all-of-a-sudden begin to mask their >>faces. This would be one example of confabulation. Confabulation >>can be simple and it can also be complex or intricate in detail. >>Part of the abduction researchers' job is to separate >>confabulation from the "real experience". However, new abduction >>researchers may not be aware of this. This is why we simply >>cannot take everything abductees claim at face value. >From the description given, I understand that Jacobs tried to >explain away what the abductee said as an invention, i.e., >confabulation, simply because it did not fit the narrative he >preferred or expected. But there may have been a good reason for >that deviation. Perhaps the abductee was particularly fearful >during this particular experience, and the ET thought hiding the >face would help allay the fear. Or, this was the first encounter >with this particular ET individual, and he was simply following >ET procedure for first encounters. In either case, the report >that the faces were hidden would have been true. No. Here's what happened with regard to Jacobs. Jacobs is skeptical of the claims by abductees that the aliens have done something to them to blur their faces as to prevent fear or panic in the abductee. Jacobs is skeptical of this because the aliens have shown their faces to abductees on many occasions starting with the first abduction. So Jacobs keeps this in his mind. From the way Jacobs worded it I do not believe Jacobs points his finger at them and calls them liars. I believe he's a bit more crafty and, as he pushes on with the hypnosis, he gets them to realize they can see the faces after all and that their belief the aliens did something was an invention. That's just the way I took it from hearing this from Jacobs. >My point was that, without 'ground truth' data, labeling a part >of the abductee's experience as confabulation requires a >subjective judgement that may not be correct. The label should >not be used to dismiss the experience as reported. Otherwise, >the researcher would be adding his/her own perspective, i.e., >making things up. That issue may arise in a scenario but in this example it's not apt. >I suggest that, unless a person is prone to serious mental >aberrations or known to be lying, his/her claims about what >happened during an alien abduction experience should actually be >taken at face value. But the claims should not be judged as true >or false until there is a better understanding of the >phenomenon. Ufology is in such a sad state that even when an alleged abductee is caught lying, caught hoaxing, even on multiple occasions, the person is still paraded around as if they were 100% legit. So obviously your take would not help us much. This whole thing makes me wonder if lab mice talked to each other like humans and if one escaped and joined the wild mice, if they would have a similar problem of discerning what of the tales the mice told were real verses what were false. I can imagine some of the escaped mice would concoct tales of being messengers from the giants while others may be a bit more accurate in the descriptions and especially if they were extremely afraid. >Abductee claims in common should lead to only interim >conclusions about the how and why of what's happening. This is >because alien intelligences seem to be involved and, by >definition, are unpredictable from a human perspective. An >abductee's claim that is unsupported because it is truly a >confabulation should fall away over time without being so >labeled. I disagree with the notion that false memories fall away with time. How can they fall away if the person doesn't realize the memory never happened or has been altered? It is my belief that unless work is done to separate the true from the false memories that the confabulation may actually increase with time. -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