Indeed.

Bart, your appeal to her education is a logical fallacy known variously as an Appeal to Authority, or an Appeal to False Authority.

Your arguments on the ETH have been free from logic through post after post. Is there any reason to believe this will be any different?

Well, she had a PHD! What more do you want?

__________________
All Moderation in Purple
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 ►

Well, she even wrote a book on Reptilians and is lauded by David Icke....

I stand corrected.

Please explain why these works should appeal to the skeptic as a scientific or scholarly approach to abduction.

Being an educator with a phd she took an approach of accepting nothing on face value. If you don't want to read the books you can watch the 4 segment 2 hour vid.

1. She states you can accept nothing on face value.
2. She attempts to correlate stories looking for facts.
3. She stipulates who the manipulators are is unknown, aliens assumed as possible source but not proven.
4. If you listen to her lecture she makes her approach and relevence clearer than I can.

Watch the first one, find nothing relevent then don't watch the rest. I discovered her work about 4 days ago. I am researching the subject because I know so little about it. So I thought I would check and see what had been discussed here, as well as other forums.

I found her approach remarkable because;

So much of what I have started to read I put down quickly. It became obvious many researchers were cherry picking the facts to fit their agenda.

She took the approach of censuring nothing, accept nothing on face value, correlate simularities. She was a critical thinker who tried at first to reject where the investigation was taking her. She tried to find it all was explainable as a mental condition, but found the truly mentally ill people in treatment or institutions did not exhibit anything even close to what the abduction people reported.

I did not start this post, make no claims, have no need to defend.

I just suggest that she takes a science minded approach, which many authors clearly do not. If you have an opinion, make it an informed one and evaluate her lecture video. She pretty much summerizes her thoughts there. She offers what thoughts can be directed towards the abductors as a defense. Points out how the abductors play into the belief systems of the abducted. Points out the alien or government connection is not proven.

Your arguments on the ETH have been free from logic through post after post. Is there any reason to believe this will be any different?

That is a matter of opinion. And I posted reference to her work and not mine. Suggest you evaluate her work, which has absolutly nothing to do with your opinion of me.

After watching her vid I would find it worthy to read your posts and opinion.
If you do not wish to spend the time, then you are just making skeptical noise of uninformed bias.

I did not start this post, make no claims, have no need to defend.

They why are you defending? Why do you care what we say?

Knock off the passive-aggressive approach. It's really getting old.

I just suggest that she takes a science minded approach, which many authors clearly do not.

But you aren't sure what a "science-minded approach" might be. Remember that you told us your knowledge of scientific method was limited.

If you have an opinion, make it an informed one...

...says the admitted non-scientist trying to tell everyone that a certain person's work is scientific-minded. BAUT's readership is generally not a group you can easily accuse of being poorly informed.

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

That is a matter of opinion.

No it isn't. You simply deny the logical analysis of your work. As I've repeatedly said: illogic is as it is.

And I posted reference to her work and not mine.

You told us this was the work of a well educated person, whom you believe approached the subject with appropriate scientific rigor. I assume you believed this would appeal to a skeptical audience. Turns out this person's education had nothing to do with the work you ask us to consider, and in fact nothing to do with science. (PhD degrees in literature do not generally require a scientific method.) Turns out this person left academia to pursue "woo-woo" topics full time, and was successful at it.

That was your basis of recommending this author's work among all others. But now there's a serious doubt for that basis; you misled us. And so the worthiness of further attention to it is now the question.

But now you change horses and demand it simply be taken at face value.

You urge us to inform ourselves. I suggest you take your own advice and inform yourself on the credibility and qualifications of your sources before you undertake to advocate them.

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

You urge us to inform ourselves. I suggest you take your own advice and inform yourself on the credibility and qualifications of your sources before you undertake to advocate them.

Ever the skeptic. Not sure I believe in the abduction phenomena as real either. Know sleep paralyses is not a good explenation. That can happen anytime you are rudely awakend from rem sleep. Have undergone that and guess what, did not hallucinate aliens. Just took me too long to get motor function back and chase the burgler out of the house.

I called attention to her work because she was a victim with education. Not a kook or a psychotic. The phenomena cannot always be attributed to someone with issues. She became a researcher to understand her own experiences. She was forced to this because she could get no help from the science community.

She kept a journal and documented her experience. Was it real or imagined? I don't know, judge that for yourself. To me it reads like a rational person confronted with a reality that had no rationality. I would equate it to a sufficiently adavanced technology seeming to be magic hypothesis.

Knew I could count on you. Could have written your response myself. If she became a researcher just to write a book, your response would have merit. She became a researcher to understand her own experiance, wrote a book to document what she found.

Facts are stubborn things. They just keep popping up no matter how much you try to ignore them. Even when they cannot be placed into your scientific approach, they still refuse to go away.

It's a matter of fact, not opinion, that you have failed to provide logical arguments for your beliefs on other ETH/CT threads.

You don't seem to understand the concept of logical arguments, and now you have made an appeal to authority to someone with a PhD in Old English, who collaborates with psychics.

The fact that you post references to some author of dubious qualification in no way demonstrates a command of logical arguments on your part.

The fact that you continue to make logical fallacies with nearly every post does nothing to encourage me to follow your links.

But, hey! I admire you for attempting to answer the questions put to you.

And what makes you qualified to determine that it is not a good explanation? Your personal experience may be different than those that have alien abduction stories. Maybe you should read Susan Clancy's book on the subject. There is a reference to it here:

http://www.csicop.org/si/2006-02/abducted.html

I have read Clancy's book, have you?

If you do not like Skeptic books, read Kevin Randle's book (which abduction proponents also dislike).

http://www.amazon.com/Abduction-Enig.../dp/0312867085

I think a lot of respected and learned people feel that sleep paralysis is a pretty good explanation for some/many abduction reports. I believe Clancy is part of the psychology department at Harvard. That sounds pretty respectable and qualified to me.

Of course, some of these people could be just plain lying. It is my opinion that Walton (failed polygraph test) and Ed Walters (Gulf Breeze saga) are two examples that probably fit in this category.

You don't seem to understand the concept of logical arguments, and now you have made an appeal to authority to someone with a PhD in Old English, who collaborates with psychics.

Consider her dilemma as she presents it to be. Where would you suggest she turn to for answers to cope with something that was disrupting her life so profoundly?

Consider that the source of disruption had so much power over perception that it seemed to make her percieve whataver it wished. When she sought help from traditional sources she encountered only skeptics and dismisal.

Being the phenomena had such a profound control over psychic perception, where should she explore an explenation.

You also assume her collaberation with a psychic as damning without considering the merits? BS She chose this as a case study because the psychic was as powerless as anyone else. It clearly established that the phenomena was outside the psychic influence. Psychic, college professor, redneck or educated. The phenomena is not limited to any group or qualification.

You base the merit of the information on your assesment of me. That isn't science, thats denial pseudoscince.

Also I find as sgnificant the beginning premise and conclusion of any scientific study made is the same. Defense significance.

And that argument clearly fails by definition. That the phenomena is growing in scope, profoundly disrupts peoples lives, leads many to believe the government as co-conspiritors, severly modifies peoples belief systems, and disrupts their lives leading many towards stress and psychotic breakdown.

Just by virtue of its impact on society it is of defense significance regardless of the underlying cause.

Sorry I disturbed you. Put your head back in the sand. We are being farmed by an entity of such technological superiority that our government is as powerless as its citizens. Denial and cover up is the only mechanism governments have found to mantain any semblence that they are in control of our defense.

At least Karla Turner found a coping mechanism and established an emotional stance that was diruptive of the illusion the entities try to cast over their subjects. Anger seems to be an emotion that makes it more difficult for the entities to keep virtual reality illusions intact.

Finding something that makes a difference. How is that not science?

This post illustrates a logical fallacy found in the set "fallacies of relevance", from its subset "irrelevant appeals", specifically the "appeal to pity". It's a favourite among lawyers and politicians.

__________________
A person's name, or a mark representing it, as signed personally or by deputy, as in subscribing a letter or other document.

This post illustrates a logical fallacy found in the set "fallacies of relevance", from its subset "irrelevant appeals", specifically the "appeal to pity". It's a favourite among lawyers and politicians.

Doesn't necesarily invalidate how she felt in her frustration and feelings of helplesness. Putting a label on something does not invalidate it.

This is a common skeptic tactic. Defining something by tactic or example automaticly invalidates the argument by inference.

It invalidates it as being a logical, scientific argument.See the above.

Thank you for helping substantiate my point even further.

__________________
A person's name, or a mark representing it, as signed personally or by deputy, as in subscribing a letter or other document.

Any sufficietly advanced technology. This precludes any physical evidence of proof and any evidence of proof against.

This leaves only ancedotal evidence as any possibility. One voice without relevent references makes a delusion.

Many voices as eyewitness accounts, research papers and published books, with a long documented history, makes a phenomena.

See the above.

Thank you for helping substantiate my point even further.

Thank you for substantiating my argument. Discounting emotional state as being scientific evidence. You just invalidated the entire field of psychology as being scientific. Guess you better invalidate all those phd's psychiatrists hold, amd close that branch of unversity study.

Ever the skeptic.

Thank you. I don't play games. My approach to these questions is consistent because I believe it is the right approach and is well-founded in logic, investigative technique, and epistemology. You may expect such consistency in the future. And since you anticipate my questions, please go ahead and provide the information you seem to know I'll ask for.

Knew I could count on you. Could have written your response myself.

You're good at ridiculing answers, but not as good at addressing the reasons behind them.

I called attention to her work because she was a victim with education.

And my education is chopped liver? Unlike she, I have been trained in investigative method. Yet you don't seem to think my education, intelligence, and skill are worth anything that you need to pay attention to. You just write me off as a die-hard skeptic and ignore every reason I give for not buying your hogwash.

You're trying to trump her up as something more than any of dozens of abductees telling their stories on the fringe media circuit.

Not a kook or a psychotic.

Well look at the company she kept and collaborated with.

The phenomena cannot always be attributed to someone with issues.

Nor is there any reason to attribute it to imaginary space invaders, which is what is being done. You forget that part. Not only did she write about her experiences, she wrote about what the aliens are going to do to us. Horror! Makes for a pretty gripping story.

She kept a journal and documented her experience. Was it real or imagined?

Doesn't matter; it's just not science.

If she became a researcher just to write a book, your response would have merit. She became a researcher to understand her own experiance, wrote a book to document what she found.

She wrote several books, including one describing the political and social agenda of the abductors. She became a professional fringe author. I don't see where she "became a researcher" in the sense of acquiring any understanding or expertise in how to investigate what she describes. I see where she quit her job teaching Old English literature at a university, claimed she'd been abducted by aliens, and spent the rest of her life talking about alien abductors.

You don't consider the possibility at all that she's just making it all up to get attention.

Facts are stubborn things. They just keep popping up no matter how much you try to ignore them.

And where might I find these facts?

Even when they cannot be placed into your scientific approach, they still refuse to go away.

You really hate science, don't you. It takes away all your toys.

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

Discounting emotional state as being scientific evidence.

Of what?

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

Doesn't necesarily invalidate how she felt in her frustration and feelings of helplesness. Putting a label on something does not invalidate it.

Attributing it to space aliens without proof does.

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

Where would you suggest she turn to for answers to cope with something that was disrupting her life so profoundly?

Red herring. She said it was space aliens. I want proof of those aliens.

When she sought help from traditional sources she encountered only skeptics and dismisal.

So she decided to sell a book to the fringe crowd. (Hint: to appeal to the fringe, always say you were rejected and ridiculed by the mainstream.)

You also assume her collaberation with a psychic as damning without considering the merits?

You assume there is merit to psychics.

Psychic, college professor, redneck or educated. The phenomena is not limited to any group or qualification.

So why did you mislead us and direct us only to the work of the college professor -- the respectable person -- and not the rednecks or charlatans (er, um, psychics).

You simply believe hook-line-and-sinker that all this self-proclaimed hokum is real. Okay, let's say for the sake of argument that there is an external cause. What do a redneck, a college professor, and a psychic all have in common? Might it be most obviously that they are human? Therefore mightn't the result most parsimoniously be attributable to some property of being human? Why must we invent space alien invadors and secret government coverup conspiracies for which there is no evidence? That's as unparsimonious as it can be. Yet that's exactly what she does.

You base the merit of the information on your assesment of me. That isn't science, thats denial pseudoscince.

You told us (twice) that the merit of the information was in the properties of its presenter -- chiefly education. You advocated it in particular to us skeptics on that basis. Then we find you misled us about that basis.

Now, again, I ask you what makes this story -- which you've advocated -- any better than any of the other abductee tales that we might read?

Also I find as sgnificant the beginning premise and conclusion of any scientific study made is the same.

Please stop trying to lecture everyone on how science works. There is absolutely no science in the approach this author has taken.

That the phenomena is growing in scope, profoundly disrupts peoples lives, leads many to believe the government as co-conspiritors, severly modifies peoples belief systems, and disrupts their lives leading many towards stress and psychotic breakdown.

Are all such symptoms being caused by invisible space aliens?

Sorry I disturbed you. Put your head back in the sand. We are being farmed by an entity of such technological superiority that our government is as powerless as its citizens.

Whatever happened to "I'm not making any argument?" See, this is why no one takes you seriously. You try to defuse criticism by saying you're not taking a stand. Then you take a stand. This passive aggression is really getting old. You've used it in every topic you've raised.

Finding something that makes a difference. How is that not science?

If I steal all your money and leave you to starve, I'll have made a difference in your life. But why would that be science?

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

Any sufficietly advanced technology. This precludes any physical evidence of proof...

Appeal to magic, and blatantly circular.

Many voices as eyewitness accounts, research papers and published books, with a long documented history, makes a phenomena.

Documenting a repeated effect does not substantiate a hypothesized cause. You demonstrate no understanding whatsoever about how science works.

Science isn't just some religion with arbitrary rules. Science is the body of understanding we've acquired into how, when, and by modes of reasoning a defensible and substantial conclusion may be drawn. The acquisition of that understanding occurs by trial and error. Repeating the known errors simply because they give you the answers you want doesn't constitute a valid dissenting opinion.

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

You really hate science, don't you. It takes away all your toys.

Wrong, I love science. Hate it that science is in denial, or is that just for public denial. I would bet the phenomena is in very serious classified study. The defense implecations are too big to ignore.

Of what?

Good question. Unfounded fears = paranoia.

In her case, motivation to research. Having a phd in english did not qualify her for research in physics. The act of obtaining that phd gave her the tools and methodology for conducting research. She researched the human and emotional aspects of the phenomena.

Established that it was not unfounded paranoia. Established that psycic and new age philosophy of the abduction phenomena was a form of denial and wishful thinking.

Doesn't matter; it's just not science.

Documentation by journal has a long established historical presedence in scientific study. Darwin kept one.

Nor is there any reason to attribute it to imaginary space invaders, which is what is being done. You forget that part. Not only did she write about her experiences, she wrote about what the aliens are going to do to us. Horror! Makes for a pretty gripping story.

Wrong. She did not claim alien. Clearly stated there was no proof as to source. Also made no predictions of what they were going to do. She documented what was being done. She dispelled the notion of applying purpose or intent, stated the facts as she found them in blunt reality of action.

You don't consider the possibility at all that she's just making it all up to get attention.

No I do not. She just didn't fit that profile.


I did not post this to get into a long discussion of merit. Expected exactly the response that I got. Obviously you continue to post from position of judgement according to your paradeim.

Have you actually read her work?

Did you actually listen to her lecture?

At least listen to the lecture in its entirety. Two hours well spent. Then you can have a reasonable assesment of value. Your arguments against will have a ring of validity.

At this point you sound like a computer program incapable of considering anything outside of programming. Argument by rote. Do you write those documents the government uses to deny? The evidence suggest they take it very seriously in secret. It is public denial that counts.

And yes, people like Karla Turner have convinced me that there is indeed a denial at work. Did not feel that way when I embarqued on this journey of discovery. Now I do. This aspect went from a possibility to a necessity for me. They have to.

Reading her work I was saying hmm, maybe. Watched her lecture and decided her demeaner and assessments were hard cold fact, devoid of spiritual interpretation many like to apply. The spiritual aspect others applied frankly irretated me.

Do not see it as a horror story for good reading. See it as an application of our own morality. Absolute power does corrupt absolutly. And so does technology so superior that the purveyers of such are elevated to absolute power.

Love science. Believe that one day we will have enough to put our foot down and dictate our own terms.

Repeating the known errors simply because they give you the answers you want doesn't constitute a valid dissenting opinion.

Disagree. Didn't get the answers I wanted. Hoped to find some reason to believe we could aquire new technology that would bring a leap. No longer believe that to be possible. The disparity is to great. We have too far to go in game of catchup. Need more evolution and technology just to throw the collar off.

One of the first “grays” was shown in “Earth vs the Flying Saucers” in 1956:

http://i27.tinypic.com/30uq0ig.jpg

“Invaders from Mars” (1953) has scenes of alien abduction and medical examinations of humans on a medical type slab-table aboard a flying saucer, people put into a trance, and electronic implants placed in the backs of people’s necks:

http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/H...411/poster.jpg

http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/H...11/image16.jpg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-A-E...eature=related

“The Man From Planet X” (1951) has alien abduction, people put into a trance, and a spaceman that looks like a “gray”:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h7kEf-rW7ks

Kids can see these films as young children, 2, 3, or 4 years old, and they won’t understand them, but they’ll remember some of the images from the films all their lives. But later they will forget where they learned of those image. Some people will think they might have dreamed them. Others will think they are some kind of mystical supernatural images placed in their minds. Others will fear the mental images, especially if they never see the films again and never recall where the images and concepts originated.

Kids can see these films as young children, 2, 3, or 4 years old, and they won’t understand them, but they’ll remember some of the images from the films all their lives. But later they will forget where they learned of those image. Some people will think they might have dreamed them. Others will think they are some kind of mystical supernatural images placed in their minds. Others will fear the mental images, especially if they never see the films again and never recall where the images and concepts originated.

I grew up watching Twighlight Zone, Outer Limits, and Bugs Bunny with Marvin the Martian. I have to my knowlege ever seen an alien, never really gave it much thought till sometime last year, or really ever saw them in my dreams. Didn't ever expect to see big funny rabbits. Loved horror shows too as a kid, never seen a vampire or considered them real.

I find just the opposite. Film makers don't make films without a box office appeal. Big investment to make on a subject to which the film audience has no interest or means to relate. They make films based on what is already a subject of interest within the audience. Box office dollars rule. Historical precedence was long established before the first radio show or even the first alien novel.

I am sure there are some whose imaginations were inspired. And there will always be some who have a loose connection to reality. However there are very few mental patients who have the I see aliens syndrome.

You make a statement in support of your paradeim that has no research or supporting studies other than an unfounded speculation by a few psycologist who have conducted no studies. Yet because others find it supportive of their beliefs they do not call your lack of scientific proof into question.

There is no correlation between mental aberration as to detatchment from reality and belief in alieans. Just the opposite. Most mental disorders have a distinct lack of aliens. It is more a lack of connection to society.

If suggestability in children were the major cause, there would be more correlation. There is none. BS is not objectionable when it supports the skeptical view?

Your belief systems are firmly entrenched. I did not post here to attempt to change them.

You told us (twice) that the merit of the information was in the properties of its presenter -- chiefly education. You advocated it in particular to us skeptics on that basis. Then we find you misled us about that basis.

Now, again, I ask you what makes this story -- which you've advocated -- any better than any of the other abductee tales that we might read?

Because of her approach to the subject. Others writing on the subject were only using aspects that supported some position they were advocating.

Her approach was from her experience as an educator. Gather the data and go where it leads. No conclusions made before evaluation. No choosing one set of facts over others to support an argument made.

She did her work at a time when UFOology was into a new age approach ie the aliens are here to help us. Her research clearly rejected this. What she showed was that the aliens were using the belief systems the abductee already had in place to support their virtual reality false memory screens.

And I keep using the word alien as a meaning of convenience. She also stated there was no proof of alien, interdimensional beings, or some long resident earthly entities.

Further she stated that there was no proof of different alien types. The Tall Whites, Reptillians, Insectoids or whatever seemed to be part of the memory screens used to hide the purpose from the abductee. Whoever they are, they can manipulate memory and perception to such proficiency that nothing could be taken on face value.

I find her work significnt because she approached it from a basis free of pre conception. Not particuarly comfortable with where it led. Not sure anybody is doing anything of comparable quality today.

But do believe the implications are significant enough that some clandestine research is likely being conducted somewhere. Believe that just because the shelves of the CIA is stacked with contengency what if plans for every possible scenario of world politics as well. Occasionally one comes to light that is embarasement because it does not fit actual political climate.

It would be remiss if something of such scope were ignored---and it turned out to be true. I think the truth is known, just not made public.

Excellent stuff, especially the 'Man from Planet X'. Thanks.

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

She did her work at a time when UFOology was into a new age approach ie the aliens are here to help us. Her research clearly rejected this. What she showed was that the aliens were using the belief systems the abductee already had in place to support their virtual reality false memory screens.

And I keep using the word alien as a meaning of convenience. She also stated there was no proof of alien, interdimensional beings, or some long resident earthly entities.

Further she stated that there was no proof of different alien types. The Tall Whites, Reptillians, Insectoids or whatever seemed to be part of the memory screens used to hide the purpose from the abductee. Whoever they are, they can manipulate memory and perception to such proficiency that nothing could be taken on face value.

This is pure speculation. Mysterious beings which can assume various forms by one means or another. A catch-all for different sightings. No proof whatsoever of these super beings, which are never witnessed by others. Many of the abductees are sincere. Do you feel that telling them that their abductions are real and caused by monsters, helps them in any way? Or does it augment their distress?


But do believe the implications are significant enough that some clandestine research is likely being conducted somewhere. Believe that just because the shelves of the CIA is stacked with contengency what if plans for every possible scenario of world politics as well. Occasionally one comes to light that is embarasement because it does not fit actual political climate.

It would be remiss if something of such scope were ignored---and it turned out to be true. I think the truth is known, just not made public.

This is an example of classical conspiracy theory mindset.

Wrong, I love science. Hate it that science is in denial...

Hair split. Science takes away your toys, and you don't like that.

The act of obtaining that phd gave her the tools and methodology for conducting research.

Do you have a PhD? Have you ever done PhD study yourself? A PhD in Old English literature does not equip a candidate to do scientific research such as determining the likely causes of physical symptoms.

My duties at the University of Utah included evaluating the research, methods, and conclusions of PhD candidates. I'll keep my own counsel about what it means to get a PhD.

She researched the human and emotional aspects of the phenomena.

And concluded, in the end, that it was still space aliens performing experiments on humans while the government stood helplessly by.

Documentation by journal has a long established historical presedence in scientific study. Darwin kept one.

You confuse the collection of data with the principles of drawing conclusions from that data. Darwin did the later according to reasonably good principles of scientific inference. Turner did only the former, and then speculated wildly that it must be aliens.

Wrong. She did not claim alien.

"The one thing I can say, is that ... one thing I know I know: the evidence does show a massive, ongoing, long-term alien involvement with humans, and no one has a convincing explanation for it yet." --Karla Turner, International UFO Congres and Film Festival, 1993.

No I do not. She just didn't fit that profile.

So your assessment of credibility is based on profiling? That's a hoot. I based my assessment on her behavior and statements, not on what category I might have placed her in before I knew anything about her.

I sat through a two-hour lecture from her -- not the one you sent us to, but a different one -- in which she spoke to an audience of rapt UFO enthusiasts about why E.T. is messing with our lives.

I did not post this to get into a long discussion of merit. Expected exactly the response that I got.

Contradiction. We're discussing the merits of her work. Either you expected it or you didn't.

Have you actually read her work?

Have you?

In the lecture I heard, she specifically rejects the notion that all she should do is to collect data; and that she instead must draw conclusions in order "make this work exciting." She then went on to speculate about the reasons for alien involvement, considering absolutely no other possible explanation for the symptoms she and others had felt.

At this point you sound like a computer program incapable of considering anything outside of programming.

Thank you for profiling me and largely ignoring my arguments.

Do you write those documents the government uses to deny?

Thank you for accusing me of being part of your alleged government coverup.

And yes, people like Karla Turner have convinced me that there is indeed a denial at work.

Which is the drum you've been banging ever since your first arrival. At first the government was covering up secret alien bases on the Moon. Then they were covering up the truth of aerial sightings. Now they're covering up the truth of alien abductions. Every time the evidence beats you over the head and you concede it doesn't fit your handwaving du jour, you just move on to the next government coverup theory.

Love science. Believe that one day we will have enough to put our foot down and dictate our own terms.

I see. So you want science not to be independent, but to acquiesce to your wishes and confirm your beliefs?

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