Evidence vs. Proof

With regard to these phenomena, I think we need to be discussing evidence rather than proof.

Proof is a very subjective term, and differs according to any individual’s personal interpretation based on the evidence – what is proof to one, may not be proof to another, regardless of the evidence assembled (to wit, juries get hung). Whereas evidence, however weak or strong is it is, is evidence.

No need to place the cart before the horse here with regard to proof. And no need to prove anything to anyone else.

We need to assemble the evidence as we continue moving forward in this matter (let the chips fall where they may), and leave proof to each individual’s interpretation, based on the evidence.

For when it’s all said and done – it’s still up to each of us to decide for him or herself, whether or not to accept the evidence, once assembled.

Personally, I am skeptical (I remain neutral...choosing to neither believe nor disbelieve), of even those things, regarding these phenomena, that have come to me in a very real and physical way – there is still way too much, we just don’t understand, or know about.

We humans are too easily deceived.

Cheers
Jocariah

.

Nice one J.

I quite agree, "proof" is only a subjective intellectual approval of what any particular evidence may mean.

The problems here are manifold: evidence is only an apprehension of a temporary situation - locked in time; one piece of evidence can be interpreted any number of ways; interpretation of evidence is necessarily subjective and will differ according to the beliefs of the user.

The last two points are frequently missed by people who make a point of assailing us with their personal interpretations of what any particular evidence may represent. This is because our human belief systems are nothing more than a long series of assumptions which may or may not have any truth to them.

But, in practice, this is not how most people comprehend their assumptions. Most people presume their assumptions to be the truth. Their belief that their personal subjective assumptions are TRUE completely dominates their thinking and their personal conviction of what reality, or any apprehended evidence therein, actually represents.

Any single piece of evidence is subject to the vagaries of subjective interpretation. In the end, a man with blood on his hands could have arrived at that condition in any number of different ways. This does not necessarily make him guilty of crime, it only means that he, somehow, got blood on his hands. Whatever we may believe about how he arrived at that condition is only a belief, and does not necessarily correspond to what is actually true.

I touched on this subject on UFOmag blog some time ago. That article can be found here:

http://ufomagazine.squarespace.com/ufo-magazine/2008/5/13/science-skepticism-and-belief.html

This is what would constitute proof:

1. A crashed flying saucer that has been shown to come from another world.

2. An alien being that has DNA that is not human.

3. Debris from a craft that has metals artificially made and are not of this world.

4. A communication received by SETI that has been verified.

5. A craft lands and aliens come out of it to greet us (or conquer us).

6. A hybrid human who has part alien DNA.

Those finds would be proof that science would have to accept.

There is a lot of evidence as the CE2K type cases are quite a lot. However, none of the evidence has been smoking gun in nature. Some cases have more than one physical trace to them, and those are the strongest ones out there.

I am one to believe the government has a couple of crashed disks/alien probes in their possession. There is much evidence to back that statement up.

Mike Good: "I touched on this subject on UFOmag blog some time ago. That article can be found here":

http://ufomagazine.squarespace.com/ufo-magazine/2008/5/13/science-skepticism-and-belief.html

Thanks for the link, Mike - well said.

Cheers
Jocariah

.

Yesterday's episode of UFO Hunters on physical evidence was very good. Bob White's object was tested with some very interesting results. It is a possible superconductor for space travel. This is the best way to prove we are being visited by extraterrestrials.

""Bob White's object was tested with some very interesting results. It is a possible superconductor for space travel. This is the best way to prove we are being visited by extraterrestrials.””

With all due respect, you seem to be stuck on the word 'prove'. Prove to whom ... you, me, the world? To whom do you wish to prove these phenomena real and valid? Better yet, why?

You see, each of us requires our own level of proof. We are all different in that regard. And some people will NEVER accept the evidence regardless of how good it is. That's just the way it works. Actually, it may take a whole new generation to accept a whole new worldview. A generation that has grown up with this concept, and is able to put their arms around it, and embrace it for all that it is.

But evidence is evidence, period; and in the case of aliens/extraterrestrials, the evidence is overwhelming (entailing many credible witnesses from all walks of life--from all over the world) – to the point, I might add, that people have been sent to prison with much less evidence, from much less credible witnesses. To wit, evidence in a courtroom, DOES NOT have to overcome each jurors worldview or belief system - it simply stands (or falls) on its own merits. But, with these phenomena, a persons worldview or belief system comes into play and interferes with, obstructs, or gets in the way of the evidence… this is pure unadulterated human nature (at its very best), and dealing with this aspect of this, is part and parcel of the overall process. And aliens are very familiar with this part of the process, and, our human nature, as well.

Once again, the rub, or catch here, is that these phenomena force all of us to completely reevaluate both our worldview/philosophical framework and personal belief systems – those things which we, for the most part, will typically defend to the end, disregarding all logic or reason, whatsoever, simply because its part of us. For our worldview happens to be all we know - and all we have known throughout our lives - so we protect it, at all times, as best we can. It's all about who we are, 'as a species', and how we see ourselves within our world, by way of our worldview.

All of this has less to do with all of the evidence of these phenomena – and everything, it seems, to do with our collective psyche, regarding our place in the universe - our worldview. For we have always been lead to believe that we are the alpha males of our world and the universe – and to acknowledge creatures that can come and go as they please in crafts more sophisticated that our own, bruises our fragile psyche (our ego) in no uncertain terms. It makes us vulnerable in many ways, ways which we can hardly understand.

No, no no - better we hold on to our ignorance it seems, than to embrace the unknown - a fearful proposition at best. And we are nothing, if not fearfull creatures.

At least within our ignorance, there is familiarity and comfort.

Cheers
Jocariah

.

Jocariah wrote:

""Bob White's object was tested with some very interesting results. It is a possible superconductor for space travel. This is the best way to prove we are being visited by extraterrestrials.””

With all due respect, you seem to be stuck on the word 'prove'. Prove to whom ... you, me, the world? To whom do you wish to prove these phenomena real and valid? Better yet, why?

Well, there you go! "Proof" is subjective. Experience is subjective. Knowledge is subjective. All of these things hinge on our mindset. An open mind, or a person with an expanded world view (one that encompasses more than just our culturally approved material reality) will be willing to consider more things than a strict materialist.

In fact, I would say that the need for proof is a sign of a limited mindset. It says "make me believe it" rather than taking an intellectual tack that says: what if? An intellectual need for proof implies a lack of trust.

A limited mind will result in a limited world view. The question is, do we desire a world of possibilities or a world of limitation? Culturally, we accept the world of limitation without consideration for the consequences of that choice.

Put that way, it sounds kind of dumb, eh?

Jocariah wrote:

You see, each of us requires our own level of proof. We are all different in that regard. And some people will NEVER accept the evidence regardless of how good it is. That's just the way it works. Actually, it may take a whole new generation to accept a whole new worldview. A generation that has grown up with this concept, and is able to put their arms around it, and embrace it for all that it is.

But evidence is evidence, period; and in the case of aliens/extraterrestrials, the evidence is overwhelming (entailing many credible witnesses from all walks of life--from all over the world) – to the point, I might add, that people have been sent to prison with much less evidence, from much less credible witnesses. To wit, evidence in a courtroom, DOES NOT have to overcome each jurors worldview or belief system - it simply stands (or falls) on its own merits. But, with these phenomena, a persons worldview or belief system comes into play and interferes with, obstructs, or gets in the way of the evidence… this is pure unadulterated human nature (at its very best), and dealing with this aspect of this, is part and parcel of the overall process. And aliens are very familiar with this part of the process, and, our human nature, as well.

Once again, the rub, or catch here, is that these phenomena force all of us to completely reevaluate both our worldview/philosophical framework and personal belief systems – those things which we, for the most part, will typically defend to the end, disregarding all logic or reason, whatsoever, simply because its part of us. For our worldview happens to be all we know - and all we have known throughout our lives - so we protect it, at all times, as best we can. It's all about who we are, 'as a species', and how we see ourselves within our world, by way of our worldview.

All of this has less to do with all of the evidence of these phenomena – and everything, it seems, to do with our collective psyche, regarding our place in the universe - our worldview. For we have always been lead to believe that we are the alpha males of our world and the universe – and to acknowledge creatures that can come and go as they please in crafts more sophisticated that our own, bruises our fragile psyche (our ego) in no uncertain terms. It makes us vulnerable in many ways, ways which we can hardly understand.

No, no no - better we hold on to our ignorance it seems, than to embrace the unknown - a fearful proposition at best. And we are nothing, if not fearfull creatures.

At least within our ignorance, there is familiarity and comfort.

Cheers
Jocariah

Well put J.

To Kidflash I would say, for some people, a UFO landing on their lawn with its occupants joining them for dinner would not be good enough to constitute "proof". The disbeliever would say, "it was just a kid in a funny suit, right? It was a hoax. Somebody is messing with me."

In other words, they would deny the truth of their own experience to maintain their limited beliefs. This is not "smart" or "rational" as such people would certainly argue it to be. It would be a prime indication of the narrow scope of their mind and concepts of reality. As J. says, it would be a display of comfortable ignorance.

And, even in Kidflash's post there is an indication of the limitations of his own mindset. He says, "This is the best way to prove we are being visited by extraterrestrials."

Who says they are "extraterrestrials"? Why would they leave physical traces if it is possible that they may not be material or extraterrestrial at all? So, if we take a broader view and entertain the idea that we may be dealing with something which is truly alien to our experience, then the expectation of physical "alien widgets" and that they come from another planet "out there" may be completely unrealistic.

To put it another way, the situation may be that the "proof" Kidlfash requires may never be realized. But that does not mean that "they" are not "real". It only means that a much wider epistemic concept of what is "real" must be entertained before the alien can be ascertained.

The point is we can only accept the reality our mindset is prepared to accept. Anything outside that scope is beyond our capacity to comprehend. The alien may or may not be along for that ride.

But that is a choice WE ALL make.

C'est la vie.....

With all due respect , you're both being hypocritical in your responses to kidflash.

You want kidflash to "openly embrace and accept" something, yet the both of you do not "openly embrace and accept" christianity as you've made clear in your posts.
Infact you both resort to the same language when denouncing the christianity as a person uses when questioning UFOlogy ... "why should I believe in that?" ... "Its stuff that other people said happened" .... "it might be wrong" ... yada yada yada

You can't even embrace the God of the Bible , with all the eyewitness testimony from credible people ... yet you want everybody to embrace and accept your view on alien abductions ... do you see the hypocrisy ?

And if someone doesn't accept your view on the subject, you both resort to name-calling "ignorant" !

It's comical to say the least.

NJWitness,

This is such a bizarre posting that I do not even know how to respond. Nobody here is asking anybody to believe anything - except you - as far as I can tell.

J. and I are only expressing ideas about the nature of mindsets in the apprehension of evidence and proof. The truth is that our mindsets effect everything we can comprehend. And, in the world of quantum physics they also have an effect on "reality" itself. You are free to believe whatever you like and clearly you do. Hell, we all do.

The meaning of the word ignorance is: to be unaware of or to refuse to pay attention to or disregard something.

For instance, I am ignorant of Christianity. I do not feel it would be name calling for somebody to say so. In fact, though you have not said it explicitly, it certainly is implicit in your posting. It is simply a statement of fact and I fully accept that I am ignorant on those grounds.

If Kidflash feels that we are name-calling, then I will apologize to him here and now as that was not my intent. As I have not expressed a view on alien abductions here, I have to assume that you are talking about somebody else.

With all due respect, it seems to me that your above posting has little to do with the subject at hand. But please join the dialogue if you have something to add to it.

Cheers!!

Mike

I'm running out of respect... due or otherwise. At 60 years I've had time to become aware of an effect that crediting a contrived "afterlife" has on people in this one, eh? Too, in as much as I have lost much to persons who resent the fact that I cannot reflexively validate their untested faith, that potential for respect is diminished even further.

Hey! Some people's idea of heaven is to have desirable women to slap around. Oh, sure... they're the wrong minded, right?

...And you know what's really a hoot? Presuming the provenance of a recently written English bible spun loosely from Latin, then Greek, then 9000 year old Urdu or some otherwise contrary account, but spun in a long linguistic chain from the sensibilities of descendant psychopaths who created their gods in their own image to do their bidding.

Too, I reflect that assessment is not name-calling.

Ardent testament to the contrary is for self-satisfying purposes only... forgetting the satisfaction I regret I feel myself making this particular testament.

Seriously, you know what God should be if we have to have one at all? Read ...Theodore Sturgeon's Godbody .

...All you need to know in the easiest read you'll ever have...

"With all due respect, you seem to be stuck on the word 'prove'. Prove to whom ... you, me, the world? To whom do you wish to prove these phenomena real and valid? Better yet, why?"

To me, proof is a scientific term. I am logical when it comes to proving something exists. While it is correct some people think a statement is proof, I am one to go for the physical evidence.

How many people thought the Gulf Breeze incident is proof positive of UFOs? How many think those photographs are real? Even Bruce Maccabee beleives they are real, even though a young man had come forward and admitted to help faking them. None of his claims were investigated, and the ufologists went about to attack the boy's character. There are many more hoaxes out there that have fooled the best of the investigators.

I want to see the evidence and use that to prove flying saucers are real. I can state I believe they are real until I turn blue in the face, but the scientific community will ignore it. Ufology is a form of science is it not? The idea of science is to prove the phenomena or a hypothesis regarding it.

Again, I do believe we are being visited by aliens and have been in the past. I think there are many good cases out there with a lot of good evidence and excellent eyewitnesses. However, science needs much more than a good eyewitness to prove something is real.

I believe Betty and Barney Hill were abducted, as the physical evidence supports the story. There are many skeptics who will balk at the story and just say coincidence. I also believe an extraterrestrial object crashed in both Roswell and Kecksburg PA. There is enough documents of unusual activities around each of those incidents for me to think they are the real deal. Others may need the actual object before they believe it.

If one does not need any physical or other evidence to prove anything to them, that is fine. However, I am one of those who wants the scientific community to treat this subject seriously. The people who have witnessed and been abducted deserve better than being treated as a laughing stock.

kidflash2008 wrote:

To me, proof is a scientific term. I am logical when it comes to proving something exists. While it is correct some people think a statement is proof, I am one to go for the physical evidence.

If one does not need any physical or other evidence to prove anything to them, that is fine. However, I am one of those who wants the scientific community to treat this subject seriously. The people who have witnessed and been abducted deserve better than being treated as a laughing stock.

Thanks Kidfkash,

Good answer. What you are interested in is changing the status quo belief system. Given that the current belief system revolves around science and materialism, the only thing that will satisfy that quantum change in mindset is a real live nuts and bolts, phyisically corporeal UFO: preferably with a UFOnaut or two inside. Good luck with that. If you can present the "item", then I am squarely in your corner. You go dude!

Given the present state of UFOlogy and the cultural taboo against the UFO, there is little else for it but out and out disclosure. Anything less will result in a backlash - against the UFO I'm afraid. As Jocariah said, the UFO lies firmly outside the comfort zone of status quo thinking.

But we don't have no stinking UFOs. Those who appear to have them are not sharing. Then there is the troubling problem around materialism. While I do not discount that there may be a material physical element to the UFO, a lot of the phenomena appears to point to something much less rooted in materiality.

In a culture which denies the immaterial, the lack of materiality is a problem which requires the overthrow of the scientific materialist paradigm altogether. I do not even know what kind of "evidence" will be required to put that assumption to bed.

When pigs fly and snowballs reside in real hot places, me thinks......

It's a bitch being a believer, eh?

Mike Good wrote:

NJWitness,

This is such a bizarre posting that I do not even know how to respond. Nobody here is asking anybody to believe anything - except you - as far as I can tell.

J. and I are only expressing ideas about the nature of mindsets in the apprehension of evidence and proof. The truth is that our mindsets effect everything we can comprehend. And, in the world of quantum physics they also have an effect on "reality" itself. You are free to believe whatever you like and clearly you do. Hell, we all do.

The meaning of the word ignorance is: to be unaware of or to refuse to pay attention to or disregard something.

For instance, I am ignorant of Christianity. I do not feel it would be name calling for somebody to say so. In fact, though you have not said it explicitly, it certainly is implicit in your posting. It is simply a statement of fact and I fully accept that I am ignorant on those grounds.

If Kidflash feels that we are name-calling, then I will apologize to him here and now as that was not my intent. As I have not expressed a view on alien abductions here, I have to assume that you are talking about somebody else.

With all due respect, it seems to me that your above posting has little to do with the subject at hand. But please join the dialogue if you have something to add to it.

Cheers!!

Mike

You say nobody here is asking anyone to believe anything? Maybe you haven't been reading Jocariahs messages and comprehending what he's trying to say .. he has made it clear that he cannot understand why other people cannot openly embrace and accept without asking for "proof and evidence" , he refers to such people as "living in ignorance". To me that sounds like a person who is upset by those who don't buy into his perception of the topic being discussed. It's easy to to just say "you don't have the right mind-set" , thats why I say this topic has a lot of similarity to religious discussions between believers and non-believers, because it absolutely does. The same language is used in both discussions.
I'm sorry if that offends you, maybe you're just offended by religion being mentioned in a ufology discussion. Some people are offended by "skeptics" being involved in UFO shows, but UFO Hunters has allowed a place for the skeptic, so maybe its a good thing to hear different opinions and theories on the topic without calling the other person "ignorant".
Can you imagine how the tv show would look if everytime the skeptic raised a question, Bill would just respond by saying the skeptic is living in ignorance and needs to change his belif system and let go of the reality he lives in and stop looking for proof and evidence and just accept and embrace it without trying to rationalize it ... it would be crazy, wouldn't it? lol

As you know, my theory on UFO's is that they are connected to the spiritual world of Angels & demons , which even supports your own theory that it may be hard to ever produce material evidence as proof. And since I believe ther may be a connection to the biblical accounts of satan interfering in the affairs of mankind and lurking in the skies , I have every right to question you or Jocariah when you post messages such as "people need to change their mind-sets and belief systems and just accept and embrace..." , are you able to see that kind of statement as being similar to an evangelical preacher telling you to "accept the Lord and change your way of thinking" ?

To the many belivers in the world, Jocariahs message is one to be wary of , its like a message of "don't ask questions...just follow and turn away from everything you held as "truth" in your belief system" ... you're not able to see the concern in that?

LakehurstNJwitness wrote:

You say nobody here is asking anyone to believe anything? Maybe you haven't been reading Jocariahs messages and comprehending what he's trying to say .. he has made it clear that he cannot understand why other people cannot openly embrace and accept without asking for "proof and evidence" , he refers to such people as "living in ignorance".

Sorry NJ, I do not see anything of the sort posted on this particular thread, implicit or explicit. What I do see is that you appear to be upset that we do not obsequiously accept your limiting beliefs with open arms.

This seems a bit of the pot calling the kettle black with no evidence that the kettle is anything but a goldfish bowl. In that respect, your argument seems to be a strange dialogue you are having with yourself - quite apart from the offered talk in this thread.

LakehurstNJwitness wrote:

To me that sounds like a person who is upset by those who don't buy into his perception of the topic being discussed. It's easy to to just say "you don't have the right mind-set" , thats why I say this topic has a lot of similarity to religious discussions between believers and non-believers, because it absolutely does. The same language is used in both discussions.
I'm sorry if that offends you, maybe you're just offended by religion being mentioned in a ufology discussion. Some people are offended by "skeptics" being involved in UFO shows, but UFO Hunters has allowed a place for the skeptic, so maybe its a good thing to hear different opinions and theories on the topic without calling the other person "ignorant".
Can you imagine how the tv show would look if everytime the skeptic raised a question, Bill would just respond by saying the skeptic is living in ignorance and needs to change his belif system and let go of the reality he lives in and stop looking for proof and evidence and just accept and embrace it without trying to rationalize it ... it would be crazy, wouldn't it? lol

No offense, but the only one who appears to be upset or offended here is yourself. Furthermore, you seem to be arguing with Joacariah through me. As you say, lol.

Nobody is saying to stop looking for proof or evidence. Where do you get that from? The conversation says that "proof" is subjective and a relative term. Perhaps you do not comprehend that rhetorical position?

What we are saying here is that holding onto a rigid mindset is limiting. That is a bit like telling reality: "listen, the reality inside this little box i have created for myself is the only reality I am ready or willing to accept". Sorry NJ, that is a position that attempts to tell reality what it can or cannot be. That is ignoring the certain potential of any other possibilities. It is a willful exercise in futility which is not only limiting but , sorry to say, ignorant. *(please see my above posted definition so you do not misconstrue the meaning of that word)

LakehurstNJwitness wrote:

As you know, my theory on UFO's is that they are connected to the spiritual world of Angels & demons , which even supports your own theory that it may be hard to ever produce material evidence as proof.

I think that a lot of human myth is entangled with the phenomenon, no doubt. Where you go way off base for me is with this good/evil - angel/demons stuff. You do not seem to comprehend that such black and white terms are, to a great extent, relative. You think of those terms as some kind of universal absolute anointed by an omniscient belief system. Baloney. This in no way supports anything I think. There is no belief system which is omniscient or can be seen as anything but limiting. That is because a belief, by its very nature, is a cognitive limitation.

You seem unable to extract other people's beliefs from your own. A little perspective on your part - reading what we have to say with an open mind, instead of forcing everything through your distorting filters - would go a long way toward having a more constructive dialogue.

LakehurstNJwitness wrote:

To the many belivers in the world, Jocariahs message is one to be wary of , its like a message of "don't ask questions...just follow and turn away from everything you held as "truth" in your belief system" ... you're not able to see the concern in that?

On the contrary, you are the only one asking others to follow and turn away. We are advocating opening up the barriers in your mind - your beliefs - and to consider other possibilities.

""It is unfortunate that you have your mind wrapped up so tightly, within the confines of your limiting belief systems, that you seem unable to even comprehend what this means."'

With all due respect, Mike, and perhaps this is none of my business, whatsoever, but I think the above comment dismisses, is very dismissive of, another's belief system - which they, of course, have every right under heaven to maintain.

How is it, that any of us can judge another's belief system, when that belief system is theirs and not our own.

To be honest, Mike, I have always respected the sincerity with which your remarks were made.

You are better than that comment.

Cheers
Jocariah

.

Yes, I am more of an ET hypothesis believer than other explanations. I do not think the other possible explanations are wrong, i.e. multiple dimensions etc. Here is the problem we are faced with:

Sleep Paralysis is a newer theory out there that could explain the "abduction" syndrome. It has gained acceptance by the scientific community because many people were studied while they slept and had very realistic dreams of alien encounters and abductions. The ufology community wants science to believe that people are actually being abducted by aliens. Who has actual proof? The science community, as they have completed tests and other experiments proving sleep paralysis is real. Ufologists, on the other hand, do not have much evidence to prove the alien theory. Kevin Randle has an excellent article in UFO Magazine 149 on this subject.

Implants have been regarded as proof positive that aliens have visited us. Creative editing on one show had the results indicate an implant was "moving" and alien in origin. Another show with the same case showed the movement caused by the patient's muscle as seen through an X-Ray. The implant was tested, and turned out to be a small bit of a household tool that had moved through the body. Also stated was that many foreign objects in the body are frequently moved from the original impact area. The evidence for alien implants just got incredibly smaller. I now tend to believe the implants are manmade, until one that is perfectly shaped with unknown circuitry is removed. Many here will believe that the implants are alien, but it has been shown to not be the case in all removals so far.

What does the above show? There are other answers that can explain the phenomena in the cases. Science will go with the other explanations unless other evidence is shown that points to aliens.

This is one reason why I get excited about physical evidence. I also think there needs to be other ways to show a person is actually being abducted, not suffering from a sleep disorder that may be inherited. (It appears sleep paralysis may be genetic, and that would explain families being abducted.) How does the ufology community accomplish this? By gathering all the physical and other evidence to make their case.

Places like this are preaching to the choir. The people here believe most of the cases, and the idea should be to prove it scientifically. It is a difficult job, but it can be done. Lightening was thought to be magic sent down by the gods. We now know much about this still mysterious force. Instead of attacking beliefs and theories, the idea should be to prove at least some of the more basic ideas. Then the bigger questions can be looked at.

Jocariah wrote:

""It is unfortunate that you have your mind wrapped up so tightly, within the confines of your limiting belief systems, that you seem unable to even comprehend what this means."'

With all due respect, Mike, and perhaps this is none of my business, whatsoever, but I think the above comment dismisses, is very dismissive of, another's belief system - which they, of course, have every right under heaven to maintain.

How is it, that any of us can judge another's belief system, when that belief system is theirs and not our own.

To be honest, Mike, I have always respected the sincerity with which your remarks were made.

You are better than that comment.

Cheers
Jocariah

.

Agree ! Mike is taking the discussion too personally. This isn't a contest between whose belief system is right or wrong, we're just trying to have a discussion about possibilities. The fact that Mike doesn't like my theory on UFO's and my belief system shouldn't turn the discussion into attacks on each others beliefs, which is exactly what Mike resorted to above.

My belief system takes every bit of having an open mind as any other belief system, as much as Mike doesn't want to acknowledge that fact. In Mikes mind anyone following an established belief system is ignorant to all other possibilities , thats as far from the truth as he can get because I do consider all possibilities. The fact that I have chosen one doesn't stop my mind from considering all things, thats the beauty of having open discussions, we can all share our ideas and offer points to support our theories , if I choose to offer a religious/spiritual point, Mike shouldn't take offense to it or think I'm trying to preach religion to him, thats not my intent.

LakehurstNJwitness wrote:

Agree ! Mike is taking the discussion too personally. This isn't a contest between whose belief system is right or wrong, we're just trying to have a discussion about possibilities. The fact that Mike doesn't like my theory on UFO's and my belief system shouldn't turn the discussion into attacks on each others beliefs, which is exactly what Mike resorted to above.

My belief system takes every bit of having an open mind as any other belief system, as much as Mike doesn't want to acknowledge that fact. In Mikes mind anyone following an established belief system is ignorant to all other possibilities , thats as far from the truth as he can get because I do consider all possibilities. The fact that I have chosen one doesn't stop my mind from considering all things, thats the beauty of having open discussions, we can all share our ideas and offer points to support our theories , if I choose to offer a religious/spiritual point, Mike shouldn't take offense to it or think I'm trying to preach religion to him, thats not my intent.

NJWitness,

I apologize for my insensitive statements above.

From your previous posting it simply seemed that you did not understand the arguments as presented. The thing is, I am not angry or taking offense about anything, nor do I think that "anyone following an established belief system is ignorant to all other possibilities".
We all have belief systems, myself included.

Once again, I am sorry for any out of bounds statements.

kidflash2008 wrote:

Yes, I am more of an ET hypothesis believer than other explanations. I do not think the other possible explanations are wrong, i.e. multiple dimensions etc. Here is the problem we are faced with:

Sleep Paralysis is a newer theory out there that could explain the "abduction" syndrome. It has gained acceptance by the scientific community because many people were studied while they slept and had very realistic dreams of alien encounters and abductions. The ufology community wants science to believe that people are actually being abducted by aliens. Who has actual proof? The science community, as they have completed tests and other experiments proving sleep paralysis is real. Ufologists, on the other hand, do not have much evidence to prove the alien theory. Kevin Randle has an excellent article in UFO Magazine 149 on this subject.

There are other answers that can explain the phenomena in the cases. Science will go with the other explanations unless other evidence is shown that points to aliens.

This is one reason why I get excited about physical evidence. I also think there needs to be other ways to show a person is actually being abducted, not suffering from a sleep disorder that may be inherited. (It appears sleep paralysis may be genetic, and that would explain families being abducted.) How does the ufology community accomplish this? By gathering all the physical and other evidence to make their case.

Places like this are preaching to the choir. The people here believe most of the cases, and the idea should be to prove it scientifically. It is a difficult job, but it can be done. Lightening was thought to be magic sent down by the gods. We now know much about this still mysterious force. Instead of attacking beliefs and theories, the idea should be to prove at least some of the more basic ideas. Then the bigger questions can be looked at.

Kidflash,

I am not too convinced with the sleep paralysis explanation. Certainly it could explain some "abduction" scenarios, but it is far from a reasonable explanation for the entire phenomenon. You say "I do not think the other possible explanations are wrong, i.e. multiple dimensions etc."

So my question is if, in some cases, we are dealing with something "other dimensional", isn't an expectation of material evidence unreasonable? It seems that the phenomenon has a wide range of manifestations, from the apparently physical such as the Travis Walton case, to a large body of cases that seem to be purely psychic in nature.

The one common denominator in all of these cases, including sleep paralysis, is that they are experiential. In other words they are interactions with, or manifestations of, the consciousness of the experiencer. Science is at a loss in understanding human consciousness. We appear to know more about the deep depths of the ocean than we do about the workings of human consciousness.

With consciousness, science has barely begun to scratch the surface. Neuro-scientists still skew to the materialist belief that consciousness is the result of a physical biochemical process. Quantum physics have shown this assumption to be completely inverted from the way things actually work: matter is manifested by consciousness.

In the quantum world, matter is little more than a potential. While the potential appears to have a manifest consistency the only persistent constant here is consciousness itself. But consciousness is not material or a manifestation thereof: it is immaterial.

Scientific protocols operate from the assumption that materiality is the ultimate measure of whether or not somethings is "real". But consciousness is as real as we can ever hope to get - we all experience consciousness. In fact, it is the only interface we have with our material world. Without consciousness, we have no experience, no apprehension of a material world and, as a result of that, no science. Consciousness is the seemingly invisible elephant in the living room of science. We cannot measure its parameters with our scientific instruments or our materialist scientific protocols - it simply is.

If the abduction phenomenon is, in many cases, a manifestation of consciousness - then science has no yardstick or protocol with which to measure it. If we demand physical proof for these experiences we may never get to grips with what is really going on. While I respect Randle's work in UFO research, I do not find sleep paralysis a compelling explanation for the entire phenomenon. It does not explain the consistency of the reported experiences. It does not explain a lot of things, many of which I innumerated in my column in issue #147 of UFO Magazine.

Life has an inherent conscious/visionary aspect to it. The UFO does not always conform to our expectations of physical experience: like life itself, it has a distinct visionary element to it. I suspect it is through our consciousness that the "abduction" phenomenon fully manifests itself - just like the matter that science worships as the be-all to end-all.

Until we learn to plumb the depths of consciousness, like we do the darkest depths of the ocean - or the alien presents itself in an unequivocal way - the abduction phenomenon will remain a mystery to us. I do not believe that science has the tools or the requisite mindset to understand consciousness. Indeed, consciousness is the deepest mystery of all.

As Einstein once said: "The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible."

We need to get a firmer grip on that before we can pretend to know what it is all about.

Mike, I do agree that some explanations may be much harder to prove. I am just stating that science will use the sleep paralysis explanation for every case that is not proven to be a hoax. Sleep paralysis has been proven to be a real phenomenon, while alien abductions does not have any smoking gun evidence. I used other explanations as an example.

Do I personally believe sleep paralysis is the explanation for all the other cases? No, but I am not a scientist. They will not even bother to look for other causes, unless someone has some real evidence there is another cause. As far as science goes, the case is closed. It is up to the researchers of ufology and other paranormal phenomena to show otherwise. The ball is in our court, so to speak.

We could all write on this blog how wrong sleep paralysis as an explanation is. It will not stop academia from using it to explain what is happening. The only way to get another look is to bring in other evidence to show it is not sleep paralysis. Otherwise, the explanation touted by the science community holds the most water. It was once thought that dinosaurs were reptiles, until more discoveries showed they were warm blooded creatures. Science can grow to allow new reasons for a phenomenon. It is up to the researchers to find such evidence to back up the claim.

Personal belief is separate from scientific reasoning. Science is all about the evidence, testing, results and theories. A person can say they were abducted, but science is getting the physical traces to show such an event happened. Many of us here would believe the person is telling the truth, but science does not work that way. It sounds cold, but it is true.

Kidflash,

So, you are saying that it is reasonable to expect material proof, even where none can be forthcoming?

UFOlogists have been playing this silly charade for over 60 years and we are still referred to as "cranks and weirdos". Now there's scientific acceptance!

You can't "prove" love, deja-vu or human consciousness. By "scientific" standards, that makes them not real - yet - we all continue to experience them. The "scientific" litmus test does not prove that those things are not "real". It only proves that the litmus test is an inadequate paradigm for measuring what is, or is not, real.

I would say that the same thing is true of the UFO. Science no more accepts the evidence for UFOs than it accepts that the moon is made of green cheese.If that were not so, UFOlogists would be respected scientists, UFO lore would be taught in our schools and our culture would not laugh at us for even considering that there might be something authentic behind the phenomenon.

Go ahead and present the evidence (what few sorry crumbs of it there is) if that makes you feel better. See how far it gets you.

Is it just me, or is there something wrong with this picture?

It is unreasonable to expect the UFO to conform to the wishes of science. The UFO has nothing to prove to anybody. Science must change to accept that there is more to reality than what they can measure with their micrometers, geiger counters and Hadron Colliders. The scientific paradigm is mistaken. That has to change before the evidence will be deemed acceptable.

Like it or not, that's just the way it is - even if I wish it were not so......

That's not "cold", it is just plain dumb.

""It is unreasonable to expect the UFO to conform to the wishes of science. The UFO has nothing to prove to anybody. Science must change to accept that there is more to reality than what they can measure with their micrometers, geiger counters and Hedron Colliders. The scientific paradigm is mistaken. That has to change before the evidence will be deemed acceptable. ""

What a great remark, Mike.

First we must change our thought process, along with our worldview.

Our thought process, that process by which we think, can limit our understanding of the world - our worldview. We bring our belief systems with us in their entirety, as we look at whatever we are looking at – thereby do we judge that which we see - based on our belief systems.

The point here is that we are 'all' at the mercy of our own thought process, whether we have consciously chosen that process to which we so closely adhere or not– nevertheless, it is our own. Either way, we are subject to it, limited by it, and ultimately relegated to being submissive to it.

We see the world not necessarily as it is, but rather as a result of our thought process, that process by which we think. We are blinded by our thought process – thinking, that the way in which we see, is in actually, the way in which things truly are. Never taking into account that our thought process colors everything we see at every moment of our lives. Our belief systems, whether consciously chosen or not, are present, and operating, at every moment, as well – continually lying in wait, as it were, to sort out that which we are seeing according to pre-established parameters... those parameters established by our own belief systems.

If we are irrevocably tied to our thought process, how can we ever hope to unbiasedly see the world ?

For the most part, we think, automatically perhaps, without any conscious thought, that the world around us exists as we see it. Never taking into account that our thought process (helped along by our worldview) continues to color our world. After all, it is our thought process that we use to evaluate everything in our world.

It may never enter our minds that our thought process is individually and uniquely our own. That our thought process is the result of our individual genetic make up, environmental influences and experiences, as well as decisions both consciously and subconsciously made throughout our lives.

Whether or not we are bound by these thought processes and belief systems of ours (and what belief systems are, or are not, for that matter) is NOT the point here; rather it is that they indeed exist within each one of us - being the inherent price of our humanness.

Our salvation, for lack of a better term, comes merely in the knowing – e.g., the knowledge of self.

We must come to what we are seeing with an open mind, a mind devoid of any preconceived notions, whatsoever - but how might this be possible? Doesn't our past act to limit us by framing what it is that we are seeing in the “now”, in the present tense. And how do we see devoid of preconceptions, or preconceived notions whatsoever?

Ultimately, we must set our own agenda, an agenda particular to our own well being - for there is no sense of well being possible, by having our agenda set by another; be it another person, society, or those societal norms to which we so often mindlessly adhere.

There again, our responsibility in this is simply to come to what it is that we seek with an open mind, that is to say, a mind devoid of any preconceived notions, or ideas whatsoever.

But is this even possible, in a practical sense?

Cheers
Jocariah

.

An excellent point, Mike. Scientists may not have the tools to measure the phenomena and prove it exists. What they can do is document that any phenomena does not respond to such measurements, and try to find some way to measure what is needed.

The basic idea I am stating is that there are other answers that can be given to explain the phenomena. It is up to the ufologist to try and show those answers do not work at all for what was experienced. I know this is a very difficult task, but it can be done by recruiting more top scientists to develop such techniques.

To state the ufologist can never prove UFOs are alien or ultra-dimensional is not a valid reason for proving such phenomena exists. It has never been an easy job to convince mainstream science to begin with.

Yes, we cannot prove love exists, but science has found out where in the brain many such activities come from. Deja vu is one of those ideas that may not really exist, as it is more of a feeling than a reality.

I must agree with you on the treatment of ufology and many researchers by the scientific community. However, I think we bring such treatment and scorn upon ourselves by not policing and vetting many of the sources completely. Ufology has been fooled by hoaxers before, and will continue to be done so until we decide it is enough. How many UFO sites show the same tired videos on YouTube and proclaim them to be real? Even after many have shown they are CGI?

I will always be looking at the evidence to make the case for flying saucers and to prove extraterrestrials may explain some of the sightings. It may make me a Don Quixote of ufology chasing after windmills, but I know there is evidence out there that will prove it once and for all.

Goddess bless,

Lloyd

Mike Good wrote:

LakehurstNJwitness wrote:

Agree ! Mike is taking the discussion too personally. This isn't a contest between whose belief system is right or wrong, we're just trying to have a discussion about possibilities. The fact that Mike doesn't like my theory on UFO's and my belief system shouldn't turn the discussion into attacks on each others beliefs, which is exactly what Mike resorted to above.

My belief system takes every bit of having an open mind as any other belief system, as much as Mike doesn't want to acknowledge that fact. In Mikes mind anyone following an established belief system is ignorant to all other possibilities , thats as far from the truth as he can get because I do consider all possibilities. The fact that I have chosen one doesn't stop my mind from considering all things, thats the beauty of having open discussions, we can all share our ideas and offer points to support our theories , if I choose to offer a religious/spiritual point, Mike shouldn't take offense to it or think I'm trying to preach religion to him, thats not my intent.

NJWitness,

I apologize for my insensitive statements above.

From your previous posting it simply seemed that you did not understand the arguments as presented. The thing is, I am not angry or taking offense about anything, nor do I think that "anyone following an established belief system is ignorant to all other possibilities".
We all have belief systems, myself included.

Once again, I am sorry for any out of bounds statements.

No apology was neccessary Mike , but thank you anyway, you're a class guy.

We all have our theories on the subject and mine happens to be one of the most controversial theories (that it could all be related to Biblical accounts of a spiritual warfare where angels, good and bad, can mysteriously appear and disappear in this physical realm we live in. I still think my theory is a plausible one and should not be discounted purely on the basis of "not being a religious person") , so I do feel like I'm in an uphill battle just to try and get people to even consider the idea, and maybe that's what made me come across so strongly in my own comments, so I apologize too if I offended you or Jocariah.

LakehurstNJwitness wrote:

We all have our theories on the subject and mine happens to be one of the most controversial theories (that it could all be related to Biblical accounts of a spiritual warfare where angels, good and bad, can mysteriously appear and disappear in this physical realm we live in. I still think my theory is a plausible one and should not be discounted purely on the basis of "not being a religious person") , so I do feel like I'm in an uphill battle just to try and get people to even consider the idea, and maybe that's what made me come across so strongly in my own comments, so I apologize too if I offended you or Jocariah.

NJ,

I do not take offense at what other people think. I may disagree but that is not the same thing.

The reason you have an uphill battle is that your theory presupposes a belief in religion coupled with some of the more questionable elements in Christian belief (good/ bad, angels/devils). Again, these terms are relative and have no overarching validity beyond subjective personal belief systems. Essentially, you are asking people to adopt your belief system lock, stock and barrel.

You cannot pose your theory this way and expect people to go along with it. People who do not share your religious beliefs will always reject having them imposed upon us as a prerequisite for discussion.

The element of your theory that I do think is worth considering is that the UFO (or some more holistic extension of that uniquely modern concept) is an integral part of ancient human mythology/cosmology. Personally, I think this is a valid theory that seems to be supported by a lot of evidence.

If you take out the alienating elements of your personal belief system and pose it similar to the way I have worded it here, you may find a more receptive audience. You might want to consider this.

Cheers!!

Mike