I'm not sure that I do - if people were being abducted, the proof of these abductions is the abductions? As an example of a circular argument, that's right up there.

I'd love to know ET was out there. I'd be thrilled to see some unambiguously alien artifacts, some (in-focus) video or photographic evidence from several independent sources, or even just an apology about all the cows written with a clearly alien handwriting. Geez, even a dozing spouse complaining sleepily about the bright lights and draught would be a step in the right direction.

Unfortunately, unsupported testimony doesn't do a lot for me.

__________________
"I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance any day." - Douglas Adams

"Certainly, in the topsy-turvy world of heavy rock, having a good solid piece of wood in your hand is often useful." - Ian Faith

...I fiind that this suggest that the memory screen techniques of their alien abductors has trained their memories to be more malleable.

Oh, for crying out loud.

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

Perhaps they are androids that are such advanced technology we cannot possibly tell they are androids because every test would come back "human". Because every test comes back "human" they must be androids. Only way to explain that.

__________________
---"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)---

Interesting. It took me about a week of reading to fathom what she wrote. You did it in one night. You are a genius.

Hmmm....And John Mack's work is not to be questioned? Simply amazing....

Boy, if I did not know better, I would state that Bart copied this somewhere on line or from a UFO magazine somewhere. But then again, he read Clancy's book in one night and absorbed it all. To me, that says a lot.

I would say that 100% of my hypnogogic hallucinations had aliens in them before I knew what the phenomenon was. Now that I know it varies but never has aliens in it. Usually it is simply something already within my field of vision that changes slightly to become animated. Also I can now willingly prolong or cut short the hallucinations.

__________________
---"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)---

Oh, for crying out loud.

You may cry out loud all you want. Changes nothing.

I would say that 100% of my hypnogogic hallucinations had aliens in them before I knew what the phenomenon was. Now that I know it varies but never has aliens in it. Usually it is simply something already within my field of vision that changes slightly to become animated. Also I can now willingly prolong or cut short the hallucinations.

That would make you quite the exception. Perhaps you should submit your anmalous experiance to Clancey or Mack for review.

Boy, if I did not know better, I would state that Bart copied this somewhere on line or from a UFO magazine somewhere. But then again, he read Clancy's book in one night and absorbed it all. To me, that says a lot.

Your assesment of my reading ability or how quickly I absorb information is not relevent.

Taking advantage of the human minds capacity for learning routines would be expected of our alledged alien opponent. This is especially apparent in sports where repitition creates reflex actions to rapid events.

The hypothesis of alternative conclusions to her work was entirely my own. Nevertheless it is a valid observation. Advanced memory alteration techniques if indeed applied to abductees would be expected to produce changes to memory processing that would skew the results. Clancey's analysis would come to into question as to objectivity if she did not consider this as a possibility.

References to a secret alien invasion I find as patently rediculous. Technology capable of mind control and remaining as well hidden as they are would render this unecesary. Would we conquar cave men by going to live among them?

Clearly conquaring is not on the agenda. However repeated abductions go further than would be required for a mere study. How many genetic samples would you need to study our genetics?

Collection for use as a raw material in biological technology is more likely. They could get enough material to make their own little colony, but why expand the support resources when the colony of available material is readily available and already self supporting.

No, the abductions would be the evidence that the aliens exist.

Jay said that before one can claim that aliens are abducting people,
it first must be shown that such aliens exist. Daffy disagreed, and I
also disagree.

I have never seen a beaver in the wild. I don't recall ever hearing of
wild beavers in Minneapolis. If small trees started disappearing from my
neighborhood, close to the Mississippi river (I'm less than two blocks
away from the river), leaving stumps a few inches high that indicate a
lot of little hatchet marks or maybe teeth marks all around, so that they
are pointed like pencils, it could be a reasonable guess that the trees
have been abducted by beavers. The abductions would be evidence
for the existence of beavers in the area. It might even provide an
explanation for the recent reports of raccoons with wide, flat tails.

-- 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

Mack is dead. I would think you would know that since you have read his works and about him. You stated you read abstracts of his work. Feel free to share what these abstracts were. I am curious what you have read by him.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/aliens/johnmack.html

Here is one. I did not make a study of the man per say as that was not relevent. I read some abstracts of his work. Nor did I probe into the personal life of Clancey, her background, or living status. I was more interested in their work and how it might be relevent.

Reading a book and accesing its relevence to a subject does not require a knoledge of the author beyond assesing their credentials. And even their credentials are not necessary if the work has enough strenght to stand on its own merit.

But you know beavers exist. Beavers have defined properties. You know, for example, what a beaver's toothmarks should look like. Ergo, while you may be using the idea of beavers to prove that beavers took the trees, you are not using the beavers taking the trees as evidence that beavers exist. You are taking a set of known factors and incorporating them into an uncertain scenario. You are not taking unknown factors and creating a certain scenario, which is what using the fact of an abduction to prove aliens would be doing. After all, humans abduct humans all the time.

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

You may cry out loud all you want. Changes nothing.

Exactly. It doesn't change the flagrant circularity in your reasoning. You entertain no hypothesis that doesn't include alien influence.

Your assesment of my reading ability or how quickly I absorb information is not relevent.

Yes it is. You claim to have absorbed a relatively dense 180-page book in less than one day and are professing competence in the material as a way of trying to trump your critics.

But you don't have a track record of careful reading and comprehension (e.g., the plasma paper). You don't have a track record of careful research (e.g., misrepresentation of UFOlogists' credentials and conclusions).

It's more parsimonious to believe that you quickly Googled for ammunition against Clancy, quickly found Mack's work, and relied only on his description of Clancy's work rather than your own description of it.

The hypothesis of alternative conclusions to her work was entirely my own.

Of course it was. No one in his right mind would make such a blatantly illogical claim.

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

No, the abductions would be the evidence that the aliens exist.

Circular.

I have never seen a beaver in the wild.

What Gillianren said: You don't need personal knowledge. You simply need to have reliable knowledge, by any means, of the properties of the postulated cause. Without that no testable conclusion can be drawn.

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

Of course it was. No one in his right mind would make such a blatantly illogical claim.

That is a conclusion entirely without foundation. Suppose for a few minutes that abductions with memory alterations are real. Would you not expect that such techniques would alter the memory process in such a way as to be noticable in memory tests?

For example a list of words that have an association where the suggestive word itself is not in the list. Abductees remembered the associated word as being in the list while non abductees did not. The false memory screens require buliding an association from other suggestions. The mind is thus trained to make the associative connection.

Clancey's work on memory study used these very word association tests.

But this is not an abstract of his work. This is an interview on NOVA. I think I even gave you the link to this at one point. NOVA did a pretty good job exposing the alien abduction story for what it was if you read the entire web page. My favorite is this one:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/aliens/wheresphysev.html


This is where they state:

In interviews and in writing, and specifically in a letter sent October 17, 1995, we offered several abduction proponents the opportunity to have NOVA hire independent scientists to examine any physical evidence from a current case. We went so far as to offer to perform an MRI or other radiological tests (with the approval of a physician) in cases of alleged nasal implants. We were not taken up on our offer, and it was further suggested that the aliens are too smart to let such evidence fall into our hands.

Maybe you ought to read the transcript of the show. For you, that should take maybe 5-10 minutes. Don't forget the part about Donna Bassett, who hoodwinked Mack into believing that she was an abductee. From the transcript, she states:

There was no skepticism. He would believe the most far-fetched things. Or at least, he seemed to. The only time he got critical was when I tried to find alternate explanations for some of these experiences myself.

Then there is this:

RICHARD OFSHE: The ease with which Mack accepts either deliberate, misleading, or hypnotic fantasies as real is very frightening for someone who's in a position of authority, for someone who's in a position of telling people this stuff is real. There's nothing tentative about that.

The program went on to state that Mack almost lost his job at Harvard in 1994.

In 1994, concerned by mounting scientific criticism of John Mack and his research, Harvard University launched a lengthy internal review. In the end, with academic freedom at issue, the university took no adverse action.

Anyway, feel free to give us some abstracts and not interviews. You read them. Don't you remember even one?

That is a conclusion entirely without foundation. Suppose for a few minutes that abductions with memory alterations are real. Would you not expect...

That's the circularity. And the foundation for the conclusion.

Don't suppose. Prove.

Clancey's work on memory study used these very word association tests.

And by remarkable coincidence, that's the primary means by which Mack proposes to dispute Clancy. You aren't displaying any knowledge of Clancy than you cannot have gotten by skimming summaries of Mack.

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

Bart - every time you funnel your observations down into a point you leave a wide birth to the facts. You have already come to a conclusion - and use every shred of evidence - even if it goes *against* you - to support your belief. Hence I cannot fathom how you function in life without allowing for new, non-conforming ideas to enter your head.

Also you change and enhance your statements to warp what others say and have written to support your beliefs. At this point I'm going to declare shenanigans and state for the record that your are either insane or suffer a lack of judgment.

__________________
---"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)---

Basically its this: you can imagine that aliens could accomplish "x". Therefore any example of "x" must be aliens. Bart ignores that "x" has a series of well documented and provable sources that have nothing at all to do with aliens yet concludes that since he believes aliens could accomplish it that they MUST be doing "x".

__________________
---"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)---

Don't suppose. Prove.

Well thats the point isn't it. All the proof is either ancedotal or entirly open to interpretation. The experts cannot even agree on the evidence or exactly what it means.

I am quite sure that nothing I offer would be acceptable as proof, and is really of little importance to me.

My evaluations are entirely logical so that argument aganst them fails. On the basis that there is no physical proof then that argument against them is quite valid.

How do you suppose the religous symbol in the oregon hard baked lakebed was cut three inches deep in a 13.5 acre site three inches deep. With every line perfect and in an impossibly short time. A devine message? BS It is as false a misdirection as are false memory screens. Higher consciousness? BS

The Alaskin JAL flight that the military wanted the FAA to keep under wraps? The arguments for clandestine agenda out of need to hide military capabilities fails for that one.

The little gray guys are not out to conquar so the assertion of no defense significance is on cursury evaluation valid. The little buggers arent malicious of intent per say. I just think their techniques are questionable. Let them bargain for their materials from sperm banks and give something back in trade. They steal and traumatize in a most unethical manor.

ET should be held to the same standerds of fair trade and ethical practices as any other foreign government. At least as far as our technical ability can enforce that, which may be nil at this point in time.

I am quite sure that nothing I offer would be acceptable as proof...

Nothing you have offered so far is suitable proof of any of your claims.

...and is really of little importance to me.

And your indifference to the need for proof is why you will receive little further attention from reasonable people.

My evaluations are entirely logical...

No, they are not. They are textbook examples of classic fallacies. You have no demonstrated proficiency in logical construction or analysis.

How do you suppose the religous symbol...

Red herring.

Prove there are space aliens. Now. If you cannot, then stop this fiasco.

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

At this point I'm going to declare shenanigans and state for the record that your are either insane or suffer a lack of judgment.

Your assesment of my sanity does not make the abduction phenomena go away. And I have never seen any other reason given for this and all the associated BS that made any sense.

And I function quite well in the world without benefit of your pop psycology evaluations thank you.

Do you think the aliens walk among us to conquar mentality is sane? At least my hypothesis is one that is plausable. Advanced biological technology? We are just beginning to scratch that surface. How far along do you suppose races are that cracked the genetic code several thousand years ago might be?

This world might have been somebodies ping pong ball for quite some time. Until we take action to control that it will continue to be.

You think I am insane. I think you wear blinders. Put them back on, I am no threat to the comfort of your blind reality.

Red herring.

Yet yiou make no explenation of how the herring came to be. Am I the only one required to answer the question?

Your assesment of my sanity does not make the abduction phenomena go away.

Your repeated assertions that it is an "abduction" phenomenon do not substitute for evidence of an abductor.

And I have never seen any other reason given for this and all the associated BS that made any sense.

Reasons were given, which you immediately polluted with your alien mind-control hogwash.

Do you think the aliens walk among us to conquar mentality is sane?

Prove that aliens walk among us without making a circular argument.

At least my hypothesis is one that is plausable.

It's pure conjecture, supported only by handwaving and circular reasoning.

I think you wear blinders. Put them back on, I am no threat to the comfort of your blind reality.

More proof, less UFO rhetoric, please.

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

Yet yiou make no explenation of how the herring came to be.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_elenchi

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

http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog/C...l?show=reviews

Checked her book out of the library yesterday. However much of the material is here as well. Stop with the accusations of lying please.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_elenchi

Irrelevent. I asked if you could explain the anomoly itself. Not to define your words.

Already know what red herring means. It means you don't know how the image got in the lake bed so you hide behind a diversion.

Irrelevent. I asked if you could explain the anomoly itself.

No, you asked me to explain some anomaly instead of answering the question I posed. That attempt at diversion is a red-herring argument.

It means you don't know how the image got in the lake bed so you hide behind a diversion.

You brought up some lake bed. I didn't.

You don't know what a "red herring" is. Just like you don't know what a "straw man" is or a "begged question" or any of the other logical terms that have been applied.

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

Checked her book out of the library yesterday. However much of the material is here as well.

Are you saying that your assessment of Clancy's work is based on a few brief reviews on a web site, which you assume to represent "much of her material?"

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

No one can be convicted of a crime if the state hasn't resonably proved that a crime has actually happened (Habeas Delicti, I think). People confess to crimes everyday - horrific crimes - that have never happened. A confession can never be enough for a conviction by itself.

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.

While abductions of people by other people happens so often that arguements for the long term viability of our species is often brought into question, alien abductions require aliens.

I don't like comparisons between scientific and legal evidentiary requirements: They are not the same thing.

The burden of proof differs between civil cases (preponderance of the evidence) and criminal cases (reasonable doubt), for starters, and while science can revise itself to what it thinks the truth is, the U.S. legal system is much more immediate to personal consequences: That's one of the reasons why the rules are different.

Mr. Utah, If I'm ever unjustly accused of murder I want you on my side.

__________________
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

Jeff, it's nice to know I wasn't alone on this one!

Fascinating topic to be sure. Unfortunately, I was away most of the day and evening and missed out on some spirited debates. Oh, well.

I will say that I do not consider my position to be in any way "circular logic." But I must leave that vague for now because I am very tired and am off to bed.

Cheers.