And I don't think anyone would suggest sleep paralysis and hypnogogia account for 100% of the field in question - but those that slip through the cracks can be fit to another easily explained, scientifically provable phenomena

__________________
---"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)---

Ya, we're all going to jump on that boat with you--get real--wa wa wa--ha

Source: http://www.csicop.org/doubtandabout/sleep/

Joe Boy, thanks but I think I 've got this.

Now World, I know I'm "ignored" but I was holding you and Slang to a higher standard than Bart, as you are not laboring under emotional, honesty or cognition issues.

To quote Robin Williams from Late Night At The Museum, "Who's the evolved one?"

AND as most guys don't go around "physically abusing" each other I am forced to presume you are a woman or near enough to it. Had I realized this I would have been more circumscript in breaking up your "bait the retard" game. I'm sure it was rare good fun for you.

Sorry I took away your mouse. It was getting hard to watch. This is Conspiracy Theories. Abuse is down the hall next to Arguments.

__________________
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

Some more about Susan Clancy's work here
http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/2...09-clancy.html

What is notable is that all of the subjects Clancy studied, the only ones who came forward- could not remember the abduction directly. They all either deduced that they had been abducted from certain evidence, such as 'a variety of signs and symptoms - unexplained scars or birthmarks, waking up in strange positions, depression, sleep disturbance, or panic at seeing a picture of an alien', or they had 'recovered' memories of their abduction via hypnosis.

That seems to indicate that the phenomenon of abduction is not straightforward, at the very least.

__________________
New Orion's Arm Site . The Starlark . Against a Diamond Sky (OA Novella Collection) . OA Flickr set

proof is required for claims such as abduction ...it's not good enough to say all the points ebu45 said with his last post...i'm not buying, so stop trying to sell me damaged goods.

until there is hard evidence of these happenings..thanks but i'll stay in the locker rooom,the abductors can have the field

i wish the believers had some proof until then their just lackies

Before you argue that aliens are abducting people, you have to prove there are aliens. Not just suggest that it's probable there are aliens; not just say it can't be proven impossible that there are aliens. You need the proof that the hypothetical cause actually exists and has testable properties.

Trying to prove that there are aliens by speculatively guessing at how many phenomena can be attributed to some arbitrary notion of aliens doesn't cut it.

Trying to prove that there are aliens by saying how much certain people are hurting doesn't cut it.

Trying to prove that there are aliens by saying that alien technology is the only way the aliens can hide their existence while making their effects seem prosaic for the benefit of skeptics, certainly doesn't cut it.

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

Keeping in mind that I have no evidence for aliens, I find your comment troubling.

Are you suggesting that, for example, no criminal should ever be convicted on circumstantial evidence alone? That seems to be the path you are taking.

If people were being abducted (I have no evidence that they are) under the circumstances they describe, aliens would be a very likely hypothesis, IMO; the abductions themselves would be the evidence.

The fact remains, of course, that there is no real evidence for these abductions, and I am merely arguing a concept.

i am not aware of any murder suspect that *can* be convicted on circumstantial evidence. The burden of proof is too great for a "well he COULD have been there" to be cause for conviction. And hence the burden of proof of aliens is not "well the only way to explain people's abduction observations MUST BE aliens" it is "Prove there are aliens first - then prove they are abducting people".

Last night I was visited by Abraham Lincoln and the ghost of my first bicycle. Prove I wasn't! Do you see what I mean?

__________________
---"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)---

The standards of evidence applied by science and those applied in the courtroom are often very different. That aside, in building a circumstantial case for alien abduction, the actual existence of aliens would be a circumstance of critical importance. Imagine trying to build murder case if you couldn't establish that the alleged victim was a real person in the first place.

Aliens could only be considered a likely agent of abduction if first, their existence and visitation is likewise probable.

__________________
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 submit that even if you haven't seen an atom (and you haven't), the effects produced by them are still quite evident.

As I said, I have no evidence for space aliens. But if the tales told by "abductees" could be shown to be real, that would be pretty strong evidence for their existence.

Prisons are full of people convicted on circumstantial evidence.

http://www.answers.com/topic/circums...ce?cat=biz-fin

Daffy - your argument is faulty on many counts. First of all people are not convicted on circumstantial evidence. They are convicted on solid evidence - if they are innocent then the evidence is misapplied... not circumstantial. Hence people are not convicted on hearsay - they are convicted on the evidence found in relation to, say a murder. Real, solid evidence that ties them to that crime in some way other than "they were in town".

But atoms can be proven to exist and, yes, seen. Alien abduction does not fit into that category.

__________________
---"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)---

What would you call convincing circumstantial evidence that aliens exist?

__________________
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge" -- Charles Darwin
"Your right to hold an opinion is not being contested. Your expectation that it be taken seriously is." -- Jason Thompson
Meet the OOONG TOE.

Atoms Vs Aliens? New blockbuster?

I enjoyed the sciences in school. Among the many things that I was able to gleam is a better understanding on how things happen and work and learning when I am being sold a dud (in most cases). Now, if I put all that I have learnt to good use, the existence of atoms is pretty high on the non dud list. Aliens, also applying what I have taught etc over the years, are pretty high on the dud list.

No doubt!

But I think it only fair to have a review of Clancy's work as well.




It seems with her work, Clancy has proven a negative: people are not being abducted by aliens. They merely experience sleep paralysis.

I wonder, by what criteria did she determine these people were "abductees?"

__________________
"Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?" - Hugo

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." - Churchill

I agree. It doesn't change what I said.

Slang: I knew this would happen. Please keep in mind that I have no evidence that space aliens exist. OK? If I need to keep repeating that over and over, I suppose I will...but it would be helpful if people would just read what I said the first time.

That said, my only point was that if alien abduction stories coud be shown to be true that, in and of itself, would be compelling evidence that space aliens exist.

For the reading challenged, I repeat again: I have see no such evidence; I am merely arguing the concept.

Lotusexcelle:You are incorrect. Many criminals are convicted entirely on circumstantial evidence. Repeating an urban myth does not make it true. Circumstantial evidence is NOT hearsay. Try googling.

And I repeat again: I have seen no evidence that alien abduction is real. Again: I have seen no evidence that alien abduction is real. One more time: I have seen no evidence that alien abduction is real.

But what you inferred? Also this sentence earlier.

If people were being abducted (I have no evidence that they are) under the circumstances they describe, aliens would be a very likely hypothesis, IMO; the abductions themselves would be the evidence.

That was my point. Cannot see unaided an atom but I know it exists. I have seen no substantiating evidence alien abductions happen apart from claims let alone aliens exist. Not at least that will satisfy me. Not saying they do not exist (aliens anywhere) mind you but strongly doubt the claims and suspect there are other reasons more earth bound. How do I test the claims?

Or am I on the wrong track.

LotusExcelle, what you said was wrong, because you used the wrong
term, not because your idea is wrong. What you are arguing aganst
is the assumption that a person is likely to have done something
because the evidence does not rule out the possibility. (There may
be a technical term for that which Jay would know.)

"Circumstantial evidence" is something else. It is evidence which tends
to indicate that some particular event took place or that some particular
situation is the case. Circumstantial evidence can be and often is
sufficient in and of itself for criminal convictions.

Also, I think you are misusing the term "burden of proof", although
again, it is only your use of the term that is wrong, not the idea you
are expressing.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

__________________
http://www.FreeMars.org/jeff/

"I find astronomy very interesting, but I wouldn't if I thought we
were just going to sit here and look." -- "Van Rijn"

"The other planets? Well, they just happen to be there, but the
point of rockets is to explore them!" -- Kai Yeves

I agree with this completely. Just so you know somebody agrees.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

__________________
http://www.FreeMars.org/jeff/

"I find astronomy very interesting, but I wouldn't if I thought we
were just going to sit here and look." -- "Van Rijn"

"The other planets? Well, they just happen to be there, but the
point of rockets is to explore them!" -- Kai Yeves

I did not ask you to provide evidence.

That seems to me to be a circular argument. IF you prove that abductions were done by aliens, part of the proof is that aliens exist. At which point you're back to what JayUtah said. For this reason I did not quote that part in my reply, and left that part for someone else to respond to.

Again, in what way did I ask you to provide such evidence?

As am I, and my question was rhetorical. You brought up the court analogy, and I spent considerable time thinking about a proper response. The analogy only goes so far, law and science are not the same. Circumstantial evidence for particular crimes is accepted because crime as a concept is sufficiently proven to exist. Silly.. but IMHO that's where we end up because the analogy isn't perfect. Anyway, that's what lead to my question. If circumstantial evidence is acceptable in (let's say some) court cases, what would make circumstantial evidence acceptable in the aliens context? Would that question be answerable, or is the analogy not correct, or did I miss something else? That is what interests me.

__________________
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge" -- Charles Darwin
"Your right to hold an opinion is not being contested. Your expectation that it be taken seriously is." -- Jason Thompson
Meet the OOONG TOE.

I'll go and re-up my familiarity with those terms and get back to you.

__________________
---"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)---

Kevin Randle, Russ Estes and William Cone in their book The Abduction Enigma wrote, at p. 359:

Kevin Randle is a prominent ufologist.

Circumstantial evidence does not mean "flimsy" evidence -- that's what TV screenwriters have concocted. Circumstantial evidence is, on the contrary, generally better than eyewitness testimony because its essential nature is not open to interpretation: only its implications for the final question. An inference is required in order to evaluate circumstantial evidence, but the evidence itself is -- to coin a pun -- self-evident.

I am aware of no circumstantial evidence for the actual existence of space aliens.

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

Gillianren in another forum said she would prefer to be accused on eyewitness testimony rather than upon circumstantial evidence. I agree. Circumstantial evidence, properly presented, is often very condemning indeed, and very difficult to refute.

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

I admit that my response was based on an assumed use of the "flimsy" lay definition of circumstantial evidence. Pretty careless of me. Cast in that light from above, I would think that circumstantial evidence may generally be more scientific than direct evidence, given the increasing role forensics plays. But in line with Jay's admonition that it's not by definition "flimsy", the fact that the evidence is circumstantial does not give one license to jump to a conclusion unsupported by that evidence.

__________________
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 ►

Most scientific evidence is, in fact, circumstantial. The whole science of empirical methodology aims to create circumstantial evidence from which inference from the observed condition to the hypothesized causation is as straightforward as possible.

Real-world example from law:

A plaintiff sues for damages in the form of lost wages due to an alleged inability to work caused by another's negligence. Plaintiff submits a list of dates upon which work was missed. Defendant notes that almost all the submitted dates are also holidays according to the plaintiff's religion. Plaintiff cannot produce any documentary or other evidence substantiating an actual inability to work on those dates, and argues the timing is coincidence.

The matters of fact are largely indisputable. The plaintiff will naturally not quibble with the accuracy of the dates they submitted in evidence. The plaintiff's religious affiliation was well-known. The holidays pertaining to that religion are a matter of easy reference. There is very little grounds upon which to dispute what the evidence is.

But there is still a question about what the evidence means. Connecting the self-evident facts to the arguments in the case is usually a matter of inference. In the legal case, the jury has to infer an ulterior motive as an explanation for the coincidence.

In science we set up measurements for quantities that aren't often the properties we wish directly to observe. We have to infer from the measured variables a commensurate change in the underlying system. And so we take great care in the empirical aspects to minimize how much the measured variable and the variable-of-interest can vary independently.

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

Having just read much of Clancey's work I offer this. The bulk of her objective data was a study of memory and not a study of the abduction phenomena itself. Having seperated her study into groups suspecting they were possible abductees and those who were not. Largly with a word association and recall of words she established that the potential abductees made different memory associations than the control group.

Her completly subjective conclusion was that potential abductees were more likely to have fauty memory. If subjective conclusion is accepted as a scientific argument then this could just as easily establish an alternative. That abductees are more likely to have different memory processes because their memories are altered on a regular basis by the introduction of false memory by their abductors. A case of memory alteration by training and not by internal memory issues.

I just read some abstracts by John Mack the Psychiatrist with Harvard University. He started as a sceptic and after over 100 investigations of alledged abductees he came to the conclusion there is a real and unsolved mystery at work. Largely he based this on their memories being very consistant in details while a comparison to artificial memories produced widely divergent details.

One of the critical arguments against memory investigations is the possibility of the investegator leading the patient down a biased memory path. Mack was very much aware of this possibility and took care that he avoided this pitfall. Clancey's work does suggest that abductees are memory suggestive. However in comparison to Macks work I fiind that this suggest that the memory screen techniques of their alien abductors has trained their memories to be more malleable.

This possibility for Clancey's totally subjective analysis of her data was not considered so her conclusions come under question.

If it can be established, as Mack suggests, that their memories are comparable in detail then it amounts to many witnesses reporting the same incedent accuratly which is highly unlikely if each were internally creating a false memory. Both Mack and Clancey conclude that the potential abductees had no more or less psychological or social differences than any other sampling of the population.

Further Mack found that many potential abductees were children often too young to understand the phenomena of abduction as such. Young enough that social bias was unlikily but still the details of their accounts were remarkebly similar. This is much of the foundation for his conclusion that it represented a real mystery worthy of more consideration and not a product of hypnogogic or other natural phenomena. Were it completly internal the details would be widely divergent, and he indeed found this to be the case for those more prosaic causes. Hypnogogic cause for imaginative accounts are all over the board usually having nothing to do with aliens.

Thats some review.

Done by a chap called David M. Jacobs. PhD in History and amatuer hypnotist.

I mean, its not as if he has an axe to grind or another agenda.

Oh, wait, yes he does...

The Threat: Revealing the Secret Alien Agenda - David M. Jacobs

An expert on UFOs and alien abduction offers evidence that aliens are integrating themselves into our society and planning a breeding program that will produce a hybrid species of alien-humans that will eventually control Earth

No bias there?

So what is the circumstantial evidence then?

__________________
The most important mental attribute anyone can have is the ability to recognize when one's own comprehension of a topic is insufficient. Without that, one's knowledge simply becomes tautological: it is "impossible" for there to exist wisdom one does not already possess. - JayUtah

There is no light in space. - Moon Man

Bart - I have to admit I am still baffled. In the face of contrary evidence you sort that evidence into categories from which you can shift your own conclusions over those of the author and make the outcome fit your vision.
Her completly subjective conclusion was that potential abductees were more likely to have fauty memory. If subjective conclusion is accepted as a scientific argument then this could just as easily establish an alternative. That abductees are more likely to have different memory processes because their memories are altered on a regular basis by the introduction of false memory by their abductors. A case of memory alteration by training and not by internal memory issues.
With the above you are now firmly in the position of the unprovable argument. If you take every piece of evidence given to you and make it so aliens could be making it appear "x" then it is quite literally impossible to prove or disprove anything. In fact you could say that "aliens are making gas prices higher. That is the only way to explain it!" despite the fact that these things occur without the need of any outside interference.

__________________
---"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)---