Lets dispense with the posturing and meanigless debate and cut to the chase shall we?

In other words, you're going to ignore a clearly losing debate and change the subject, and hope everyone else will follow you. Sheesh!

Budd Hopkins is a PHD in the relevent field...

What field would that be? When and where did he earn his PhD?

I am no authority on this and I suspect very few of you are as well.

What field would that be?

Are there any studies that can be cited as to this issue?

Yes, please point us to Budd Hopkins' peer-reviewed studies published in the relevant scientific literature. You are portraying him as a scientific expert, aren't you?

Or does Budd Hopkins publish primarily in popular circles?
How about we let each reader see how Mr. Hopkins chooses to present himself, and make up their own minds? http://www.intrudersfoundation.org/

People are claiming injury and psychological trauma. Don't you think a full and comprehensive study should be conducted to ascertain the cause of these complaints?

Appeal to pity, begging the question, and straw man. In only two sentences -- a new record.

The issue will certainly not be settled here on this forum.

And that will enable you to keep needling skeptics practically forever. First tell us what you did to ascertain your new darling's qualifications and experience. Since you lied about Karla Turner I don't trust you to have conducted an appropriately critical review.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

Maussan also endorse videos taken of Venus durng a solar eclipse back in July 1991 as a UFO.

Consider also http://www.blendernation.com/2008/05...-ufo-sighting/ .

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

Are you accusing me of lying, Bart? I expect that you will support or withdraw such an accusation immediately.

No I am not. Just pointing out that a fresh one might go very high and travel quite well. But they start losing lift at varying rates within a day.

Do you read this stuff? Hopkins is an artist and has no PHD. How does this qualify him to be an expert?

Hmmm...If being an artist qualifies you, I can color in the lines of my grandson's coloring book. Does that count?

I would put more weight on Susan Clancy's work. At least she works in a psychology department, which makes her at least qualified to evaluate peoples mental health. Who knows, maybe she paints as well.

Read Clancy's (Susan and not Tom) book and then get back to us. I found it in the local library. You know where that is don't you? They have lots of books with words in them. They even let you borrow them without paying. Just remember to bring them back or they will ask you to pay for them.

And there is no such thing as updraft either.

__________________
---"Why do things have to suck so bad?" a friend once asked me.
"Because space is a vacuum and that's a lot of suck." I replied.
(Actual quote)---

Hopkins is an artist and has no PHD.

Darn, you spoiled my fun. I was going to see how long Bart would Google on that before admitting he went off half-cocked again about his latest "expert."

Now I predict he'll whine about how BAUT has resorted to assassinating Budd Hopkins' character instead of dealing with the "facts."

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

Like I said, anybody that can paint, sculpt, scribble, or color inside the lines should be qualified, if that is the criteria, for being an alien abduction "expert".

And that will enable you to keep needling skeptics practically forever. First tell us what you did to ascertain your new darling's qualifications and experience. Since you lied about Karla Turner I don't trust you to have conducted an appropriately critical review.

I did not lie about Karla Turner. That was your assesment and reason to dismiss her work. I still believe it to be valid and an insightful look into the phenomena by an educated person who was herself a vicitim. You through the lier label around quite liberally. I do not see a disagreement on the validity of her work as a foundation for lying.

Nor do I percieve losing or winning this debate as having much importance. To loose I would have to present everyone of many thousands of cases abd have each one debunked. I do not think either of us is prepared for that.

What is at main issue is the abduction phenomena. You make a lot of observations about Karla Turner and Budd Hopkins. What are your qualifications and experiance in the field of psychology to do so?

I think it callous and irresponsible to make declarations about motive and attitude when the victims become a pawn of skepticism or belief.

These people claimed to have been harmed. If you are correct then they are victims of Budd Hopins and others who promote their false memory. If you are wrong then you support the denial of help and support from mainstream science and psycology.

I just thought we could cut to the main issue and stop wasting time and energy on the side issues. You are not going to convince me of your viewpoint on these issues and I am not going to convince you either.

If these people are victims of abduction proponents like Budd Hopkins then it would be the responsibility of mainstream science to prove this and end the falsehood of misguided good intentions or of outright fraud as the case may be.

If they are victims of abduction then it is neglegent of science to ignore their plight because it goes against their beliefs.

Alien abduction is the name of this thread and the side issue of trying to establish supporting evidence for the existence of aliens does not further this issue.

Hypnogogia explains most abduction scenarios. Simple, scientific, testable.

__________________
---"Why do things have to suck so bad?" a friend once asked me.
"Because space is a vacuum and that's a lot of suck." I replied.
(Actual quote)---

Will research Clancy and Hopkins and get back to you. Have repeatedly stated that I am fairly new to this subject. Thought it was illegal to practice pop psychology without being a doctor.

I see a lot of people concerned about their abduction experiences on other forums and find it alarming.

How do you propose they do this? It is a difficult case to prove. Hopkins can always claim he believed the witnesses. Additionally, he is not a trained professional and can always claim ignorance.

bart those people have something missing in their life....


maybe it's the ET's?

all i wanna know is

why isn't there any hard evidence of these encounter's ?

1 more thing
What is it about them or their tales you believe without factual substance



i mean seeing is believing and you said you never had the experience yourself so again what is it that has you standing rock solid

I'm starting to wonder if Bart is actually a Turing machine.

He keeps repeating the same script.

__________________
Join the Illuminati

<deleted>

__________________
Olsen the moderator.

I did not lie about Karla Turner.

You said she did not claim abductions were the work of space aliens. You said she had not drawn any conclusions about cause. You gave those as specific answers to specific questions I asked.

I posted direct quotes from her that said clearly the opposite of what you reported. I asked you to reconcile that and you never did.

You through the lier label around quite liberally.

No. I applied it only to you, along with evidence of the lie. I invited you to defend yourself, but you did not.

Nor do I percieve losing or winning this debate as having much importance.

Then why do you persist in it? Another question you won't answer.

To loose I would have to present everyone of many thousands of cases abd have each one debunked.

Um, no. When you fail to provide evidence for even one case you claim is strange or mysterious, you lose the debate. Your entire game plan is based on shifting the burden of proof. Making the same mistake many thousands of times does not create a case for you.

You are clearly stuck in the notion of space aliens as the default explanation, against which any other claim bears the burden of proof. That is not how science works.

You make a lot of observations about Karla Turner and Budd Hopkins. What are your qualifications and experiance in the field of psychology to do so?

Shifting the burden of proof. You presented both Turner and Hopkins as well-qualified experts in fields pertaining to the subjects on which they speak and write for profit. You misrepresented them both and were caught both times doing it. What are Turner's and Hopkins' qualifications and experince in the field of psychology?

You finally had to disavow Turner as being unqualified, but now we find that was just for show. Your disavowal was dishonest. What was that you tried to lecture us about a couple of days ago? Was it about how the desire to believe becomes so strong that it approaches a religious status? Aren't you simply holding up these people as apostles of the UFO movement that you fervently believe in?

These people claimed to have been harmed.

More appeal to pity.

I just thought we could cut to the main issue and stop wasting time and energy on the side issues.

Your "main issue" changes willy-nilly depending on how well the debate on that point is going for you. You will be held to answer the questions put to you.

You are not going to convince me of your viewpoint on these issues and I am not going to convince you either.

I'm not trying to convince you of my viewpoint. I'm showing how your viewpoint is logically and factually bankrupt. Whatever viewpoint you want to hold is your business, but not all can be said to be rationally tenable.

If these people are victims of abduction proponents like Budd Hopkins then it would be the responsibility of mainstream science to prove this...

It's far more parsimonious and congruent with the data to conclude based on data already presented that they are hucksters and thus worth little more attention. You continue to beg the question of their legitimacy and shift the burden of proof despite your own demonstrable unfamiliarity with them. Charlatans do not have a right to be publicly debunked. The have a responsibility to prove their own worth.

Alien abduction is the name of this thread and the side issue of trying to establish supporting evidence for the existence of aliens does not further this issue.

Hogwash. Without evidence for the existence of aliens there is no point whatsoever to talking about whether they abduct people. You want to fast-forward to the chase and omit all the science. First provide prima facie evidence of your hypothesis. Then we can decide what's left that's worthy of discussion.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

I'm starting to wonder if Bart is actually a Turing machine. He keeps repeating the same script.

Nit-pick:

A Turing machine is a theoretical construct that forms the basis of most of the formal science of computability.

You may be thinking of the Turing test, a proposal in which machine intelligence is matched subjectively against human intelligence by means of conversation with a human judge. The Eliza program most spectacularly and amusingly fails the Turing test by simple sub-sentence rewriting rules that, over time, begin to show patterns as natural consequences of the program's limited vocabulary -- likely what you mean in comparing it to Bart's claims. It is also possible to flush Eliza out of a Turing test by speaking nonsense to it; Eliza presumes the interlocutor speaks passable natural language and blindly rewrites nonsense as more nonsense. (Wait, I think you're onto something.)

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

Well, with that said, thank you gentlemen, it was a good debate, have a nice night, we'll see you in the next thread . . .

I was, honest.

I just hope it won't be a rerun.

Night.

__________________
Join the Illuminati

Have repeatedly stated that I am fairly new to this subject.

That's your trump card for everything, isn't it?

Unfortunately when you say things like
then your boldness ends up looking silly and annoying when you backpedal away. If you really are only tentatively exploring these issues, then let's have a lot less hubris.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

I think it callous and irresponsible to make declarations about motive and attitude when the victims become a pawn of skepticism or belief.

They have no problem making themselves pawns of credulity, especially when there are books and DVDs to sell, and appearance fees to collect. And I'm not very interested in the case of "Mary S. of Hoboken" they report, who may or may not exist.

Claiming to be a victim is one of the easiest ways to forestall criticism. Anyone who doesn't believe your story of how you got to be a victim can be written off as "callous." Anyone who doubts your worthiness of sympathy (and money) can be termed "irresponsible."

Why don't these people seek help from the mainstream? Oh, they do -- or so they say. But the nature of any such assistance is confidential. The doctor involved is bound by strict laws that prohibit him from revealing the nature of his involvement. But nothing prevents the patient from (mis)representing whatever he wants about what was done or not done.

It's all a carefully orchestrated image designed to perpetuate the mystery and controversy as long as possible, and to obviate any meaningful criticism or comment.

You know all about the politics of victimization, don't you? Another example of your "poor, poor me!" syndrome: http://www.alien-ufos.com/EBE-recove...829.html&st=40 .

You're always so worried about the mere act of being criticized that you don't even stop to see whether the criticism has merit.

Sure, there are likely people out there suffering a legitimate set of symptoms. But the burden of proof is not on skeptics to show that the abduction explanation pasted on it by self-serving people is bogus. The claimants have the burden of proof.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

Just to refresh your memory about what you actually wrote:

(bold mine)

I don't see how you could argue that you meant anything other than to say I was misrepresenting the length of time I stated.

Now I readily grant that this issue is trivial compared to some of the other fundamental blunders you've made in this thread. And honestly, I'm not offended by the accusation. My reaction was bemusement. It's like being called ugly by a toad.

But I think it's high time you had your feet nailed to the floor about something. C'mon and post like you've got a pair. Own up to your mistakes and answer the questions put to you.

__________________
Brett
Peters Creek, Alaska
─────────────────────────────────────────────
My moderation comments will appear in this color.
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄ Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄ Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

I'm not even going to bother looking back to see what link of Bart's this looks like, I'm just saying uh-huh.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIE49...eature=related

ETA: I did look, the last two links in post #206.

__________________
Did I just hear a cat?

The link is to a video that's not even purported to be a UFO. It's a solar-heated lighter-than-air contraption that is popular with thermodynamics classes.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

Something told me that wouldn't work, oh well, just trying to be helpful (ya I know, mind your own business, point taken--joe)

Perhaps I misunderstood Bart's post #206, but I thought he was presenting these videos as good examples of UFOs. I only posted this because it was a human made object that looked like the one in his post.

CP

__________________
Did I just hear a cat?

Where you're mistaken is in what each of us is willing to PAY for and why we think it isn't worth it...

What is at main issue is the abduction phenomena. You make a lot of observations about Karla Turner and Budd Hopkins. What are your qualifications and experiance in the field of psychology to do so?

I think it callous and irresponsible to make declarations about motive and attitude when the victims become a pawn of skepticism or belief.

These people claimed to have been harmed. If you are correct then they are victims of Budd Hopins and others who promote their false memory. If you are wrong then you support the denial of help and support from mainstream science and psycology.

I just thought we could cut to the main issue and stop wasting time and energy on the side issues. You are not going to convince me of your viewpoint on these issues and I am not going to convince you either.

If these people are victims of abduction proponents like Budd Hopkins then it would be the responsibility of mainstream science to prove this and end the falsehood of misguided good intentions or of outright fraud as the case may be.

If they are victims of abduction then it is neglegent of science to ignore their plight because it goes against their beliefs.

You're confusing lawyers with scientists. Please quit.

Alien abduction is the name of this thread and the side issue of trying to establish supporting evidence for the existence of aliens does not further this issue.

Other than people saying they've been abducted, what evidence is there that people HAVE been abducted, well, by ALIENS vs PEOPLE?

Defending a bad idea is not respectable in itself, doing it for umpteen pages doesn't show intelligence just stubbornness.
Bart's insults to many members doesn't care you, but slang and I deserve physical abuse.
I conclude there is something wrong (hint: look at a mirror).

Feel better?

Cool.

__________________
In your rush to call everyone "entrenched" or closed-minded or "limited" you fail to note that the "limit" here has a very natural boundary: that point at which the evidence stops. - JayUtah

Science fiction was never meant to be an educational tool. - Editor Amazing Tales

welcome to ignore BigDon

I have heard the sleep paralysis argument and have seen no studies of people claiming abduction establishing this as a cause. As far as I have been able to deternmine it is proposed as a cause but the connection is not established.

Richard McNally, professor of psychology at Harvard University, has studied this, and sees sleep paralysis at the bottom of the phenomena:
http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/2.../01-alien.html



Susan Clancy, psychologist and researcher at Harvard, also studied abductees and come to the same conclusion. She wrote a book ("Abducted: How People Come to Believe They Were Kidnapped by Aliens") on her investigation:
http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/2.../11-alien.html