View Active Topics          Latest 100 Topics          View Your Posts          Switch to Mobile

Debunking Pseudoskepticism: Common fallacies on ET/UFO

Discussion about UFO's, Aliens, ET's, Alien Abductions, Ancient Astronaut theories, etc.

Re: Debunking Pseudoskepticism: Common fallacies on ET/UFO

Postby ProfWag » 04 Jun 2010, 03:00

Eteponge wrote:According to the eyewitnesses of the Rendlesham Forest Incident (the most famous UFO incident in UK history), the occupants in that specific case identified themselves as Time Travelers. There are Remote Viewers who have picked up via Remote Viewing sessions that certain other UFO type incidents may be as well. Also, research the Double-Slit Experiment and the recent Oxford Study released last year which mathematically proved Many-Worlds Interpretation.

Whoa, whoa, whoa! Hold the phone! As stated before, I am quite familiar with this case and this is the first time I've heard anything about contact, much less that they were able to communicate and that they identified themselves as Time Travelers. I need more info on this before I throw a wrench in this entire converstion or is this a typical example of a story that gets embeleshed over and over and over...
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54






Re: Debunking Pseudoskepticism: Common fallacies on ET/UFO

Postby Eteponge » 04 Jun 2010, 03:49

ProfWag wrote:
Eteponge wrote:According to the eyewitnesses of the Rendlesham Forest Incident (the most famous UFO incident in UK history), the occupants in that specific case identified themselves as Time Travelers. There are Remote Viewers who have picked up via Remote Viewing sessions that certain other UFO type incidents may be as well. Also, research the Double-Slit Experiment and the recent Oxford Study released last year which mathematically proved Many-Worlds Interpretation.

Whoa, whoa, whoa! Hold the phone! As stated before, I am quite familiar with this case and this is the first time I've heard anything about contact, much less that they were able to communicate and that they identified themselves as Time Travelers. I need more info on this before I throw a wrench in this entire converstion or is this a typical example of a story that gets embeleshed over and over and over...

The Paracast interview with John Burroughs ...

http://www.theparacast.com/podcast/now- ... r-robbins/

During the interview he mentions, on record, the incident where he was missing for 25 minutes, and the later hypnosis session, being revealed to him during the missing time that they were time travelers, and that Sgt. Jim Penniston also underwent hypnosis and was revealed the same story.

These two witnesses were the main ones involved. Everytime you see a History Channel program or TV Program on the incident, those two individuals are the main ones interviewed.

Here are some excerpts from Sgt. Jim Penniston's hypnosis session in 1994 ...

Image

Image

"Penniston explained he received information after touching the craft’s symbols that chromosomes were gathered for different reasons, particularly to help the time travelers because they have a “physical problem” and Penniston felt sympathy for them. Penniston said the time travelers have Quote: “been coming here for a long time, at least thirty or forty thousand years, trying to sustain their children in the far distant future of Earth."

Image

Image

Image

A few weeks ago, John Burroughs and Sgt. Jim Penniston started a group on Facebook, called "Justice for the Bentwaters 81st Security Police at Rendlesham Forest 1980". Both men are on Facebook. You could send them a message and ask further information about it.
"I think Eteponge's Blog is a pretty cool guy. eh debates Skeptics and doesnt afraid of anything."
User avatar
Eteponge
 
Posts: 300
Joined: 06 Jun 2009, 13:26

Re: Debunking Pseudoskepticism: Common fallacies on ET/UFO

Postby ProfWag » 04 Jun 2010, 03:52

Eteponge wrote:
ProfWag wrote:
Eteponge wrote:According to the eyewitnesses of the Rendlesham Forest Incident (the most famous UFO incident in UK history), the occupants in that specific case identified themselves as Time Travelers. There are Remote Viewers who have picked up via Remote Viewing sessions that certain other UFO type incidents may be as well. Also, research the Double-Slit Experiment and the recent Oxford Study released last year which mathematically proved Many-Worlds Interpretation.

Whoa, whoa, whoa! Hold the phone! As stated before, I am quite familiar with this case and this is the first time I've heard anything about contact, much less that they were able to communicate and that they identified themselves as Time Travelers. I need more info on this before I throw a wrench in this entire converstion or is this a typical example of a story that gets embeleshed over and over and over...

The Paracast interview with John Burroughs ...

http://www.theparacast.com/podcast/now- ... r-robbins/

During the interview he mentions, on record, the incident where he was missing for 25 minutes, and the later hypnosis session, being revealed to him during the missing time that they were time travelers, and that Sgt. Jim Penniston also underwent hypnosis and was revealed the same story.

These two witnesses were the main ones involved. Everytime you see a History Channel program or TV Program on the incident, those two individuals are the main ones interviewed.

Here are some excerpts from Sgt. Jim Penniston's hypnosis session in 1994 ...

Image

Image

"Penniston explained he received information after touching the craft’s symbols that chromosomes were gathered for different reasons, particularly to help the time travelers because they have a “physical problem” and Penniston felt sympathy for them. Penniston said the time travelers have Quote: “been coming here for a long time, at least thirty or forty thousand years, trying to sustain their children in the far distant future of Earth."

Image

Image

Image

A few weeks ago, John Burroughs and Sgt. Jim Penniston started a group on Facebook, called "Justice for the Bentwaters 81st Security Police at Rendlesham Forest 1980". Both men are on Facebook. You could send them a message and ask further information about it.

Thank you very, very much Eteponge for this info. As I've mentioned, I am quite familiar with this story and this is thr first I've heard of it, but I WILL take a good look at it, rest assured...
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Debunking Pseudoskepticism: Common fallacies on ET/UFO

Postby Eteponge » 04 Jun 2010, 04:01

ProfWag wrote:Thank you very, very much Eteponge for this info. As I've mentioned, I am quite familiar with this story and this is thr first I've heard of it, but I WILL take a good look at it, rest assured...

I would suggest sending a PM to both men on Facebook, simply to inquiry further about this specific aspect of the incident. They can be found via the Facebook Group I mentioned.
"I think Eteponge's Blog is a pretty cool guy. eh debates Skeptics and doesnt afraid of anything."
User avatar
Eteponge
 
Posts: 300
Joined: 06 Jun 2009, 13:26

Re: Debunking Pseudoskepticism: Common fallacies on ET/UFO

Postby ProfWag » 04 Jun 2010, 04:30

Let me ask a question. Should I believe testimony from the time of the incident or 30 years later? I know that if I suggest that ol' Jimbo's remarks are a bit...embeleshed...over the years then I'll get told I'm a typical skeptic, but seriously, which one should I believe? At the time of the incident or just before he goes public with his Facebook page?
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Debunking Pseudoskepticism: Common fallacies on ET/UFO

Postby Eteponge » 04 Jun 2010, 04:32

ProfWag wrote:Let me ask a question. Should I believe testimony from the time of the incident or 30 years later? I know that if I suggest that ol' Jimbo's remarks are a bit...embeleshed...over the years then I'll get told I'm a typical skeptic, but seriously, which one should I believe? At the time of the incident or just before he goes public with his Facebook page?

John Burroughs underwent hypnosis in 1988, and Jim Penniston underwent hypnosis in 1994. Both were unaware that the other individual underwent hypnosis, and both were unaware that their stories were consistent and match (regarding the occupants being time travelers) until over 20 years later.

I would suggest just asking them about the time travel aspect, not bothering to play skeptic on them, because they may not respond then.
"I think Eteponge's Blog is a pretty cool guy. eh debates Skeptics and doesnt afraid of anything."
User avatar
Eteponge
 
Posts: 300
Joined: 06 Jun 2009, 13:26

Re: Debunking Pseudoskepticism: Common fallacies on ET/UFO

Postby ciscop » 04 Jun 2010, 04:51

Eteponge wrote:
ProfWag wrote:Let me ask a question. Should I believe testimony from the time of the incident or 30 years later? I know that if I suggest that ol' Jimbo's remarks are a bit...embeleshed...over the years then I'll get told I'm a typical skeptic, but seriously, which one should I believe? At the time of the incident or just before he goes public with his Facebook page?

John Burroughs underwent hypnosis in 1988, and Jim Penniston underwent hypnosis in 1994. Both were unaware that the other individual underwent hypnosis, and both were unaware that their stories were consistent and match (regarding the occupants being time travelers) until over 20 years later.

I would suggest just asking them about the time travel aspect, not bothering to play skeptic on them, because they may not respond then.


im an hypnotherapist
getting somebody to tell stupid stories means nothing
For every person who reads this valuable book there are hundreds of naïve souls who would prefer to have their spines tingled by a sensational but worthless potboiler by some hack journalist of the paranormal. You who now read these sentences join a small but wiser minority. Martin Gaardner (Psychology of the Psychic)
User avatar
ciscop
 
Posts: 1423
Joined: 22 Jul 2009, 12:04

Re: Debunking Pseudoskepticism: Common fallacies on ET/UFO

Postby ProfWag » 04 Jun 2010, 05:16

Eteponge wrote:
ProfWag wrote:Let me ask a question. Should I believe testimony from the time of the incident or 30 years later? I know that if I suggest that ol' Jimbo's remarks are a bit...embeleshed...over the years then I'll get told I'm a typical skeptic, but seriously, which one should I believe? At the time of the incident or just before he goes public with his Facebook page?

John Burroughs underwent hypnosis in 1988, and Jim Penniston underwent hypnosis in 1994. Both were unaware that the other individual underwent hypnosis, and both were unaware that their stories were consistent and match (regarding the occupants being time travelers) until over 20 years later.

I would suggest just asking them about the time travel aspect, not bothering to play skeptic on them, because they may not respond then.

As I have mentioned numerous times, I have personal, first-hand information on that incident, however, I am not going into further details of my knowledge at this time. I can honestly say that this is the first time I had heard of a hypnosis session. Also, unfortunately, I am not very interrested in contacting them via Facebook at this time as to me, that sounds like a publicity stunt rather than an honest investigation. I would rather look at facts and testimony from that time-frame. However, eventually, I may write with questions.
I will say this in the meantime (and if you're familiar with this event then you'll know what I'm talking about). I can assure you that there is not one active duty Security Policeman in the Air Force with more than 1 day on the job that writes twenty minutes after midnight as "12:20." Not one.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Debunking Pseudoskepticism: Common fallacies on ET/UFO

Postby Eteponge » 04 Jun 2010, 05:18

ciscop wrote:im an hypnotherapist
getting somebody to tell stupid stories means nothing

Image

Image
"I think Eteponge's Blog is a pretty cool guy. eh debates Skeptics and doesnt afraid of anything."
User avatar
Eteponge
 
Posts: 300
Joined: 06 Jun 2009, 13:26

Re: Debunking Pseudoskepticism: Common fallacies on ET/UFO

Postby Eteponge » 04 Jun 2010, 05:23

ProfWag wrote:As I have mentioned numerous times, I have personal, first-hand information on that incident, however, I am not going into further details of my knowledge at this time. I can honestly say that this is the first time I had heard of a hypnosis session. Also, unfortunately, I am not very interrested in contacting them via Facebook at this time as to me, that sounds like a publicity stunt rather than an honest investigation.

Asking the individuals involved for their full side of the story = publicity stunt? Sounds more like honest investigation to me, go straight to asking the source rather than going by second and third hand accounts.

ProfWag wrote:I would rather look at facts and testimony from that time-frame. However, eventually, I may write with questions.

Considering that neither man had recall of those particular events (missing time) until the later hypnosis session, you're not gonna find anything in the initial reports regarding mention of time travel. Sgt. Jim Penniston sketched the craft and touched the symbols, that's in the original reports, and John Burroughs and another cadet approached a blue craft, and according to John and the other eyewitness, he was gone for 25 minutes.

ProfWag wrote:I will say this in the meantime (and if you're familiar with this event then you'll know what I'm talking about). I can assure you that there is not one active duty Security Policeman in the Air Force with more than 1 day on the job that writes twenty minutes after midnight as "12:20." Not one.

If you are questioning John Burroughs and Sgt. Jim Penniston as frauds, you will fail, because they were both stationed at Bentwaters at that time, that is historical fact, they were both in the original reports, and were eyewitnesses along with Colonel Halt.
"I think Eteponge's Blog is a pretty cool guy. eh debates Skeptics and doesnt afraid of anything."
User avatar
Eteponge
 
Posts: 300
Joined: 06 Jun 2009, 13:26

Re: Debunking Pseudoskepticism: Common fallacies on ET/UFO

Postby ProfWag » 04 Jun 2010, 05:33

Eteponge wrote:
ProfWag wrote:As I have mentioned numerous times, I have personal, first-hand information on that incident, however, I am not going into further details of my knowledge at this time. I can honestly say that this is the first time I had heard of a hypnosis session. Also, unfortunately, I am not very interrested in contacting them via Facebook at this time as to me, that sounds like a publicity stunt rather than an honest investigation.

Asking the individuals involved for their full side of the story = publicity stunt? Sounds more like honest investigation to me, go straight to asking the source rather than going by second and third hand accounts.

ProfWag wrote:I would rather look at facts and testimony from that time-frame. However, eventually, I may write with questions.

Considering that neither man had recall of those particular events (missing time) until the later hypnosis session, you're not gonna find anything in the initial reports regarding mention of time travel. Sgt. Jim Penniston sketched the craft and touched the symbols, that's in the original reports, and John Burroughs and another cadet approached a blue craft, and according to John and the other eyewitness, he was gone for 25 minutes.

ProfWag wrote:I will say this in the meantime (and if you're familiar with this event then you'll know what I'm talking about). I can assure you that there is not one active duty Security Policeman in the Air Force with more than 1 day on the job that writes twenty minutes after midnight as "12:20." Not one.

If you are questioning John Burroughs and Sgt. Jim Penniston as frauds, you will fail, because they were both stationed at Bentwaters at that time, that is historical fact, they were both in the original reports, and were eyewitnesses along with Colonel Halt.

I am not questioning that they were there as I know for a fact that they were. Do a search for Jim's notebook and see what you find.
I'll be honest with everyone here, I haven't researched this case much in the past 10-15 years as this was a closed case for me a long time ago, but to be fair to Indiglo since this is the case he claims has the most evidence for ET, I'll check it out again.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Debunking Pseudoskepticism: Common fallacies on ET/UFO

Postby Indigo Child » 04 Jun 2010, 06:19

I am not ruling out the alternative paranormal explanations Epepong, I am simply pointing
out compared to the ETH they lack explanatory power and deal with too many unknowns. When
ufologists start to take these explanations as equal with the ETH, it conflates the phenomena
of UFO's with spirits, time travellers, big foot, vampires and werewolves. I would be the
last person to say none of these entities exist, but for the serious and rational investigator of
UFO's by conflating all these things, ufology loses a lot of credibility and seems completely credulous.
In order to be taken more seriously I think ufology needs to stick with the ETH, because the ETH
is within the realms of possibility. On the other hand time travel, parallel dimensions, and crypto-
terrestial like reptillians, werewolves, vampires is still within the realm of fiction, and
in need of evidence. They need to be dealt with separately and not confused with ufos.

Regarding other dimensions and whether extradimensional beings would be technological beings
using machines. According to Kaku, dimensions above our own dimensions would
be existing at a higher energy frequency that the laws of physics and the lifeforms would be
of a completely different order, they would be of higher vibrational frequency. What we understood
from physical is the extended, divisible world of space-time. If we go beyond the event horizon
of space and time, then necessarily we enter into a dimension that is outside of space and time, where
space and time do not operate or null space-time. The esoteric traditions agree that beyond physical
space time, time no longer exists and this plane of reality is described as astral, that the spiritual
traditions call the 5th dimension. Here there is no space and time, and no gravity, one can travel
instantly to any location by merely willing it, materialise anything by merely thinking it. Reality here
is super-fluidic. There is no need for technology here or machines because there are no laws of space
and time . As Kaku suggests life here is certainly of a different order, it is not
physical, but spiritual(angels, gods, demons etc)

It is for this reason that I have to rule out that the generic UFO of a physical flying machine of being of
extradimensional origin. The non-generic UFO which appears to be non physical or ghostly is not really
a UFO then, but it is other phenomena mistaken to be a UFO.

On time traveller explanation. I was quite optimistic when you said that Many worlds interpretation
has been proven right, only to be let down when you revealed that it is simply a mathematical explanation
offered by some new Oxford researcher who claim "they can" explain many worlds theory. To be honest I do
not like many worlds interpretation, because it is bizarre and illogical. It suggests that the universe actually
splits into a copy of itself with every choice we make. This leads to the absurd conclusion that the copy
-universe only begins to exist from the moment we made the choice and did not exist before it. Thus one
universe would be the original with a full history before the split, and another universe would be a copy with
no history before the split.

The best explanation by which we do not need to multiply entities unnecessarily is Wigner's consciousness
theory of the wavefunction collapse. It is not simply not possible for the wavefunction to collapse itself,
it only collapses on observation, because the entire quantum system is entangled. The only entity that is
not entangled is consciousness itself which is what allows the collapse to take place.

On cryptotesstrial explanation. USO's does not not require the cryptoterrestrial explanation, it can still be
explained by the ETH. Although a USO may seem to emerge from the ocean this does not mean it originated
there. It is also possible that they have an underground base from which they emerge. Now suppose these bases
were thousands of years old would they qualify as cryptoterrestrial? By then should we give them citizenship status? lol

On psychic manifestation explanation. Seeing the starship enterprise flying about or any science fiction craft can be
explained as a hallucination, unless there is evidence to show that it was a real physical craft. If it was possible for ones
collective imagination to manifest physically, then by now our world should have been taken over by dragons, giants, and
talking trees(LOTR) lol

What of the DMT trips experiencing full Alien Abduction scenarios


It's a dmt trip.

I think we need to be very careful not to confuse UFO's with other paranormal things.
Indigo Child
 
Posts: 327
Joined: 22 May 2009, 08:01

Re: Debunking Pseudoskepticism: Common fallacies on ET/UFO

Postby Eteponge » 04 Jun 2010, 06:39

Indigo Child wrote:To be honest I do not like many worlds interpretation, because it is bizarre and illogical. It suggests that the universe actually splits into a copy of itself with every choice we make. This leads to the absurd conclusion that the copy-universe only begins to exist from the moment we made the choice and did not exist before it. Thus one universe would be the original with a full history before the split, and another universe would be a copy with no history before the split.

Are you familiar with Remote Viewing? For many years, Remote Viewers have been allegedly tapping into alternative histories, alternate futures, etc, during RV Sessions. Daz Smith, a Remote Viewer who posts here, linked me to a section on an RV Website regarding some experiments they are doing with it, trying to prove it ...

http://www.farsight.org/demo/Multiple_U ... iment.html

Remote Viewing the Future in the Context of Multiple Universes

For many years the physics community has contemplated the existence of alternate realities, or universes other than our own. The idea of multiple universes commonly occurs in discussions of quantum mechanics, and was originally proposed by Hugh Everett in 1956 (the so-called "many worlds" theory) as a possible explanation for experimental results involving the "two-slit experiment." But until now, no one devised an experimental approach to test for the existence of these multiple universes.

Beginning in January of 2009, a group of remote viewers utilizing three separate methodologies (CRV, HRVG, and SRV, later expanded to four with TDS) began an experiment designed by Dr. Courtney Brown that directly tested for the existence of multiple universes while using remote viewing to predict future events. This project remains an exciting and landmark opportunity to see remote viewing in action within the context of an important scientific study that has profound implications to our understanding of physical reality. As with many of our studies, this project involved public participation. We encouraged web site visitors to watch the study unfold as the weeks and months proceeded. There has never been a need to "believe" anything with any of our experiments. We simply want people to look at the results, and learn.
"I think Eteponge's Blog is a pretty cool guy. eh debates Skeptics and doesnt afraid of anything."
User avatar
Eteponge
 
Posts: 300
Joined: 06 Jun 2009, 13:26

Re: Debunking Pseudoskepticism: Common fallacies on ET/UFO

Postby Eteponge » 04 Jun 2010, 08:04

Something I do find ironic though, Indigo Child, is how much you refer to Michio Kaku in support of things you say regarding string theory and other dimensions, and yet, he is a VERY STRONG supporter of Many-Worlds Interpretation and Time Travel. He's on my side on that, lol.
"I think Eteponge's Blog is a pretty cool guy. eh debates Skeptics and doesnt afraid of anything."
User avatar
Eteponge
 
Posts: 300
Joined: 06 Jun 2009, 13:26

Re: Debunking Pseudoskepticism: Common fallacies on ET/UFO

Postby Indigo Child » 04 Jun 2010, 09:18

Eteponge,

I am certainly a great admirer of Kaku, but that does not mean I accept eveything he supports.
I am not averse to the existence of parallel dimensions and timelines, in fact nothing is impossible
in this vast and magical universe, but what I am averse to is many world theory because of the absurdity
of how simply making a choice causes the universe to split into another copy. This was only proposed as
a way to explain Schrodinger's cat paradox where the wavefunction splits into a universe
where the cat is alive and one where the cat is dead. This was simply to get outside of the implications
of the copenhagen interpretation that consciousness is required to collapse the wavefunction. It is clear
if we observe the facts that the wavefunction only collapses on observation. The materialists refuse to
accept this conclusion so they tried every possible theory that would not require consciousness. The
many word interpretation was a desperate attempt.

However, there is another way the many world theory can be true, and that is rather than the universe
splitting into a copy of itself at every choice(which I still find absurd as you know) All universes and timelines
come into being from the beginning itself(big bang) In this model there is no original universe and copies which
branch of at each choice, but rather all timelines begin in parallel. However, this is highly speculative, and I can't
actually think of a good reason why this should be true. Until we do not actually have a solid theory can that can explain
this(not some abstract mathematical formulation) we cannot admit the existence of parallel universes and timelines
as part of our observable universe. Much less use it positively to explain UFO's.
Indigo Child
 
Posts: 327
Joined: 22 May 2009, 08:01

PreviousNext

Return to UFO's / Aliens / ET's

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron