• SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY A PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, seven years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Use the coupon code ufo20 to receive a 20% discount on five-year or lifetime subscriptions. And PayPal now accepts cryptocurrencies, such as Bitcoin, in payment. We also offer a second payment method for major credit or debit cards (which also includes Apple Pay and Google Pay), so act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

what age do abductions start?



Sean Elifritz

Administrator
The problem is not believe or not . Its your choice to listen to others or not! Abductions are similar to religious appearances and belief systems you hold. Both have no proof just assumptions just like most people do everyday in life.

Lol, OK. I didn't just wake up one day and decide, "I'm going to believe in alien abductions." I am basing it on something, testimony from the Weiners, Hills, Cahill, etc. What I find ironic about the "belief" and even "religious" arguments is the amount of thought I've put into it. With the 4 cases I mentioned I have read every piece of information I can get a hold of in order to make sense of them. Now, if I had a religious belief in them all of that would be unnecessary. I could simply have heard them mentioned, declared, "Sounds like a good religion to me" and left it at that. But instead I strangely decided to keep thinking about them, trying to evaluate if they were true or not, trying to tear them apart, etc. Hell, I reject 99% of abduction accounts I've heard about. There's just a handful that have stood up. If it's a religious thing for me why would I reject any?
 

NTS

Skilled Investigator
I often wonder if people who have 'paranormal' experiences from childhood might have some kind of neurological or sensory differences from the average. It could easily be a natural human variation that our culture doesn't readily accommodate. Maybe in an earlier time they'd have become seers or shaman, but those abilities aren't as sought after today.
 

trainedobserver

Paranormally Disenchanted
The UFO enigma falls outside the scope of science. It's an investigative problem. Perry Mason is needed, not Poindexter the scientist. If Perry is successful THEN Poindexter can take over. But sadly, I don't think Perry is up to the task.

You've just caused us to go to DEFCON 3 here at the atheist scientism reading room and temple ground complex.

What would Perry Mason use to "investigate" if not techniques developed through good science? Think Pinkerton. Would he use his emotional feelings about the matter, psychic impressions, hearsay, rumor, or what? Wouldn't he use proven techniques developed in the various branches of the sciences like Pinkerton was famous for introducing into legal investigation?

Nothing falls outside the scope of science. That is because science isn't limited, static, and predefined like religious or superstitious belief. It isn't a belief. Science is techniques and methodologies known to produce reliable results and we can embrace new techniques and methodologies over time as they are proven to be true and reliable. Can I get a "Praise Shockley!" or a "Thanks be to Sir Alexander Fleming!" ? ;)
 

Sean Elifritz

Administrator
You've just caused us to go to DEFCON 3 here at the atheist scientism reading room and temple ground complex.

What would Perry Mason use to "investigate" if not techniques developed through good science? Think Pinkerton. Would he use his emotional feelings about the matter, psychic impressions, hearsay, rumor, or what? Wouldn't he use proven techniques developed in the various branches of the sciences like Pinkerton was famous for introducing into legal investigation?

Nothing falls outside the scope of science. That is because science isn't limited, static, and predefined like religious or superstitious belief. It isn't a belief. Science is techniques and methodologies known to produce reliable results and we can embrace new techniques and methodologies over time as they are proven to be true and reliable. Can I get a "Praise Shockley!" or a "Thanks be to Sir Alexander Fleming!" ? ;)

If that's even half true than why when a kidnapping happens do people call the police instead of scientists? And would you consider your local police to be scientists? Be honest, if somebody you know has been kidnapped and you've got Columbo standing there and a really, really good geologist but you can only have one of them to work on the case which one are you going to choose? Fact: Investigations find things. Science studies them after investigators have been successful. Now that doesn't mean that an investigator can't have scientific knowledge or that an investigation can't have a scientific bent to it. But if you're going to find a perp to later do a scientific examination of them the investigating part has to come first. And that's the whole problem with the way scientists look at the UFO phenomenon. They want to put the cart before the horse. They want the answer before the question, demand a body or saucer to magically appear in their laboratory before they'll consider launching any kind of investigation that has a chance of producing one. It would be akin to telling a policeman that your father has been kidnapped (And hey, chances are you're going to have no proof of it to offer when making your report) and the police officer doing nothing but waiting for your father to suddenly fall into his lap. If the officer conducts an investigation he might find your father but if he doesn't he certainly won't.

So I postulated that this subject will never be proven (Even if it's real). I stand by that. Even something as simple as meteors managed to allude science for a very long time, and meteors aren't even intelligent nor are they attempting to evade discovery! And why, because scientists were too busy scoffing to launch any kind of investigation. If you don't investigate you can't find something. Yes, in order to prove this they'd have to be Perry Mason first, Poindexter later. And yes, I am of the opinion that even if they did get over their egos long enough to don their detective outfits in an attempt to prove the reality of this phenomenon the chances of success would be very, very low. It's one thing to finally stop laughing and start investigating rocks allegedly falling from the sky. It's another matter entirely to try outwitting something as reportedly mysterious and fantastical as UFOs and their occupants. My guess on the chances of proving UFOs exist (Supposing they do) given science's current attitude that they won't be interested until it's proven: 0%. My estimates of successfully proving it if science was on-board and actively investigating: 2-3%. Just guesses of course, but seems in the ballpark to me.
 

trainedobserver

Paranormally Disenchanted
Fact: Investigations find things. Science studies them after investigators have been successful.

I think you've missed my point. Any proven reliable investigative technique that anyone could possibly use would by definition be "good science " and or the product of it. Fingerprints ...science. Cause and effect ...science. Behavioral psychology ...science. That's why they call it ... criminal science.
 

Sean Elifritz

Administrator
I think you've missed my point. Any proven reliable investigative technique that anyone could possibly use would by definition be "good science " and or the product of it. Fingerprints ...science. Cause and effect ...science. Behavioral psychology ...science. That's why they call it ... criminal science.

And you're missing my point. :( You can't prove something sitting in your lab saying, "Where's the proof?" A caveman armed with no science whatsoever but investigating would have a better chance of proving it than that person would.
 

Hotkafka

Sanity is a default
And you're missing my point. :( You can't prove something sitting in your lab saying, "Where's the proof?" A caveman armed with no science whatsoever but investigating would have a better chance of proving it than that person would.

Methodology aside, bias exists everywhere. And that includes science. And why? Because people holding these biases have to do the science... And this shouldn't be a shocking revelation for anyone who has had exposure to research -it's a well covered topic and one that any researcher will admit to. Of course there tends to be greater levels of bias in those approaches which do not use the benefit of the scientific method, which at least acknowleges bias and makes attempts to limit them.

I think the weakness in the scientific approach is its unyielding devotion to the Newtonian/Cartesian paradigm - or as Ken Wilber likes to call the limitations of this variety of thinking, "Flatland." I.e. those observations that fail to result in any logical explanation tend to get labled as psychological in nature, or as tricks of perception. And it's always, "lets build a better mousetrap" if the subject of the research proves to be too elusive, as if adding more iron to the cannonball is going to make it float. Bad analogy, but I think you know what I mean.
 

tyder001

Paranormal Adept
Here's the thing. There is no "Science" ! OMG! You didn't just say that? What? Creationist! Baboon! Anti intellectual fool! Religious Fanatic! Son of a Bitch! Bastards! They killed Kenny!

Wait, the last one doesn't go in there. It goes into the "cartoon" thread. But, I digress. :)

There are people who are doctors and lawyers and "Social Workers" and pschcologist. There are people who are Cosmologist and Cell Biologist.nuclear
physicist and other disciplines. All these people and more "DO Science!" They are looking and discovering great things that the "human/divine" mind reveals. It's wonderful. Not many are religious and not all are in the atheist camp either. But, ya know what? It doesn't matter. Because when it comes to "inner life" and silly terms like "love" and charity and faith they know no more than you or I know. All I really needed to know I learned by living life. :) I love science! But it's not a "thing." There are all kinds of ways to look at life. The scientific method is one great way to look at finding out about our physical world. However, when we look deeper the center doesn't hold. Matter changes at the quantum level. Our brains only recieve a certain amount of light and shadow and sound and "tempers" it so we can make sense out of this world. Let me give just "one" example of why "science" isn't always "able" to give you all the answers you need. Or I should say some "scientific methods" might not "reveal" the "whole truth" about a matter and it cause a whole field of study to be laughed off or cast aside. Here goes:

I read a "study" about dreams. The "science" was excellent. I'm in mental health and the parameters were very well set up. Control group and very well thought of and connetced "experts." No sarcasm intened the doctor who did the study and his colleuges were good at what they do. Anyway, at the end of the study they came up with the following "results."
Dreams were the result of mental and emotional clutter and the "letting" out of the days emotions and stressesn No more and NO less! The future has not happened and Nobody has phrophtic dreams. There is NO WAY! The person who dreams is never acutally "looking" at events and all events and people in the dream are "expressions" of only the "dreamer" The science was good the study was good but the conclusion was WRONG! How do I know? Did I do my own "scientific study?" No! But, I had my own "Dream." I had actually "Seen" a future event in a dream. I had actually seen the correct "day" "time" event and recorded it. I actually "told" it to two or three other people and one of them is an agnostic! Once it happened all the folks "including my very,very intelligent" friend who is an agnostic just shook their heads and "filed it away." My point is even if Carl Sagan and Stephen Hawking or Billy Graham or Oral Roberts tells me something and something "contrary" to what they say occurs then I will know that at least "some" of their information is WRONG!

So, even with all the charlatans and fake seers and channelers and religous nuts I still know there is more to the human experience than "brain farts." Now "good researchers" will continue to develop ways to "test" real honest expereince. Bad researchers will simply continue to search for the preferred outcome and toss away the abberations. I honestly don't think the "paranormal" can be researched within the limits of our current 18th centuray Newtonian ideas. But, there are people who are setting up studies and instead of throwing away the work of Rhine and Sheldrake and Radin are combining the skepticism of Sagan with the openess of Mack and I think maybe we will one day be able to cast off the superstion of religous dogma and yet touch the "spirit" of the universe.

No, I don't remember the exact study so either google it or call me a lying little charlatan.
No, that is not the "only" time I have had knowledge or dreams and actually wrote or made note of them. But, one white crow does "prove" they are no all black. :)
 

trainedobserver

Paranormally Disenchanted
Has anyone here experienced seeing a mirage? If not, I'm sure everyone is at familiar with the concept. Once someone understands what a mirage actually is, would you ever place any significance in the contents of one? Through science such phenomena are understood to be optical illusions even though to the mind it appears quite real.
 

tyder001

Paranormal Adept
Has anyone here experienced seeing a mirage? If not, I'm sure everyone is at familiar with the concept. Once someone understands what a mirage actually is, would you ever place any significance in the contents of one? Through science such phenomena are understood to be optical illusions even though to the mind it appears quite real.

ROFLMAO! :)

Have fun with that. Ya don't have to "think" or nothin! Kind of like religion. But, otherwise I enjoy our conversations. Peace. :)
 

tyder001

Paranormal Adept
Well, TO if 3 people could indepently verify the contents of something then I wouldn't call it a "mirage." :) But, I can see you are very,very invested in your world view (as are we all) and becaue I honestly have had (and hope to have in the future) some good conversations with you I am dropping this one. I stated what happened and I told the truth. Other than that I don't have anything else to add.

Allah be with you/ God be Praised/Jesuse Love you/Darwin Rules!

Peace OUt! :)
 

trainedobserver

Paranormally Disenchanted
But, I can see you are very,very invested in your world view

That's a cop out plain and simple.

Here is where I'm going with this train of thought tyder.
Would you ever place significance in the content of a mirage? Answer: No, mirages have been proven to be optical illusions through the application of the scientific method.
Would you ever place significance in the content of a mirage if upon having a series of them, and traveling to the apparent locations of each, you find water at one site? Answer: No, mirages are proven to be optical illusions. Other factors must therefore be explored to explain the apparent valid content of the mirage which aren't restricted to but must include things that are known and understood like physiology and statistical probability.

Of course someone could use the imagination to concoct an explanation based on what their faith inspires them to hope or believe about the significance of the contents of the mirage. While this may appear of great significance and perhaps even appear to verify and confirm the individuals faith in their belief system it undoubtedly will not provide a reliable way of finding water in the desert.
 

tyder001

Paranormal Adept
Well, TO if 3 people could indepently verify the contents of something then I wouldn't call it a "mirage." :) But, I can see you are very,very invested in your world view (as are we all) and becaue I honestly have had (and hope to have in the future) some good conversations with you I am dropping this one. I stated what happened and I told the truth. Other than that I don't have anything else to add.

Allah be with you/ God be Praised/Jesuse Love you/Darwin Rules!

Peace OUt! :)


I did my best, it wasn't much
I couldn't feel, so I tried to touch
I've told the truth, I didn't come to fool you...Lenoard Cohen
 

trainedobserver

Paranormally Disenchanted
Well, if you can't stand the heat stay out of the kitchen.

Please note that at no time have I said anything that calls your honesty or integrity in reporting your experience nor have I actually discussed it. What I have done, is attempt to get you to engage in a thought experiment.
 

tyder001

Paranormal Adept
Well, if you can't stand the heat stay out of the kitchen.


I'll be more than happy to stand by what I've said. Haven't ran or been nasty. Just told the truth. Might wanna check the mirror in your kitchen bud. :) Other than that I'm done with this thread. Look forward to more "good" conversation in the future. This one has taken a "catty" turn that I don't much care for.

Darwin Love You!
Did I say that? Meow!

:)

---------- Post added at 02:28 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:26 PM ----------

tyder001 said:
I'll be more than happy to stand by what I've said. Haven't ran or been nasty. Just told the truth. Might wanna check the mirror in your kitchen bud. :) Other than that I'm done with this thread. Look forward to more "good" conversation in the future. This one has taken a "catty" turn that I don't much care for.

Darwin Love You!
Did I say that? Meow!

:)


You don't want a "thought" experiment friend. You want to "pound" home a world view that just doens't (imo) work. But, as I said we have had some good talk in the past and will (I hope) in the future. But, this is Really my last post (unless I post again.) on the subject. :)
 

trainedobserver

Paranormally Disenchanted
You don't want a "thought" experiment friend. You want to "pound" home a world view that just doens't (imo) work.

Nonsense. And you are attributing me with motivations that don't exist.

I have no doubt that you had a dream and some things occurred that were in the dream. That happens to people occasionally. It's happened to me. I've predicted events while completely awake. We all have on occasion.
 

tyder001

Paranormal Adept
Nonsense. And you are attributing me with motivations that don't exist.

I have no doubt that you had a dream and some things occurred that were in the dream. That happens to people occasionally. It's happened to me. I've predicted events while completely awake. We all have on occasion.



Whatever dude. I'm sure your "rite." :)

Sigh!
 

trainedobserver

Paranormally Disenchanted
I'm not trying to be "right" about anything here. I'm trying to have an discussion. Something you apparently would rather not have.

I guess this was another one of those situations where I just should have said, "Cool! What was she wearing?"
 

Hotkafka

Sanity is a default
As for the mirage question; here lies the problem. First, your response reveals your bias. Seocond, it depends on whom is experiencing the mirage and what their inherent biases are. A seer, a Yogi, a meteorologist, a psychologist, an atheist, a neurologist, all would have different interpretations of what this event is. Just because the worldview of one or more of these experiencers happens to be more widely accepted doesn't make it more valid than any of the rest.
 
Top