Her approach was from her experience as an educator. Gather the data and go where it leads.

That's not what all educators do. That's what scientists generally do, but she did not receive a scientific education, or educate toward scientific research. She taught about Old English literature. She spent her whole life reading and telling stories. Surprise, surprise: she found a more lucrative audience for stories.

What she showed was that the aliens were using the belief systems the abductee already had in place...

No, that's what she speculated. Nice and convenient. She still gets to believe in her space aliens, but tips her hat to some prevailing scientific notions then thought to explain some abductee encounters. She completely disregards Occam and postulates a completely foreign, completely unnecessary, and completely unevidence phenomenon to enable her predetermined belief in a cause.

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.

Hair split. She refused to define alien up front. She then goes on to describe how these aliens must be behaving and acting in order to bring about her symptoms, and speculates on their motives behind that behavior. She doesn't hesitate to use the classic Gray in her illustrations.

It's nice that she admits there's no proof. But she still attributes all her woes and those of the other abductees to that cause for which there is no proof. How is that science?

I find her work significnt because she approached it from a basis free of pre conception.

Where do you get the notion that she is free from preconception? I see little else in her work.

But do believe the implications are significant enough that some clandestine research is likely being conducted somewhere.

Appeal to conspiracy.

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

"(D)ictate our own terms"?

I cannot think of another statement that is more anti-scientific.

This resurrected thread went down in flames in short order.

Did anyone else noticed how Bart tried to absolve himself of any responsibility for his claims by stating that he didn't start this thread?

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

Oh if only they would. But I suspect that science will go where the laws of physics and the cosmos dictate.

Ultimatly, It will not be bound by my limitations, or yours.

The UFO flap. The alien abduction flap. Something very real is at work here. And has been for a very long time.

I don't think my attempts at understanding it is more than speculation. Yours are no more informed, having done no research yourself.

I read and try to understand the official reports as well as research by people like Karla Turner.

You reject all that do not fit your paradiem.

Perhaps in the end the UFO flap will prove more to do with how the human mind works than anything else, but I wouldn't bet on that.

Have you ever read any part of this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhagavad_Gita

Interpretation of phenomina has been with us for a long time. Guess what. I didn't invent it, and it just refuses to bend to my will.

You better start adding fairies, elves, bigfoot, the loch ness monster, witches, werewolves, etc. to your list of phenomena then. All have eyewitness accounts, published books, research papers (of a sort), and long documented histories. I don't believe any of them are true, do you?

BTW, what type of "research papers" are you talking about? How many actually appear in scientific journals. It is easy to write about "landing traces" or "alien implants" in the "Journal for scientific exploration". However, what about actual scientific journals that don't cater to wild "alien" ideas and demand a bit more from their articles. After all, they are journals for professionals and would like to have professionally written articles that intrigue and inform those reading the article. How many "research papers" have actually appeared in such journals?

I would bet it is not. History shows me correct (all previous studies basically state "waste of time") and the "defense implications" you discuss are actually zero. Are you suggesting that our technology is being reverse-engineered from captured alien spaceships or that our technology can be advanced by capturing one?

I don't think my attempts at understanding it is more than speculation. Yours are no more informed, having done no research yourself.

Hogwash. We all know more about your sources than you do. You constantly imply that we are poorly informed, then constantly sidestep the examples showing that we aren't.

Further, I am beginning to detest your constant passive-aggressive flip-flopping. Take a stand or don't; but don't simply change your horse based on how well you think the discussion is going for you. You say now that you're only speculating. But not more than a few hours ago you were telling us we all had our heads in the sand.

Make up your mind.

You reject all that do not fit your paradiem.

No. You are constantly trying to make this a matter of ideology instead of evidence. You admit Turner has no evidence for the basis of her outlandish claims. That lack is why I reject her, not because I'm following some "paradigm."

Interpretation of phenomina has been with us for a long time.

And there are people who do it professionally for the benefit of all mankind. They are called scientists. There are also people who do it to the extent where they are legally liable for the correctness of their interpretations. They are called engineers. They have adopted methods that are proven to help ensure success. Those methods are not just following some "rules" or "paradigms," but are based on empirical feedback from success and failure.

When you are willing to adopt the rigor that others do when results matter, then perhaps you can argue to be taken as seriously as they. But if you're simply going to play at being a "researcher" then you will get little quarter from those you ridicule.

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

Did anyone else noticed how Bart tried to absolve himself of any responsibility for his claims by stating that he didn't start this thread?

Of course. He is becoming quite adept at evading responsibility for his contributions and beliefs when the consequences become uncomfortable.

That's why I renew my impression that he's here only to get the standard "Rejected by BAUT because my ideas were too real for them," badge.

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

You better start adding fairies, elves, bigfoot, the loch ness monster, witches, werewolves, etc. to your list of phenomena then. All have eyewitness accounts, published books, research papers (of a sort), and long documented histories. I don't believe any of them are true, do you?

Any sufficiently advanced technology.

The human capacity for reasoning and deduction has been relativly unchanged for a long time. The ancient greeks proved this.

These are evidence that some manipualative memory screening technology is capable of playing into the current belief systems. Goblins from the dark ages.

The question is, does this false memory screening originate within the human psyche or is it external? There is ancedotal evidence for both, proof for neither.

Are you suggesting that our technology is being reverse-engineered from captured alien spaceships or that our technology can be advanced by capturing one?

I doubt that very much. Our advancements seem to originate from the hard work of dedicated researchers. Further, every technology we have has a parallel somewhere in nature.

If there were an avanced technology being employed that were capable of manipulating perception and memory, then. Recovering captured technology from us would be an easy application of such.

There is ample evidence that defense research has taken some unusual turns. Remote viewing was one. I do not think any possible avenue would be ignored. Defense by definition of objectives would have to consider all possibilities or risk extremly unpleasent surprise. All such research by definition of purpose would be classified.

It all again comes down to one question. Are the extraordinary reports that just keep coming in of internal or external origin?

The photos and vids I have seen suggest external. The lack of physical evidence suggest internal. The answer remains unresolved, but if it is like most things I have observed, it is likely some of both.

That's why I renew my impression that he's here only to get the standard "Rejected by BAUT because my ideas were too real for them," badge.

Wrong. It is too easy to let speculation become too ungrounded if you don't bounce them off a hard wall now and then. Like accepting all that KT's research implied without getting the skeptical review of her work. Accept some of your criticisms as valid. Reject some as need for you to debunk, as in applying motivation for story sells. Her motivations were sincere.

I found most English teachers in college very grounded and quite good at applying common sense reasoning and deduction. They expanded my horizons considerably.

Any sufficiently advanced technology.

...is, yes, indistinguishable from magic. That does not mean all that cannot be distinguished from magic is therefore advanced technology. Bald-faced lies, if demanded to be true yet contradicted by evidence, would also be indistinguishable from magic.

The human capacity for reasoning and deduction has been relativly unchanged for a long time. The ancient greeks proved this.

The ancient Greeks, namely Aristotle in his On Sophistical Refutations, soundly repudiate the means by which you and the UFO enthusiasts go about their business. Those methods were wrong then, and they're still wrong. The human knowledge of good reasoning and deduction need not change when it is shown to be correct.

These are evidence that some manipualative memory screening technology is capable of playing into the current belief systems.

It may also be evidence that people trying to make a buck from gullible UFO enthusiasts are capable of coming up with pure speculation that incorporates contemporary trends in thinking. I might just as well say that Nargles interfere with my computer by mimicking software and hardware failures. Would you like me to sell you a Nargle Protection Plan for your computer? Only $1,000 a year.

The question is, does this false memory screening originate within the human psyche or is it external?

No. The question is whether the space aliens are doing this. There is a specific hypothesis on the table, if you intend us to follow Karla Turner as you originally requested. Defend it, not the vague, handwaving properties of the huge class of hypotheses from which it was drawn.

Our advancements seem to originate from the hard work of dedicated researchers.

Thank you. I hope you continue to enjoy them. Kindly refrain from ridiculing the methods we use to bring them about.

There is ample evidence that defense research has taken some unusual turns. Remote viewing was one. I do not think any possible avenue would be ignored.

Yet most have been ignored. Just because some pseudoscientific directions were once briefly taken does not mean all should be. The value to defense of remote viewing was proven to be zero, and the military has been generally laughed at by the public for having even considered it.

All such research by definition of purpose would be classified.

Thus explaining the absence of any evidence for that research -- argument from silence. Unfortunately such an absence would also be explained by the absense of the research itself. Affirmation of the consequent.

It all again comes down to one question. Are the extraordinary reports that just keep coming in of internal or external origin?

No. It comes down to whether aliens are abducting humans. You're shifting the goalposts.

I grow tired of these rhetorical games. You hijack a dead thread on alien abductions to post more evidence supposedly of alien abductions. Then when the source is shown to be the charlatan she is, and the topic thoroughly refuted, you try to fall back to some more general and more apparently reasonable position.

As I said before, you draw your opponents out into an extended and exposed position, then you abruptly fall back in order to convey the wrong impression that they have overextended themselves because of ideological reasons. Then you convert the discussion solely into one of ideology.

You have adopted this same approach on every single controversial topic you have raised here. You say you're here for "answers," but I see none of that in your approach. Your pattern of behavior has been repeated, by my count, three times always with the same result. What evidence can you provide that this is not your calculated intent?

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

Of course. He is becoming quite adept at evading responsibility for his contributions and beliefs when the consequences become uncomfortable.

Wrong again but not worth the nitpicking of detail.

Wrong. It is too easy to let speculation become too ungrounded if you don't bounce them off a hard wall now and then.

I'm not buying this anymore. You've backpedalled like this three times now on three different topics. It's just an act.

Explain how "bouncing speculation off a hard wall" involves claiming the wall is underinformed or ideologically motivated. Indeed, how can any such intent be reconciled your attempts to discredit the wall? How can we buy this backpedalling after you accused the wall of having its head in the sand?

Like accepting all that KT's research implied without getting the skeptical review of her work.

Hogwash. You misrepresented not only her qualifications but also her conclusions. You told me specifically that she did not hypothesize her symptoms were the result of alien visitation, interference, and abduction. You told me specifically that she was only collecting data. Yet you have not addressed or reconciled the easily-located quotations from her own mouth establishing diametrically the opposite viewpoint.

After trying to take us to task for allegedly being unfamiliar with her work, I find your dismissal of our review to be in egregiously poor taste.

Reject some as need for you to debunk...

"Need to debunk." Still trying to discredit me by painting me as a hard-core skeptical ideologue! You constantly side-step my actual arguments in order to level these general, handwaving characterizations against me.

Which exact arguments I've made in this thread were made solely because of my "need to debunk," and what is the evidence that supports that characterization? This is a direct question for which I will compel you to provide an answer.

Her motivations were sincere.

I see no proof at all of this. Where is your proof of her sincerity?

Even so, what has this to do with the correctness of her method and the strength of her conclusions? Should we accept everyone's conclusions simply because we fail to account for them by a few common examples of malice?

I found most English teachers in college very grounded and quite good at applying common sense reasoning and deduction.

Common sense is not science.

I have been both a college student and a college teacher. I have both conducted and evaluated PhD research in scientific and technical fields. As I said, I will keep my own counsel about the value and content of those efforts. If you can demonstrate that your opinion is better or more squarely founded on fact, then perhaps I can consider it as more than handwaving.

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

Wrong again but not worth the nitpicking of detail.

I disagree. If your speculation on your critics' motives is to continue to be used as a means of side-stepping their actual arguments and dealing with their content, then your rhetorical approach here is indeed on-topic.

Please explain why you've followed the same major pattern of argumentation here as you did in both the alien ship on the moon topic and the aerial sightings topic. Reconcile it with your stated motive simply to acquire answers. You tried to paint me as paranoid for seeing that pattern, yet I've shown how you just did it again by retreating from Turner's conclusions back to the general topic.

Now I am the one who wants answers, and the question is what you really intend to achieve by posting at BAUT. Your answer will determine how much further attention I determine is worth paying to you.

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

I really wanted an honest evaluation of her work and its implications. As in why her independent and unrelated subjects reported consistant stories. Why identical triangular marks of exactly the same size were found on the bodies after a dream state experiance. Why her whole family and anyone they associated with suddenly found themselves in the same phenomena. Mental abberration is not contageous.

I have an older brother in an asylum. His condition was evident from birth and was degenerative. Six boys and two girls in my family and guess what. None of the rest cought his condition. Nor did any of us believe his hallucinations or fantasy either. And being of a real disorder, it didn't involve aliens.

Instead of evaluationg her research on its evidence and conclusions, she was classed as woo woo and impuned as to motive. Excuse then established not to read and study the work, just to research and debunk the author.

I focused on her work. You focused on the source, as you point out that you know more about her than I do, and use this as excuse to ignore her work. Again it degenerates into debunking bart for being unscientific and of questionable motive, ignoring the issue.

You become quite predictable.

You become quite predictable.

Let me write the counter for you.

Predictable of sound scientific method.

Once the source has been discredited, consideration of their evidence and arguments are unnecesary.

I really wanted an honest evaluation of her work and its implications.

Reconcile that statement with your misrepresentation of her qualifications and her credentials. Why would you misrepresent something you wanted evaluated honestly?

Instead of evaluationg her research on its evidence and conclusions, she was classed as woo woo and impuned as to motive.

No. I looked at her work and approach. I noted that she collected evidence of some effect, then simply speculatively attributed it to the actions of space aliens for which she admitted there was no evidence.

That is her line of reasoning, and it's indefensible. On that basis it was rejected.

In wondering why someone would make such a blatantly illogical statement, we note that there is a motive -- attention and money from UFO enthusiasts -- that also might explain her actions. And we find plenty of evidence for that motive. I find no evidence that her actions were the result of a desire to do good science.

I focused on her work.

You focused on her conclusions because they told you something you wanted to hear: that the government was covering up evidence of alien abductions about which they could do nothing.

You focused on the source...

No. You focused on the source, trying to establish her as a "well-educated" conscientious researcher who was not supposedly bothered by partisan or ulterior motives. You said her qualities as an "educator" validated the approach and conclusions.

We noted that your hype about the properties of the source was misplaced -- she was not properly credentialled. We then pointed out that the actual claims and methods she employed were also flawed, regardless of the nature of the source, and that you had misrepresented those too.

You become quite predictable.

That's because I am consistent.

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

Once the source has been discredited, consideration of their evidence and arguments are unnecesary.

When the qualifications and credentials of the source are given as the assurance of proper method, and found to be lacking, then the method is indeed questioned as well as the results.

In addition, we have also considered the evidence and arguments. But you just ignore all that because it's so much easier to blame your car wreck of an argument on the hardness of the wall rather than upon your inability to drive.

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