When is somebody going to show us some good eveidence?

[tyder001]

Have you read his book The Abduction Enigma? I bought his book last month but haven't gotten to it yet, although I did read the preface and the conclusion (I'm bad that way.) I think it is safe to say that Randle didn't arrive at his point of view flippantly or with minimal research.

I just googled it on Amazon. Looks interesting. I do have one or two reservations about it. Not being on either side of the abduction fence I don't really have personal stake in it in a general sense. But, I did notice one thing by the books descreption that I find lazy and a tactic that is used over and over and over and over and over and....You get the picture.
The tactic is to say : Well, since there are science fiction movies and they have read a sci fi book in the past or watched a movie or visited a website then that debunks their story right there. Seems like every skeptic from Klass to Randi uses this same old tired crap.

But, let me rush to say. I have not read the book yet and it may be that they use this argument in a fresh or original way. Unless I read it I honestly can't say. I'm just giving a knee jerk reaction to the blurb on Amazon and some of the comments and reviews. So, don't think I'm dismissing the book or the writers cause I'm not. I'm just skeptical of true believers and true skeptics and all in between.

 

[Trajanus]

Have you read his book The Abduction Enigma? I bought his book last month but haven't gotten to it yet, although I did read the preface and the conclusion (I'm bad that way.) I think it is safe to say that Randle didn't arrive at his point of view flippantly or with minimal research.

Of course not; he already wrote about the case at length in The Randle Report. He pointed out that Walton flunked a lie detector test, might have gotten the idea of a star map from the just aired UFO Incident and might've been seen by somebody, on earth, during his claimed time aboard the UFO. And it does seem like a pretty atypical abduction account. Still, the fact that a number of other guys saw the UFO and haven't, AFAIK, retracted their testimony, makes it a good case IMO. Randle was, I think, wrong to give more weight to a lie detector test than to the testimony of those men, besides Walton, so I don't think his conclusion was reasonable.

 

[tyder001]

Sorry if this isn't the right place for this but I didn't feel it needed it's own thread. I had a thought this afternoon about skeptics and their methods. Now I'm not a bleiver in nuts and bolts aliens (maybe military) but who really knows. Anyway, I was driving back from a work assisgment when I saw this bright light in the sky. It was a cloudy, rainy day so even though it was late morning it was dreary and you could easily notice a light. Anyway I seemed to hover. My first thought was it was some kind of light post but it was kind of high. Then I thought well it's a light tower that I just havne't noticed before. But, I didn't see the structure. Then I thought well it's got to be a helocopter. But, since I didn't know for sure I pulled off in a parking lot to get a better look.

Now, notice that contrary to what many "skeptics" like to say about the gullible public my first thought was very,very down to earth and rational. I thought "Light post." Then when that didn't fit I thought "Light tower." Notice I never at anytime thought thought "Om my gawd, it's a ufo!" Then I thought copter..still no jumping to the E.T. conclusion.

I say all that to say this. I don't buy the conveiant "people jump to conclusions and see Venus,or a light pole or a star and call it E.T." excuse. Sometime it is certainly true but for the most part I think some skeptics are just lazy and just trot out the same old excuses. I think most of us who see lights in the sky go through the whole rational everyday list before we pronouce it to be "strange" or otherworldly. Anyway, just some thoughts...

Oh by the way..it was a copter.

 

[Trajanus]

Sorry if this isn't the right place for this but I didn't feel it needed it's own thread. I had a thought this afternoon about skeptics and their methods. Now I'm not a bleiver in nuts and bolts aliens (maybe military) but who really knows. Anyway, I was driving back from a work assisgment when I saw this bright light in the sky. It was a cloudy, rainy day so even though it was late morning it was dreary and you could easily notice a light. Anyway I seemed to hover. My first thought was it was some kind of light post but it was kind of high. Then I thought well it's a light tower that I just havne't noticed before. But, I didn't see the structure. Then I thought well it's got to be a helocopter. But, since I didn't know for sure I pulled off in a parking lot to get a better look.

Now, notice that contrary to what many "skeptics" like to say about the gullible public my first thought was very,very down to earth and rational. I thought "Light post." Then when that didn't fit I thought "Light tower." Notice I never at anytime thought thought "Om my gawd, it's a ufo!" Then I thought copter..still no jumping to the E.T. conclusion.

I say all that to say this. I don't buy the conveiant "people jump to conclusions and see Venus,or a light pole or a star and call it E.T." excuse. Sometime it is certainly true but for the most part I think some skeptics are just lazy and just trot out the same old excuses....

Right and it's well known that many proposed explanations are ludicrous. In October 1973, a strange light seen before dawn was dismissed as Venus. The planet was then in the evening sky.

 

[boomerang]

This is a good but long thread. So apologies if I am re-hashing.

The undeniable core of the UFO mystery, from the standpoint of someone like myself who has not seen "something", is this: Why do hundreds (thousands?) of sane, stable, witnesses in positions of responsibility claim--on public record-- to have experienced very high-strangeness events? Factor out all other speculations, such as radar data (which I believe exists), trace evidence etc., and a genuine mystery still remains. One anecdote from any person constitutes weak evidence. Thousands of such anecdotes, on record and over decades, is a genuine mystery.

Re the abduction phenomenon- It's my opinion that much evidence has been hopelessly tainted by the use of hypnosis. Valid memories may become hopelessly confabulated by the use of hypnosis and guided imagery. Many states legally disqualify details of eyewitness testimony obtained under hypnosis. IMHO a different approach is needed.

 

[Trajanus]

This is a good but long thread. So apologies if I am re-hashing.

The undeniable core of the UFO mystery, from the standpoint of someone like myself who has not seen "something", is this: Why do hundreds (thousands?) of sane, stable, witnesses in positions of responsibility claim--on public record-- to have experienced very high-strangeness events? Factor out all other speculations, such as radar data (which I believe exists), trace evidence etc., and a genuine mystery still remains. One anecdote from any person constitutes weak evidence. Thousands of such anecdotes, on record and over decades, is a genuine mystery.

Re the abduction phenomenon- It's my opinion that much evidence has been hopelessly tainted by the use of hypnosis. Valid memories may become hopelessly confabulated by the use of hypnosis and guided imagery. Many states legally disqualify details of eyewitness testimony obtained under hypnosis. IMHO a different approach is needed.

What's the alternative? Many abductees have no conscious memory of what happened.

 

[trainedobserver]

What's the alternative? Many abductees have no conscious memory of what happened.

That makes absolutely no sense to me whatsoever. You wouldn't carve a steak off of a putrid corpse and eat it nor would you put diesel fuel in a gasoline engine simply because you had no alternative. A poisoned alternative is no alternative at all! If there is no conscious memory then doing something that has been shown to induce false memories could be a tragic and possibly irreversible mistake. Couldn't it?

Because there isn't one readily available in the toolbox doesn't mean you use the wrench as a screwdriver or a hammer as a socket wrench. Hypnotic regression (especially when administered by amateurs) isn't the tool and that isn't even news.

If this were happening to me, I cannot imagine why I would allow myself to be hypnotically regressed by an alien abduction researcher, friend, acquittance, or family member. It is actually more frightening than the thought of an actual alien abduction itself.

I have the utmost respect for experiencers. I'm not one, I'm just a guy that has been trying to understand Interrupted Journey since he first read it as a kid. I find it undeniable that something is happening to people. I also admit that it has the appearance of a non-human expedition/program of some sort. But I think whatever interpretations we've made of it, or have had presented to us about it, are convenient truths which in no way actually describe the reality of the situation. I could be wrong, but it seems that even having it happen to you personally isn't a big help in understanding it. What chance to the rest of us have? But do we want to rely on a flawed and dangerous tool?

 

[dyingsun]

Well,

thanks, redundant 'winner'. 'Im utterly amazed'

 

[Trajanus]

With the respect to the topic of the thread. I do not consider hypnotic recall alone to be "good evidence". However in conjunction with partial conscious memory of the event, independent corroborating wtnesses of a UFO sighting at the same time and place, and corroborating recall by others who claim to have experienced the same phenomenon, it is more likely that the information being obtained corresponds to an objective reality.

Right and add to that some physical effects like injuries.

 

[Ron Collins]

Right and it's well known that many proposed explanations are ludicrous. In October 1973, a strange light seen before dawn was dismissed as Venus. The planet was then in the evening sky.

What case is that? I would really like to see it.

Thanks,
Ron

 

[Trajanus]

What case is that? I would really like to see it.

It was just an obscure report in CT, not something you're likely to see in a book.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

It was just an obscure report in CT, not something you're likely to see in a book.

So then there's absolutely nothing to it then. Strange lights in the sky can be anything.

 

[Trajanus]

So then there's absolutely nothing to it then. Strange lights in the sky can be anything.

The point was that debunkers often lack credibility. Regardless of what the lights before dawn were, they couldn't have been Venus, as was claimed, since the planet in the evening sky.

 

[exo_doc]

sigh......

for a link to multiple debunks of these pics see:
http://www.debunker.com/trent.html

et al.

A typical article from a typical non-beleiver, the kind that just dismisses out-of-hand anything actually relevant to a case.
"The sunlight was wrong for that time of day"...Looks fine to me, but I'm no expert.
"The Weather Bureau said there were NO clouds that day".....We all know how accurate the weather people are, especially in 1950.
"Bruce Macabbee got something else wrong, so ANYTHING he says is wrong."
"It COULD have been a truck mirror"....when what the author is really saying is "It's a truck mirror beyond doubt".
The intersecting strings supposedly there? That is the first time I have ever even heard of that, I'll look into that, but I'm pretty sure the Trent photos have withstood every test so far.

Sweeping generalizations....the part and parcel of lazy researchers. Including myself, I guess.
I guess the whole article bugs me because there's really nothing concrete to it. It's all inuendo, meant to create a sense of substance, while it's really just smoke.
Ya know, I'm not explaining this very well. I might start another thread to expound on this after I collect my thoughts.

 

[boomerang]

Now, notice that contrary to what many "skeptics" like to say about the gullible public my first thought was very,very down to earth and rational. I thought "Light post." Then when that didn't fit I thought "Light tower." Notice I never at anytime thought thought "Om my gawd, it's a ufo!" Then I thought copter..still no jumping to the E.T. conclusion.

I think it was Hynek who noticed this early on in his field research and labeled it something like "escalation of hypothesis".
Most witnesses first seek the most mundane explanation possible for a strange experience, rather than jump to an un-earthly conclusion.

 

[Trajanus]

I shouldn't have to be doing people's homework for them on every post. It is well known that most UFO abduction accounts include some element of conscious recall. One example can be found in the North Hudson Park Landing case, the account of which can be found in Bud Hopkins' classic book Missing Time.

Was that the case in which O'Barsky saw beings scoop up soil? I don't think it was an abduction.

---------- Post added at 11:19 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:13 AM ----------

"It COULD have been a truck mirror"....when what the author is really saying is "It's a truck mirror beyond doubt".

Somebody else said it was from an old phonograph.

The intersecting strings supposedly there? That is the first time I have ever even heard of that, I'll look into that, but I'm pretty sure the Trent photos have withstood every test so far.

Right, nobody has detected "supportive structures" like string, although one website claimed that a tiny smudge on an electrical wire above the UFO was where the alleged string was tied. Yeah right...how did the Trents get up there, what was their motive--they made no money-- why didn't investigators see it, and why didn't either of them confess in the end, like the nessie pic hoaxer?