Re: RE: [Vo]:OT: The Abduction Paradigm
Hi Jeff, > I have never experienced sleep paralysis, but my wife did once, > and it was not nearly so benign as yours. > > It was the summer of 1970 in Virginia after an early morning > thunder storm. I left early for some errands: my wife slept in. > > When she woke up, she could move nothing but her eyes. What > she saw was a reptilian creature with large scales walking > around the bed. The creature was not similar to the ones on > "Star Trek Enterprise", but she is unable or unwilling to > recall any further details. He did not appear to touch her. > There were no sounds. > > My wife was on birth control from 1967 to 1973, but three > months after this incident after a positive pregnancy test, > she miscarried. > > We both became Christians in 1973. We have experienced > nothing of this nature since that incident. > > Jeff > > P.S. She had not thought of this incident in years, and she > was not at all happy that I brought it to her rememberance this > morning. It's my understanding that Sleep Paralysis can be a "door way" to many interesting experiences as your wife can testify. In my own case, my experiences were hardly terrifying. It would be more accurate to describe them as energizing, and all too brief. Under the circumstances it would be inappropriate of me to judge and analyze the experiences and subsequent decision(s) you and your wife have made. You and your wife converting to Christianity back in 1973 appears to have been a positive influence on your lives. Nothing bad about that. I will bend my own rules of non-intervention just a tad here and offer as a suggestion, that the two of you might consider the possibility that the "creature" your wife saw was not necessarily the demon it appeared to be, but was instead possibly an angel in disguise, clothed to appear to look like a demon for the specific purpose of reminding her (and through her, you) that perhaps the two of you might care to avail yourselves to a more traditional religious structure in your lives. I'm also sorry that your wife miscarried three months later after her disquieting experience. It must have been sad for both of you. But then, perhaps it was God sending the both of you another message: that the two of you weren't yet prepared to begin raising a family, not until the both of you availed yourselves to a more traditional religious structure in which to raise a family. As I'm sure you've heard, the Lord moves in mysterious ways! Sometimes I just wish it was easier for us to accept the notion that we aren't evil, that we have not "fallen" from grace, but unfortunately, the "fall from grace" is a strong belief for which significant portions of our society appear to be lost in the drama that makes it so titillating to experience over and over. But then, I know all too well the many demons I've had to wrestle in my own life, so you have my sympathies. I hope you two have been able to start a family, if that is your wish. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
RE: RE: [Vo]:OT: The Abduction Paradigm
I have never experienced sleep paralysis, but my wife did once, and it was not nearly so benign as yours. It was the summer of 1970 in Virginia after an early morning thunder storm. I left early for some errands: my wife slept in. When she woke up, she could move nothing but her eyes. What she saw was a reptilian creature with large scales walking around the bed. The creature was not similar to the ones on "Star Trek Enterprise", but she is unable or unwilling to recall any further details. He did not appear to touch her. There were no sounds. My wife was on birth control from 1967 to 1973, but three months after this incident after a positive pregnancy test, she miscarried. We both became Christians in 1973. We have experienced nothing of this nature since that incident. Jeff P.S. She had not thought of this incident in years, and she was not at all happy that I brought it to her rememberance this morning. -Original Message- From: OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson [mailto:orionwo...@charter.net] Sent: Wednesday, August 05, 2009 9:09 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: RE: [Vo]:OT: The Abduction Paradigm Hi Harry, > I think some of the abductions are related to the experience of > sleep paralysis. This is when you awake from sleep but find you are > incapable of moving. It is a frightening feeling. I've experienced sleep paralysis. I think many have. Indeed, the first couple of times I experienced it I struggled to regain control of my body... it felt so disquieting. Later, when I heard that it was a natural condition, a natural experience brought on by the brain attempting to inhibit the body from thrashing about in preparation of sleep cycles, I feared it less. As literature suggested I noticed my experiences tended to be brought on when I attempted to sleep during a portion of the day when I did not normally sleep, like in the afternoon. I began to explore the experience. Not so frightening anymore. I rarely experience them these days, but then I don't seem to have time for a nice afternoon nap! :-( It sometimes feels like it could be a window into other "realities" if I could maintain my sense of self-awareness as paralysis and consciousness is experienced simultaneously, but typically I just fall asleep. Oh well. Maybe next time. ;-) Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
RE: [Vo]:OT: The Abduction Paradigm
>From Mr. Fink > You were right to ultimately conclude that it was not Jesus, but it was > something that a true psychic channeler would know very well. There > are fake channelers too who are not connected to the spirit world. > > For every real thing that exists in this world, there are hucksters out > there dealing in fakes. > > Jeff You mean it wasn't Jesus I guess that explains why I'm not burning in a pit of eternal fire and damnation. It was interesting visiting your perception of reality. I But like many vacation landscapes for which I have on occasion visited, while I enjoyed my brief stay it does not appear to be a location for which I would care to invest much psychic real estate in. But enuf about my "critique". As a polite vacationer visiting a stranger's land, it would be remiss of me not to express my thanks. I should also extend a little token of appreciation for your brief hospitality. My "gift" of appreciation is as follows - an eccentric comment of my own: The domains of Imagination and Logic are incredible traits for which we Homo Sapiens are trying our very best to learn how to handle. The trick seems to be to learn how to make such sentient traits serve our best interests, rather than we ending up serving their best interests. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks > --- > > "STEVE'S NEAR-ABDUCTION EXPERIENCE" > > I must have been around six years old at the time. I was living in > Taipei, > Taiwan, attending 2nd grade at a Roman Catholic school. I recall each > day as > the buss took me into the school grounds it felt like I was entering > "the > compound". It was a place where penguins patrolled with absolute > impunity. > > One eerie pre-dawn morning I woke startled. Something was not right! In > front of me was a misty glowing undefined column of "something" > hovering > about a foot or two above my bed. It was Jesus! Had to be Jesus! I also > knew > that I didn't want Jesus hovering above my bed in the wee hours of a > pre-dawn morning, so uninvited. I remember bolting upright and taking a > solid swing through the ghostly column. I remember mentally shouting > "GO > AWAY!" > > It did. Vanished in a shrug. Never to be seen again. > > I recall enduring several bouts of dread and guilt for days afterward, > realizing I had told Jesus to go away. However, with each subsequent > day, > combined with the fact I had yet to be cast into an eternal pit of fire > and > damnation, I guess I decided it was best to simply bury the memory > within a > dark fissure of my subconscious. > > Fast forward many decades later, I recall asking a psychic-channeler, a > modern day shaman, about my childhood experience. She replied, matter > of > fact, "You told [us] to go away. [We] did." > > These days, I sometimes catch myself wishing that the misty column > would > come back some early morning in the pre-dawn hours and visit me again. > Honest! I'm all better now! I won't take a swing at you! Not this time! > But > then it would be just like me to wake up in yet another semi-conscious > stupor and take a swing at that damn alien. No fracking way I'm goina > allow > myself to be probed! > > Regards, > Steven Vincent Johnson > www.OrionWorks.com > www.zazzle.com/orionworks
RE: RE: [Vo]:OT: The Abduction Paradigm
Hi Harry, > I think some of the abductions are related to the experience of > sleep paralysis. This is when you awake from sleep but find you are > incapable of moving. It is a frightening feeling. I've experienced sleep paralysis. I think many have. Indeed, the first couple of times I experienced it I struggled to regain control of my body... it felt so disquieting. Later, when I heard that it was a natural condition, a natural experience brought on by the brain attempting to inhibit the body from thrashing about in preparation of sleep cycles, I feared it less. As literature suggested I noticed my experiences tended to be brought on when I attempted to sleep during a portion of the day when I did not normally sleep, like in the afternoon. I began to explore the experience. Not so frightening anymore. I rarely experience them these days, but then I don't seem to have time for a nice afternoon nap! :-( It sometimes feels like it could be a window into other "realities" if I could maintain my sense of self-awareness as paralysis and consciousness is experienced simultaneously, but typically I just fall asleep. Oh well. Maybe next time. ;-) Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
RE: [Vo]:OT: The Abduction Paradigm
You were right to ultimately conclude that it was not Jesus, but it was something that a true psychic channeler would know very well. There are fake channelers too who are not connected to the spirit world. For every real thing that exists in this world, there are hucksters out there dealing in fakes. Jeff -Original Message- From: OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson [mailto:orionwo...@charter.net] Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 2009 9:57 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:OT: The Abduction Paradigm Terry sez: > Absolutely one of the best descriptions of sudden self-actualization I > have ever read. I, too, experienced something similar at about 19 yrs > old. Actually, Terry, I have a confession to make. I must recount the true-story of a deeply buried memory. You be the judge! ;-) --- "STEVE'S NEAR-ABDUCTION EXPERIENCE" I must have been around six years old at the time. I was living in Taipei, Taiwan, attending 2nd grade at a Roman Catholic school. I recall each day as the buss took me into the school grounds it felt like I was entering "the compound". It was a place where penguins patrolled with absolute impunity. One eerie pre-dawn morning I woke startled. Something was not right! In front of me was a misty glowing undefined column of "something" hovering about a foot or two above my bed. It was Jesus! Had to be Jesus! I also knew that I didn't want Jesus hovering above my bed in the wee hours of a pre-dawn morning, so uninvited. I remember bolting upright and taking a solid swing through the ghostly column. I remember mentally shouting "GO AWAY!" It did. Vanished in a shrug. Never to be seen again. I recall enduring several bouts of dread and guilt for days afterward, realizing I had told Jesus to go away. However, with each subsequent day, combined with the fact I had yet to be cast into an eternal pit of fire and damnation, I guess I decided it was best to simply bury the memory within a dark fissure of my subconscious. Fast forward many decades later, I recall asking a psychic-channeler, a modern day shaman, about my childhood experience. She replied, matter of fact, "You told [us] to go away. [We] did." These days, I sometimes catch myself wishing that the misty column would come back some early morning in the pre-dawn hours and visit me again. Honest! I'm all better now! I won't take a swing at you! Not this time! But then it would be just like me to wake up in yet another semi-conscious stupor and take a swing at that damn alien. No fracking way I'm goina allow myself to be probed! Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
RE: [Vo]:OT: The Abduction Paradigm
You misunderstand my position on these experiences. In my belief system, I don't fear demons or the devil. Through Jesus they fear me. I will never see a UFO, or have an alien abduction experience. We must know our enemy in order to win, but most people don't even believe the devil or demons exist. That is by his design and one of the most successful tactics of this "invasion" if you will. As Ed suggested they are trying to hide their existence to a degree and definitely hide their true nature. After all, we will not guard ourselves against something that does not exist. It would be interesting to see how many God fearing, born again, Bible believing, Christians have had abduction experiences. I venture to say that it is none, since we don't have nearly as much vulnerability as the general population. The Bible says, "Resist the devil and he will flee from you." Who out there is going to resist something that doesn't exist? There does seem to be a distinction between demon possession and demon oppression. These beings are able to affect you, plant visions or memories, all short of taking you over on a continuous basis, but once one has taken control, he can allow others to enter. This is the source of multiple personalities. We all seem to agree that there is some nasty "unexplainable" stuff going on in and around the world. We can each call it what we want, but that does not change what it is. Jeff -Original Message- From: OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson [mailto:orionwo...@charter.net] Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 2009 9:08 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:OT: The Abduction Paradigm >From Mr. Fink > It seems to me that traditional cases of demon > possession over the centuries have been more common > with more documentations than the UFO/abductions we > have today. Couldn't this all be a new twist on an > old theme? Perhaps we tend to embrace this new stuff > and reject the old stuff simply because the > perpetrators have lured us by putting a scientific > flavor on it. Many people have speculated on the premise that "UFO Abductions" are actually demonic activity shrouded in the guise of modern archetypes involving spaceships and aliens. They conjecture that these abductee/experiencers are not interpreting the "true" picture of what's really going on. In regards to such conjecture, I think it is only logical I ask individuals like Mr. Fink the inevitable question: What makes you think those who in prior pre-technological societies were any better at correctly interpreting their alleged "demonic" encounters, as compared to those who currently believe they are being abducted by aliens? >From what I can tell, the fear of "demonic" encounters seems to revolve around an archetypical belief that one's "soul" is in danger of being repossessed by the equivalent of the "repo-man" - nefarious creatures who have an agenda all of their own, to repossess your "vehicle". I cannot tell you, nor is it even appropriate for me to suggest you stop fearing in the belief of evil spirits or the devil. And even if I were to suggest such a foolish thing I suspect you would continue to fear such things anyway, precisely because such concepts most likely have significant meaning for you, particularly in the way I speculate you might believe the universe is constructed, as well as your position in it. I can only suggest that you might want to consider some of the following thoughts: Our imagination is a powerful tool. One of the challenges we homo sapiens are still learning how to grapple with is the fact that such a powerful tool can occasionally get the best of us, particular when we end up serving the whims of our imagination, rather than our imaginations serving our best interests. If that doesn't make any sense to you, let me offer the following anecdotal information having to do with the many abductee / experiencers I've met over the years. None, of the abductee / experiencers that I've met have ever shown the slightest hints of behavior that would suggest (to me) that they have been "possessed". They have never shown symptoms that someone else is actually pulling their strings. Granted, a few here and there them may genuinely FEAR some "alien(s)" are attempting to control (possess) them, but that's not the same thing as BEING controlled by aliens, or demons. The fact that they might fear the process means they are not actually being controlled - they simply fear that they might be vulnerable to being controlled. There seems to be a distinction between demonic possession and demonic oppression. With apologies to the many fine atheists who reside within the Vort Collective let me suggest an alternative perspective that I hope Jeff might be willing to entertain co
Re: RE: [Vo]:OT: The Abduction Paradigm
I think some of the abductions are related to the experience of sleep paralysis. This is when you awake from sleep but find you are incapable of moving. It is a frightening feeling. Harry - Original Message - From: OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson Date: Tuesday, August 4, 2009 9:56 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:OT: The Abduction Paradigm > Terry sez: > > > Absolutely one of the best descriptions of sudden self- > actualization I > > have ever read. I, too, experienced something similar at about > 19 yrs > > old. > > Actually, Terry, I have a confession to make. I must recount the > true-story > of a deeply buried memory. > > You be the judge! ;-) > > --- > > "STEVE'S NEAR-ABDUCTION EXPERIENCE" > > I must have been around six years old at the time. I was living in > Taipei,Taiwan, attending 2nd grade at a Roman Catholic school. I > recall each day as > the buss took me into the school grounds it felt like I was > entering "the > compound". It was a place where penguins patrolled with absolute > impunity. > One eerie pre-dawn morning I woke startled. Something was not > right! In > front of me was a misty glowing undefined column of "something" > hoveringabout a foot or two above my bed. It was Jesus! Had to be > Jesus! I also knew > that I didn't want Jesus hovering above my bed in the wee hours of a > pre-dawn morning, so uninvited. I remember bolting upright and > taking a > solid swing through the ghostly column. I remember mentally > shouting "GO > AWAY!" > > It did. Vanished in a shrug. Never to be seen again. > > I recall enduring several bouts of dread and guilt for days afterward, > realizing I had told Jesus to go away. However, with each > subsequent day, > combined with the fact I had yet to be cast into an eternal pit of > fire and > damnation, I guess I decided it was best to simply bury the memory > within a > dark fissure of my subconscious. > > Fast forward many decades later, I recall asking a psychic- > channeler, a > modern day shaman, about my childhood experience. She replied, > matter of > fact, "You told [us] to go away. [We] did." > > These days, I sometimes catch myself wishing that the misty column > wouldcome back some early morning in the pre-dawn hours and visit > me again. > Honest! I'm all better now! I won't take a swing at you! Not this > time! But > then it would be just like me to wake up in yet another semi-conscious > stupor and take a swing at that damn alien. No fracking way I'm > goina allow > myself to be probed! > > Regards, > Steven Vincent Johnson > www.OrionWorks.com > www.zazzle.com/orionworks > >
RE: [Vo]:OT: The Abduction Paradigm
Terry sez: > Absolutely one of the best descriptions of sudden self-actualization I > have ever read. I, too, experienced something similar at about 19 yrs > old. Actually, Terry, I have a confession to make. I must recount the true-story of a deeply buried memory. You be the judge! ;-) --- "STEVE'S NEAR-ABDUCTION EXPERIENCE" I must have been around six years old at the time. I was living in Taipei, Taiwan, attending 2nd grade at a Roman Catholic school. I recall each day as the buss took me into the school grounds it felt like I was entering "the compound". It was a place where penguins patrolled with absolute impunity. One eerie pre-dawn morning I woke startled. Something was not right! In front of me was a misty glowing undefined column of "something" hovering about a foot or two above my bed. It was Jesus! Had to be Jesus! I also knew that I didn't want Jesus hovering above my bed in the wee hours of a pre-dawn morning, so uninvited. I remember bolting upright and taking a solid swing through the ghostly column. I remember mentally shouting "GO AWAY!" It did. Vanished in a shrug. Never to be seen again. I recall enduring several bouts of dread and guilt for days afterward, realizing I had told Jesus to go away. However, with each subsequent day, combined with the fact I had yet to be cast into an eternal pit of fire and damnation, I guess I decided it was best to simply bury the memory within a dark fissure of my subconscious. Fast forward many decades later, I recall asking a psychic-channeler, a modern day shaman, about my childhood experience. She replied, matter of fact, "You told [us] to go away. [We] did." These days, I sometimes catch myself wishing that the misty column would come back some early morning in the pre-dawn hours and visit me again. Honest! I'm all better now! I won't take a swing at you! Not this time! But then it would be just like me to wake up in yet another semi-conscious stupor and take a swing at that damn alien. No fracking way I'm goina allow myself to be probed! Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
RE: [Vo]:OT: The Abduction Paradigm
>From Mr. Fink > It seems to me that traditional cases of demon > possession over the centuries have been more common > with more documentations than the UFO/abductions we > have today. Couldn't this all be a new twist on an > old theme? Perhaps we tend to embrace this new stuff > and reject the old stuff simply because the > perpetrators have lured us by putting a scientific > flavor on it. Many people have speculated on the premise that "UFO Abductions" are actually demonic activity shrouded in the guise of modern archetypes involving spaceships and aliens. They conjecture that these abductee/experiencers are not interpreting the "true" picture of what's really going on. In regards to such conjecture, I think it is only logical I ask individuals like Mr. Fink the inevitable question: What makes you think those who in prior pre-technological societies were any better at correctly interpreting their alleged "demonic" encounters, as compared to those who currently believe they are being abducted by aliens? >From what I can tell, the fear of "demonic" encounters seems to revolve around an archetypical belief that one's "soul" is in danger of being repossessed by the equivalent of the "repo-man" - nefarious creatures who have an agenda all of their own, to repossess your "vehicle". I cannot tell you, nor is it even appropriate for me to suggest you stop fearing in the belief of evil spirits or the devil. And even if I were to suggest such a foolish thing I suspect you would continue to fear such things anyway, precisely because such concepts most likely have significant meaning for you, particularly in the way I speculate you might believe the universe is constructed, as well as your position in it. I can only suggest that you might want to consider some of the following thoughts: Our imagination is a powerful tool. One of the challenges we homo sapiens are still learning how to grapple with is the fact that such a powerful tool can occasionally get the best of us, particular when we end up serving the whims of our imagination, rather than our imaginations serving our best interests. If that doesn't make any sense to you, let me offer the following anecdotal information having to do with the many abductee / experiencers I've met over the years. None, of the abductee / experiencers that I've met have ever shown the slightest hints of behavior that would suggest (to me) that they have been "possessed". They have never shown symptoms that someone else is actually pulling their strings. Granted, a few here and there them may genuinely FEAR some "alien(s)" are attempting to control (possess) them, but that's not the same thing as BEING controlled by aliens, or demons. The fact that they might fear the process means they are not actually being controlled - they simply fear that they might be vulnerable to being controlled. With apologies to the many fine atheists who reside within the Vort Collective let me suggest an alternative perspective that I hope Jeff might be willing to entertain concerning the matter of "demonic possession." Most of the Great Masters have stated (in different wording) that one's Soul is Eternal. You, the essence of what You are is Your Soul. The Soul is one's direct link with the Eternal, of the TAO, God, Allah, whatever one wishes to name that which cannot be named. You cannot be separated from your Soul, which means You cannot be separated from the TAO, God, Allah, or whatever one wishes to name: "I Am that I Am" is. The only tangible fear that might exist concerning "possession" is a BELIEF that one's Soul can be separated from its eternal Source. It's a titillating belief, one that our species has constructed and continues to occasionally flirt with, causing great drama and spectacle for all to see. But in the end, we discover it's only a belief, a belief of our own making. We don't have to lose Ourselves in such a belief. Such a belief no longer has to continue hindering us from experiencing Who We really Are, if we chose to set such a belief aside. Ah, what the hell. I suspect Kyle Mcallister probably articulated a similar matter far better than I when he recently suggested: "...go along for the ride. Or as some would say, 'Dude. Chill.'" Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:OT: The Abduction Paradigm
On Aug 4, 2009, at 4:12 PM, Jeff Fink wrote: -Original Message- From: Edmund Storms [mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 2009 4:00 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: The Abduction Paradigm Jeff, a significant difference exists between the UFO observations and demon possession. The UFO observations are based on real events that can be documented. When the different kinds of observations are combined, they show a consistent interpretation. As I was saying, the perpetrators have developed an agenda. They have goals. On the other hand, demon possession is an interpretation of human behavior, nothing more. You obviously have never seen any of this in action. Certain religions have attributed this behavior to the presence of demons. Modern psychology attributes the effect to extreme personality disorders. So, you are convinced that the vast majority of personality disorders are imbalances in brain chemistry rather than attacks by spiritual beings, whether we call them aliens, demons, or fallen angels. I acknowledge that effects we can call supernatural do exist. I sincerely doubt these effects are correctly described by Christian mythology. Nevertheless, some of what you would ascribe to demons might be part of this supernatural interaction. However, I think a greater number are the effects of imbalances in brain chemistry, as you say. Ever since Christianity became a dominate religion, it has been trying to explain natural behavior with very poor success, the Galileo issue being a famous example of such failure. In addition, the insistence of demons being the source of unconventional behavior has been used to cause great misery in the past, the Witch killings being a good example. Consequently, I have very little respect for such explanations, as you can see. Ed Jeff Nevertheless, I will acknowledge that some supernatural effects might be operating, the nature of which is unknown, except to those who have a preconceived belief that they apply regardless of objective evidence. Ed On Aug 4, 2009, at 5:58 AM, Jeff Fink wrote: It seems to me that traditional cases of demon possession over the centuries have been more common with more documentations than the UFO/ abductions we have today. Couldn't this all be a new twist on an old theme? Perhaps we tend to embrace this new stuff and reject the old stuff simply because the perpetrators have lured us by putting a scientific flavor on it. Jeff
RE: [Vo]:OT: The Abduction Paradigm
-Original Message- From: Edmund Storms [mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 2009 4:00 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: The Abduction Paradigm Jeff, a significant difference exists between the UFO observations and demon possession. The UFO observations are based on real events that can be documented. When the different kinds of observations are combined, they show a consistent interpretation. As I was saying, the perpetrators have developed an agenda. They have goals. On the other hand, demon possession is an interpretation of human behavior, nothing more. You obviously have never seen any of this in action. Certain religions have attributed this behavior to the presence of demons. Modern psychology attributes the effect to extreme personality disorders. So, you are convinced that the vast majority of personality disorders are imbalances in brain chemistry rather than attacks by spiritual beings, whether we call them aliens, demons, or fallen angels. Jeff Nevertheless, I will acknowledge that some supernatural effects might be operating, the nature of which is unknown, except to those who have a preconceived belief that they apply regardless of objective evidence. Ed On Aug 4, 2009, at 5:58 AM, Jeff Fink wrote: > It seems to me that traditional cases of demon possession over the > centuries > have been more common with more documentations than the UFO/ > abductions we > have today. Couldn't this all be a new twist on an old theme? > Perhaps we > tend to embrace this new stuff and reject the old stuff simply > because the > perpetrators have lured us by putting a scientific flavor on it. > > Jeff >
Re: [Vo]:OT: The Abduction Paradigm
Jeff, a significant difference exists between the UFO observations and demon possession. The UFO observations are based on real events that can be documented. When the different kinds of observations are combined, they show a consistent interpretation. On the other hand, demon possession is an interpretation of human behavior, nothing more. Certain religions have attributed this behavior to the presence of demons. Modern psychology attributes the effect to extreme personality disorders. Nevertheless, I will acknowledge that some supernatural effects might be operating, the nature of which is unknown, except to those who have a preconceived belief that they apply regardless of objective evidence. Ed On Aug 4, 2009, at 5:58 AM, Jeff Fink wrote: It seems to me that traditional cases of demon possession over the centuries have been more common with more documentations than the UFO/ abductions we have today. Couldn't this all be a new twist on an old theme? Perhaps we tend to embrace this new stuff and reject the old stuff simply because the perpetrators have lured us by putting a scientific flavor on it. Jeff -Original Message- From: OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson [mailto:orionwo...@charter.net ] Sent: Monday, August 03, 2009 9:19 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:OT: The Abduction Paradigm From Mr. Blanton: John, [Mack] G-d rest his soul, also believed, much like you, that abductions were not totally physical. He thought it might be only the spirit that was abducted. I experienced a my own personal Mack of the 3rd kind encounter when I briefly brushed past the venerable doctor at the 50th Anniversary of the Roswell Crash festival held in Roswell, circa 1997. I handed Mack a post card, a reproduction of one of the first *digital* paintings I ever created: "The Seeding". http://orionworks.com/artgal/svj/seeding_m.htm He glanced at it and smiled briefly. As he walked away, he pocketed the image and proclaimed, "You must be on drugs." As Mack walked away, one of his aids leaned over and whispered something in my year, something to the effect, that when Mack sez something like "...you must be on drugs" it was meant as a complement. I took it as such. But in reply to your comment about the abduction of the spirit. I'm not entirely convinced that Mack would have perceived such spiritual "encounters" within the context of an actual abduction scenario. But then, let us not forget that old saying: "While the spirit is strong, the flesh is weak." Personally, I'm not attempting to put forth the premise that such encounters are an "abduction of the spirit." It would be more precise for me to suggest that many of such encounters (MANY, BUT NOT ALL) may be more a matter of the more alienated portions of our "selves" attempting to reunite with the more acceptable portions of our "selves." I suspect we still have a lot to learn about "self." This is a good thing! -- Regards, Steven Vincnet Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
RE: [Vo]:OT: The Abduction Paradigm
It seems to me that traditional cases of demon possession over the centuries have been more common with more documentations than the UFO/abductions we have today. Couldn't this all be a new twist on an old theme? Perhaps we tend to embrace this new stuff and reject the old stuff simply because the perpetrators have lured us by putting a scientific flavor on it. Jeff -Original Message- From: OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson [mailto:orionwo...@charter.net] Sent: Monday, August 03, 2009 9:19 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:OT: The Abduction Paradigm >From Mr. Blanton: > John, [Mack] G-d rest his soul, also believed, much like you, > that abductions were not totally physical. He thought it might > be only the spirit that was abducted. I experienced a my own personal Mack of the 3rd kind encounter when I briefly brushed past the venerable doctor at the 50th Anniversary of the Roswell Crash festival held in Roswell, circa 1997. I handed Mack a post card, a reproduction of one of the first *digital* paintings I ever created: "The Seeding". http://orionworks.com/artgal/svj/seeding_m.htm He glanced at it and smiled briefly. As he walked away, he pocketed the image and proclaimed, "You must be on drugs." As Mack walked away, one of his aids leaned over and whispered something in my year, something to the effect, that when Mack sez something like "...you must be on drugs" it was meant as a complement. I took it as such. But in reply to your comment about the abduction of the spirit. I'm not entirely convinced that Mack would have perceived such spiritual "encounters" within the context of an actual abduction scenario. But then, let us not forget that old saying: "While the spirit is strong, the flesh is weak." Personally, I'm not attempting to put forth the premise that such encounters are an "abduction of the spirit." It would be more precise for me to suggest that many of such encounters (MANY, BUT NOT ALL) may be more a matter of the more alienated portions of our "selves" attempting to reunite with the more acceptable portions of our "selves." I suspect we still have a lot to learn about "self." This is a good thing! -- Regards, Steven Vincnet Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: RE: [Vo]:OT: The Abduction Paradigm
- Original Message - From: OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson Date: Monday, August 3, 2009 9:19 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:OT: The Abduction Paradigm > From Mr. Blanton: > > > John, [Mack] G-d rest his soul, also believed, much like you, > > that abductions were not totally physical. He thought it might > > be only the spirit that was abducted. > > I experienced a my own personal Mack of the 3rd kind encounter when I > briefly brushed past the venerable doctor at the 50th Anniversary > of the > Roswell Crash festival held in Roswell, circa 1997. I handed Mack a > postcard, a reproduction of one of the first *digital* paintings I > ever created: > "The Seeding". > > http://orionworks.com/artgal/svj/seeding_m.htm cool painting Harry
Re: [Vo]:OT: The Abduction Paradigm
Absolutely one of the best descriptions of sudden self-actualization I have ever read. I, too, experienced something similar at about 19 yrs old. Bravo! Terry On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 8:19 PM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson wrote: > May the following essay, eccentrically written it may be, prove to be > informative to some:
RE: [Vo]:OT: The Abduction Paradigm
>From Terry: > Scenario 3 was put forth by one of the remote viewers of fame, the > name of exactly which one escapes me. He purports that the aliens are > actually time travelers from our future. The human race altered their > DNA intentionally to try to eliminate all those "nasty" human > characteristics. > > Unfortunately, they found that they went too far and have returned in > order to collect samples to restore those lost humane traits. Years ago I remember reading a SF novel based on a premise very similar to what you have outlined. The author was obviously well-versed in UFO abduction lore. He did a pretty decent job of coming up with a plausible story line. Yet another scenario to add to the ever growing list of possibilities. > Me, I think it's all something like Terrance McKenna said: > > "We are part of a symbiotic relationship with something which > disguises itself as an extra-terrestrial invasion so as not to alarm > us." Yes, walk quietly. Do not disturb the indigenous life forms. And, oh by the way, do not leave any refuse. New fines are in place. ;-) -- Regards, Steven Vincnet Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
RE: [Vo]:OT: The Abduction Paradigm
Terry sez: > (So, Steven, considering your glint of denial, could you be an > experiencer? Ever had an event of missing time? ;-) Me??? In denial??? I am not Take that back! :-) Alas, I'm afraid I must disappoint the few (VERY few, I'm sure) who might have wondered if I'm a closet abductee. However... May the following essay, eccentrically written it may be, prove to be informative to some: * * * * * AT THE STOP LIGHT OF MY LIFE PART 1: DEATH Back in the 1970s there was period in my mid twenties when enjoying the simple pleasures of life seemed to be an unattainable dream. Like many young adults I was going through my own personally crafted identity crisis, one brought on by a perceived and profound sense of existential isolation exacerbated by relentless angst typical for that age group. I felt flawed and separated from myself and from others. I had come to the foreboding conclusion that every action that I had tried in the past year in an attempt to extract myself out of my chronic rut of negativism had not succeeded. I didn't know what else to try. I feared my fate was spiraling into oblivion, the result of no longer caring that I didn't care. Considering how apathetic I actually felt at the time I had probably already obtained that goal. It was classic depression. From my point of view, life had failed me, or perhaps I had failed life. One day, in the midst of this personal fugue-like state I was driving my silver gray Honda Civic northbound on Midvale Boulevard towards the cross section of University Avenue. It was a mundane driving action I had performed countless times in the past. This time however, as I rolled my car to a stop, mindlessly obeying the red light, something unexpected happened. Without a struggle and with no forethought, I surrendered. I slipped into darkness and ceased to exist. I died. Then, as if jolted back to life by a cosmic deliberator I was slammed back into the driver's seat. Disoriented, I looked around. I quickly scanned the interior of my car. I looked out all the windows and listened to the sounds of bustling traffic. It was daylight... the intense daylight! It was as if someone had within a nanosecond spun the volume and lighting controls up to maximum - up to eleven! I realized that over the past year I must have been gradually turning the controls down millimeter by millimeter, week after week, month after month. I must have reduced my external senses to a point where my surroundings felt no more tangible than a muffled gray whisper. I felt bewildered but also excited. What had just happened to me! All I knew was that someone, some distant stranger that had been inhabiting this body had just died. But here "I" was, back in the driver's seat, with full possession of the prior dead person's memories. "I" still seemed to be intact. I confronted an unexpected revelation. It no longer mattered what prior tribulations this prior individual who had inhabited my body must have endured. What mattered was that a new "me" had just been reborn out of the ashes of a prior discarded life. I noticed the traffic light had turned green. What do I do next? I hadn't a clue. I put my car in gear. I stepped on the accelerator and drove through the crossroad. PART 2: AFTER DEATH It would be tempting to conclude the telling of my transformation at this juncture. However, to do so would have been a misleading account of what happened next. What happened shortly afterward contradicted my profoundly felt transformation. While I knew I had been reborn in every literal sense of the experience, I had also been brought back with all the memories and feelings of my prior past-life self fully intact. I did not fully comprehend the ramifications of being in full possession of all those "past-life" memories previously assigned to a no longer living stranger. As time marched on, and much to my dismay, I realized that I seemed to be once again reassembling all my prior faults and foibles. I was becoming moody, apathetic, even suicidal. The reborn "me" was slowly devolving back to my discarded past-life. In hindsight I did not realize it at the time, an awareness which has taken decades to slowly unravel, that my memories, attitudes, beliefs, and feelings were nothing more than just that: my memories, attitudes, beliefs, and feelings. When I had been "reborn" I did not fully comprehend the profound ramifications, the gift of having just experienced the "death" of my entire accumulated perceived sense of "self". I had not adequately prepared myself to consider what I might want to do with all of my past and future expectations essentially assigned to a discarded stranger, but then who is. How could I inculcate this precious gift of death and resurrection. What new opportunities awaited me? Time marched on. Decades later I have come to realize that I have lived through additional passages of a transformative nature, some more pleasantly experienced than others. I also recall
RE: [Vo]:OT: The Abduction Paradigm
>From Mr. Blanton > BTW, I don't have a lot of respect for Schmitt. > Are you aware of his falling out with Dr. Kevin Randall, > his former partner? ... More than I had wished! I had many private email exchanges with Mr. Randle back in the 90s in regards to the aftermath of this sordid affair. Needless to say, he was pretty upset. There wasn't much I could do about it, not that it was any of my business. ;-) BTW, another critic on another discussion group had this to say concerning Mr. Schmitt's faults: > "Schmitt claimed he had a bachelor's degree, a master's degree > and was in the midst of pursuing a doctorate in criminology. He > also claimed to be a medical illustrator. When checked, it was > revealed he was in fact a letter carrier in Hartford, Wisconsin, > and had no known academic credentials." This is outlined in the following "wiki" entry: See: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roswell_UFO_Incident#Shoddy_research_revealed.3 B_witnesses_suspected_of_hoaxes My Comments: Regarding Wikipedia articles having to do with "Shoddy research revealed:", as we all know, one should take some of the conclusions drawn there with an extreme grain of salt. It has been claimed by certain researchers that Wiki has acquired a gang of individuals who seem to bask in the limelight of how many personal entries they can make. Compounding matters is the fact that their true identities can be obfuscated, allowing them to post with impunity. I have heard conjecture that many of these individuals keep scores amongst each other - a kind of one-upmanship. They are also opinionated, intolerant of those who might differ from their own POV, immediately removing any counter opinions that might be posted. --- It's appropriate that I now share some of my own perspectives in regards to a colorful incident that occurred in the annals of UFO "soap opera", back in the 1990s, the "falling of grace" of Mr. Schmitt and his subsequent rehabilitation. I should start with a brief excerpt extracted from a recent publication (2009) concerning the continuing Roswell investigation, titled "Witness to Roswell". In the latest book published by Thomas C. Carey and Donald R Schmitt, the following is stated about Mr. Schmitt's background: --- Donald R. Schmitt resides in his native Wisconsin on a 45-acre ranch locate just outside of Milwaukee in a little hamlet called Hubertus. Don possess a bachelors degree from Concordia University and has taken graduate courses in criminal justice at John's University. He has worked for the U.S. Postal Service for the past 23 years. A talented artist, he has also freelanced as a medical and commercial illustrator. Possessing a fine baritone voice, Don also sings public for special occasions in the Milwaukee area. Don is the former director of special investigations and co-director of the J. Allan Hynek Center for UFO studies (CUFOS). He teamed with Kevin Randle in 1988 to investigate the Roswell Incident, a collaboration that resulted in many published articles and two best-selling books. UFO Crash at Roswell and The Truth About the UFO cCrash at Roswell. The critically acclaimed movie, Roswell, to which Don was a consultant, was based on the first book. Most recently, Don has appeared in a National Geographic Special about Roswell, Larry King Live!, and the CNN Morning Show. He continues to give presentations about Roswell at conference around the country. Teaming with Tom Carey in 1998, Don has vowed to continue a proactive Roswell investigation until the ultimate truth is learned. Don and his wife, Marie, have been married for four years. http://www.amazon.com/Witness-Roswell-Unmasking-Governments-Cover-up/dp/1601 630662/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1249333864&sr=8-1 http://tinyurl.com/mec9tn - Some of the specific details as to what I'm about to comment on I have rarely spoken in public about. Back in the 90s when Mr. Schmitt teamed up with Mr. Randle a terrible thing happened. Don Schmitt lied to his partner Mr. Randle. Mr. Schmitt denied that he worked for the Post Office to his then partner Mr. Randle. Compounding Schmitt's "sin" Mr. Randle then went to bat for Mr. Schmitt in an attempt to squelch rumors that his partner worked for the Post Office. One can only imagine the shock, disbelief, and sense of betrayal Mr. Randle must have felt when he discovered that his partner, the one he thought he trusted, the one he want to bat for, had lied to him. Needless to say, the Randle-Schmitt partnership did not survive this kind of abuse. Even I, myself, got temporarily caught up in Mr. Schmitt's lie. Of course the question most of us should be asking ourselves is who gives a frack whom one works for to pay the mortgage. I suspect this was one of the most painful lessons Mr. Schmitt had to learn, that it doesn't really matter. Mr. Randle c
RE: [Vo]:OT: The Abduction Paradigm
>From Mr. Blanton: > John, [Mack] G-d rest his soul, also believed, much like you, > that abductions were not totally physical. He thought it might > be only the spirit that was abducted. I experienced a my own personal Mack of the 3rd kind encounter when I briefly brushed past the venerable doctor at the 50th Anniversary of the Roswell Crash festival held in Roswell, circa 1997. I handed Mack a post card, a reproduction of one of the first *digital* paintings I ever created: "The Seeding". http://orionworks.com/artgal/svj/seeding_m.htm He glanced at it and smiled briefly. As he walked away, he pocketed the image and proclaimed, "You must be on drugs." As Mack walked away, one of his aids leaned over and whispered something in my year, something to the effect, that when Mack sez something like "...you must be on drugs" it was meant as a complement. I took it as such. But in reply to your comment about the abduction of the spirit. I'm not entirely convinced that Mack would have perceived such spiritual "encounters" within the context of an actual abduction scenario. But then, let us not forget that old saying: "While the spirit is strong, the flesh is weak." Personally, I'm not attempting to put forth the premise that such encounters are an "abduction of the spirit." It would be more precise for me to suggest that many of such encounters (MANY, BUT NOT ALL) may be more a matter of the more alienated portions of our "selves" attempting to reunite with the more acceptable portions of our "selves." I suspect we still have a lot to learn about "self." This is a good thing! -- Regards, Steven Vincnet Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
RE: [Vo]:OT: The Abduction Paradigm
>From Mr. Storms > Steven, are you suggesting the "something else" is > imagination or a mind probe by the aliens without physical contact? Why either/or? It seems plausible for me to speculate that some of the "somethings" may indeed be of our own imagination. But then, as we are beginning to learn, telecommuting is turning out to be a much cheaper way to conduct a meeting-of-the-minds! ;-) ... > My understanding is that the aliens were genetically > designed for space travel and are not suited to endure > on this planet for any length of time. To solve this > problem, they are redesigning themselves to be more > suited to work here. This is a slow process that has > been ongoing for centuries. Unlike the science fiction > stories, they do not plan to take over, but instead to > gradually improve the human DNA. God knows, we need > such an improvement. As Chris observed, we humans > cannot survive much longer without being telepathic . > While this trait is a recessive talent in humans, the > aliens have mastered this skill. Hopefully, they will > gradually add this feature to our DNA. The late Philip J. Corso expressed similar sentiments concerning alien biological construction and related space faring concepts. I'm glad I had the chance to schmooze briefly with the old coot down in Roswell back in 97. He was fun to be around - lots of old war stories, i.e.: the Flying Tigers. Least it sound like I'm denigrating Mr. Corso, no, I'm not. > Carbon based life has to be the most common form > because only such compounds have enough variety to > allow all kinds of environments to be tolerated. > I would not expect alien DNA would match ours, but > it would be close enough to be a templet. Once an > understanding of DNA is mastered, all kinds of > variations can be made, as we humans are discovering. > It just takes time to gradually create the transition. > After all, we humans evolved from something like a > mole after the last great extinction. Although this > took many millions of years, a knowledge of genetic > engineering can speed up this process. Even using > our crude methods, we have made significant changes > in domestic animals and some plants, a process that > is accelerating as we better understand the genes. > >> Ah, but they are smart aliens, I am told. They are >> highly advanced... so advanced, as the story goes, >> that somehow they managed to get themselves into a >> genetic pickle, where suddenly they need OUR genetic >> material in order to fix THEIR genetic material. > > I don't think this is the problem, exactly. They are > designed for space travel, which is not a "pickle". > Now that they have found a useful planet and a DNA > that is compatible with this environment, they are > working to have a permanent presence here, which > requires they be genetically like us. As we attempt > to travel in space, we will discover that we are not > designed for this effort and will have to do some > genetic engineering ourselves. This process has > started by selecting certain kinds of traits for the > astronauts. These traits will be gradually amplified > until a class of people will evolve who are employed > for space travel, provided our other deficiencies > don't get in the way first. > >> Obviously, their technology is so vastly superior >> to ours that such "splicing" wouldn't be a problem. >> But... but... I sez to myself: If it is presumed they >> are so capable of performing such miraculous >> technologically precise DNA splicing feats wouldn't >> they have already figured out how to manufacture the >> equivalent of all our wholesome genes for which their >> species would need WITHOUT having to physically mine >> ours for all of our indigenous genetic fiddlybits? In a >> sense, this conjecture is similar to what Jed has harped >> about more than once concerning whether we would even >> need to continue to extract oil from out of the ground >> once CF gets a good footing. According to Jed, if CF >> becomes cheap and prevalent, we'll make it ourselves >> out of the base materials. > > I don't see any conflict here. The genetic structure is > so complex, that starting from scratch would be very > difficult and inefficient. What would be the point > when perfectly good gene components are already here > and working just fine? All of the above reasons are perfectly plausible within the scientific paradigms we currently hold. Nevertheless, I only hope that you and others might at least be willing to occasionally entertain the possibility that such "reasonings" might reveal a rich underlying bedrock of mythic archetypes that have acquired relevant meaning within our current technologically oriented society. As I continue waxing on: We cannot escape our fundamental need to engage ourselves (our spirit) within the drama of mythmaking. Those who pride themselves in believing that their hard-won formal educ
Re: [Vo]:OT: The Abduction Paradigm
On Sun, Aug 2, 2009 at 10:01 PM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson wrote: > Scenario 1) > Scenario 2) Scenario 3 was put forth by one of the remote viewers of fame, the name of exactly which one escapes me. He purports that the aliens are actually time travelers from our future. The human race altered their DNA intentionally to try to eliminate all those "nasty" human characteristics. Unfortunately, they found that they went too far and have returned in order to collect samples to restore those lost humane traits. Me, I think it's all something like Terrance McKenna said: "We are part of a symbiotic relationship with something which disguises itself as an extra-terrestrial invasion so as not to alarm us." Terry
Re: [Vo]:OT: The Abduction Paradigm
On Aug 2, 2009, at 8:01 PM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson wrote: From Mr. Storms Steven, it really helps not to have a ready made explanation, such as you have, when evaluating the UFO events. Such expected notions cause a person to reject data, perhaps subconsciously. For example, you would like the phenomenon to involve some kind multi-dimensional reality. You then ignore all physical evidence showing that the events are happening in our dimension exactly like any event that we experience in normal life. For example, objects have been implanted during an abduction that were later removed by a doctor. These objects are real. Changes have have been found in the retina of the eye when a person has been near one of the crafts during landing. Apparently the intense microwave radiation causes permanent damage. In fact, this is one way the UFO investigators can tell if a person is telling the truth. Women have been found to be pregnant, as verified by a doctor, and then are not pregnant for no apparent reason after an abduction. Like most of the reported observations, these can be ignored in an effort to avoid believing the events are real. Actually, it does not matter what an individual believes about this subject because the events will take place regardless of what we believe. We have no control. Perhaps, it is best to ignore the whole subject and go about life without the resulting anxiety. As for David Jacobs, if you read his books you will learn that many people remember the abductions in great detail without need for hypnosis. Their memories are very similar to the retrieved memories. In fact, Jacobs is very aware of the problems associated with hypnosis and takes great pains to avoid them. Raising such issues is like the skeptics who question the reality of CF using problems that every person in the field understands better than the skeptic and takes great pains to avoid. Shoot, Ed. I'm not at all denying the possibility that a portion of the population may indeed be involved in classic "UFO abduction" scenarios. I can only tell you what I have surmised after years of looking into the phenomenon, after talking to the experiencers I've met myself. FWIW, I used to believe that most of these abductions were indeed happening - in the literal sense. However, after many years of looking into the process, I'm personally no longer as convinced as I used to be of such literal interpretations. That doesn't make such experiences any less real. In fact, I'm beginning to suspect what may be happening is even more real and/ or significant than attempts to classify such experiences/encounters as nothing more than classic run-of-the-mill UFO abductions conducted by aliens. At present, I just don't have enough information to surmise what percentage could indeed be classified as authentic UFO abductions, versus... something else. Steven, are you suggesting the "something else" is imagination or a mind probe by the aliens without physical contact? While we are discussing the pros and cons of this controversial issue, why don't we tackle one of the most smarmy conundrums of them all - the alleged GENETIC component for which the classic UFO abduction scenario seems to partake of time after time, specifically the taking of eggs and sperm, of later being shown "hybrids", of later being told that the human- parent must extend "love" towards these sickly "hybrids". My understanding is that the aliens were genetically designed for space travel and are not suited to endure on this planet for any length of time. To solve this problem, they are redesigning themselves to be more suited to work here. This is a slow process that has been ongoing for centuries. Unlike the science fiction stories, they do not plan to take over, but instead to gradually improve the human DNA. God knows, we need such an improvement. As Chris observed, we humans cannot survive much longer without being telepathic . While this trait is a recessive talent in humans, the aliens have mastered this skill. Hopefully, they will gradually add this feature to our DNA. Biologically speaking, what are the chances that totally alien-to-planet-Earth creatures would even posses DNA? And even if by some miracle it turns out that they DO have such complex molecules that such molecules are being used for the same purpose (propagation of genetic heritage, etc...) what are the chances that their DNA would be so conveniently configured that it could be conceivable that we could splice ours with theirs. Carbon based life has to be the most common form because only such compounds have enough variety to allow all kinds of environments to be tolerated. I would not expect alien DNA would match ours, but it would be close enough to be a templet. Once an understanding of DNA is mastered, all kinds of variations can be made, as we humans are discovering. It jus
RE: [Vo]:OT: The Abduction Paradigm
>From Mr. Storms > Steven, it really helps not to have a ready made explanation, such as > you have, when evaluating the UFO events. Such expected notions cause > a person to reject data, perhaps subconsciously. For example, you > would like the phenomenon to involve some kind multi-dimensional > reality. You then ignore all physical evidence showing that the > events are happening in our dimension exactly like any event that we > experience in normal life. For example, objects have been implanted > during an abduction that were later removed by a doctor. These objects > are real. Changes have have been found in the retina of the eye when a > person has been near one of the crafts during landing. Apparently the > intense microwave radiation causes permanent damage. In fact, this is > one way the UFO investigators can tell if a person is telling the > truth. Women have been found to be pregnant, as verified by a doctor, > and then are not pregnant for no apparent reason after an abduction. > Like most of the reported observations, these can be ignored in an > effort to avoid believing the events are real. Actually, it does not > matter what an individual believes about this subject because the > events will take place regardless of what we believe. We have no > control. Perhaps, it is best to ignore the whole subject and go about > life without the resulting anxiety. > > As for David Jacobs, if you read his books you will learn that many > people remember the abductions in great detail without need for > hypnosis. Their memories are very similar to the retrieved memories. > In fact, Jacobs is very aware of the problems associated with hypnosis > and takes great pains to avoid them. Raising such issues is like the > skeptics who question the reality of CF using problems that every > person in the field understands better than the skeptic and takes > great pains to avoid. Shoot, Ed. I'm not at all denying the possibility that a portion of the population may indeed be involved in classic "UFO abduction" scenarios. I can only tell you what I have surmised after years of looking into the phenomenon, after talking to the experiencers I've met myself. FWIW, I used to believe that most of these abductions were indeed happening - in the literal sense. However, after many years of looking into the process, I'm personally no longer as convinced as I used to be of such literal interpretations. That doesn't make such experiences any less real. In fact, I'm beginning to suspect what may be happening is even more real and/or significant than attempts to classify such experiences/encounters as nothing more than classic run-of-the-mill UFO abductions conducted by aliens. At present, I just don't have enough information to surmise what percentage could indeed be classified as authentic UFO abductions, versus... something else. While we are discussing the pros and cons of this controversial issue, why don't we tackle one of the most smarmy conundrums of them all - the alleged GENETIC component for which the classic UFO abduction scenario seems to partake of time after time, specifically the taking of eggs and sperm, of later being shown "hybrids", of later being told that the human-parent must extend "love" towards these sickly "hybrids". Biologically speaking, what are the chances that totally alien-to-planet-Earth creatures would even posses DNA? And even if by some miracle it turns out that they DO have such complex molecules that such molecules are being used for the same purpose (propagation of genetic heritage, etc...) what are the chances that their DNA would be so conveniently configured that it could be conceivable that we could splice ours with theirs. Ah, but they are smart aliens, I am told. They are highly advanced... so advanced, as the story goes, that somehow they managed to get themselves into a genetic pickle, where suddenly they need OUR genetic material in order to fix THEIR genetic material. Obviously, their technology is so vastly superior to ours that such "splicing" wouldn't be a problem. But... but... I sez to myself: If it is presumed they are so capable of performing such miraculous technologically precise DNA splicing feats wouldn't they have already figured out how to manufacture the equivalent of all our wholesome genes for which their species would need WITHOUT having to physically mine ours for all of our indigenous genetic fiddlybits? In a sense, this conjecture is similar to what Jed has harped about more than once concerning whether we would even need to continue to extract oil from out of the ground once CF gets a good footing. According to Jed, if CF becomes cheap and prevalent, we'll make it ourselves out of the base materials. I feel it is in my right to suggest the possibility that you, too, Ed, and others like Mr. Jacobs, etc..., may be just a guilty as I of placing their own personal set of filters on the analysis of this complex conundrum. For me, when I personally
RE: [Vo]:OT: The Abduction Paradigm
Years ago Ripley's Believe it or Not reported that a person went out in their yard one day and found a small pile of metal pieces all shaped like the letter "E". What were they? How did they get there? Could they be of alien origin? They offered no answer. Anybody want to guess? Think about it. Then, scroll down for my guess. Some kid took a transformer apart and left the pieces lying in the yard. Jeff
Re: [Vo]:OT: The Abduction Paradigm
Ackshully, it was Budd Hopkins who first was criticized for extensive use of hypnotic recall, ("Witnessed" the case of Linda Cortile (Napolitano)). But, then again, Dr. John Mack used a similar, although somewhat far-eastern version of hypnosis. John, G-d rest his soul, also believed, much like you, that abductions were not totally physical. He thought it might be only the spirit that was abducted. BTW, I don't have a lot of respect for Schmitt. Are you aware of his falling out with Dr. Kevin Randall, his former partner? Terry (So, Steven, considering your glint of denial, could you be an experiencer? Ever had an event of missing time? ;-) On Sun, Aug 2, 2009 at 5:46 PM, OrionWorks wrote: > I also gather some researchers disapprove of researcher's, like > Jacob's apparent heavy use of hypnotic recall (in the repetitive > sense) to collect their information.
Re: [Vo]:OT: The Abduction Paradigm
Steven, it really helps not to have a ready made explanation, such as you have, when evaluating the UFO events. Such expected notions cause a person to reject data, perhaps subconsciously. For example, you would like the phenomenon to involve some kind multi-dimensional reality. You then ignore all physical evidence showing that the events are happening in our dimension exactly like any event that we experience in normal life. For example, objects have been implanted during an abduction that were later removed by a doctor. These objects are real. Changes have have been found in the retina of the eye when a person has been near one of the crafts during landing. Apparently the intense microwave radiation causes permanent damage. In fact, this is one way the UFO investigators can tell if a person is telling the truth. Women have been found to be pregnant, as verified by a doctor, and then are not pregnant for no apparent reason after an abduction. Like most of the reported observations, these can be ignored in an effort to avoid believing the events are real. Actually, it does not matter what an individual believes about this subject because the events will take place regardless of what we believe. We have no control. Perhaps, it is best to ignore the whole subject and go about life without the resulting anxiety. As for David Jacobs, if you read his books you will learn that many people remember the abductions in great detail without need for hypnosis. Their memories are very similar to the retrieved memories. In fact, Jacobs is very aware of the problems associated with hypnosis and takes great pains to avoid them. Raising such issues is like the skeptics who question the reality of CF using problems that every person in the field understands better than the skeptic and takes great pains to avoid. Ed On Aug 2, 2009, at 4:46 PM, OrionWorks wrote: From Mr. Blanton, There are distinct physical aspects common among many experiencers which are known by investigators but are not shared with the public. It serves as a test of the experience. It has to do with the surroundings seen by the victim and certain events that occur during the "examination". AFAIK, investigators have yet to disclose all of these aspects; but, they do point to either a real, physical event or one heck of a cosmic unconscious sharing experience. It's my understanding that several UFO abduction researchers such as David Jacobs are tackling this very subject. This is serious work and I applaud their efforts to compile such information. I also gather some researchers disapprove of researcher's, like Jacob's apparent heavy use of hypnotic recall (in the repetitive sense) to collect their information. For example, Don Schmitt (Roswell investigator) and others caution that excessive-repetitive use of hypnotic recall can possibly lead to contamination of the original details. As Jed Rothwell has every right to bring to our attention, the process of manufacturing false memories is relatively easy to administer. There are several personal thoughts that come to mind when I ponder the similarities of the shared experience, including certain "tags" that for the most part are not yet revealed to the general public: *) Maybe vast portions of the human race really *are* being abducted, in the most literal 3-D physical sense that one can think. However, based on my own conversations and readings, many abductees/experiencers themselves no longer believe their encounters are occurring strictly in the physical sense, preferring to describe their encounters as an interface with a multi-dimensional reality. From what I can tell more emotionally adjusted and educated the experiencer seems to be, the more likelihood are the chances that they WILL both perceive and subsequently interpret their encounters as occurring within the realms of a vast multi-dimensional environment. IOW, their experiences are less "absolute" or "lieral" in nature. Needless to say, current scientific investigative skills are ill-equipped in tackling such "multi-dimensional" investigations. *) Maybe we are being treated to a sophisticated symbolic language of experiential archetypes, as described in my previous fable where I play around with the premise of an advanced race attempting to "interface" with us through the use of rote repetitive imagery. *) Maybe we are in contact with vase untapped "alienated" portions of ourselves that are attempting to reestablish contact with the more acceptable portions of ourselves. Perhaps such encounters/experiences also hint as to the incredible depth of our untapped potential as explored in Carl Jung's research into the "collective unconscious". * Maybe it's a little of all of the above. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:OT: The Abduction Paradigm
>From Mr. Blanton, > There are distinct physical aspects common among many experiencers > which are known by investigators but are not shared with the public. > It serves as a test of the experience. It has to do with the > surroundings seen by the victim and certain events that occur during > the "examination". > > AFAIK, investigators have yet to disclose all of these aspects; but, > they do point to either a real, physical event or one heck of a cosmic > unconscious sharing experience. It's my understanding that several UFO abduction researchers such as David Jacobs are tackling this very subject. This is serious work and I applaud their efforts to compile such information. I also gather some researchers disapprove of researcher's, like Jacob's apparent heavy use of hypnotic recall (in the repetitive sense) to collect their information. For example, Don Schmitt (Roswell investigator) and others caution that excessive-repetitive use of hypnotic recall can possibly lead to contamination of the original details. As Jed Rothwell has every right to bring to our attention, the process of manufacturing false memories is relatively easy to administer. There are several personal thoughts that come to mind when I ponder the similarities of the shared experience, including certain "tags" that for the most part are not yet revealed to the general public: *) Maybe vast portions of the human race really *are* being abducted, in the most literal 3-D physical sense that one can think. However, based on my own conversations and readings, many abductees/experiencers themselves no longer believe their encounters are occurring strictly in the physical sense, preferring to describe their encounters as an interface with a multi-dimensional reality. >From what I can tell more emotionally adjusted and educated the experiencer seems to be, the more likelihood are the chances that they WILL both perceive and subsequently interpret their encounters as occurring within the realms of a vast multi-dimensional environment. IOW, their experiences are less "absolute" or "lieral" in nature. Needless to say, current scientific investigative skills are ill-equipped in tackling such "multi-dimensional" investigations. *) Maybe we are being treated to a sophisticated symbolic language of experiential archetypes, as described in my previous fable where I play around with the premise of an advanced race attempting to "interface" with us through the use of rote repetitive imagery. *) Maybe we are in contact with vase untapped "alienated" portions of ourselves that are attempting to reestablish contact with the more acceptable portions of ourselves. Perhaps such encounters/experiences also hint as to the incredible depth of our untapped potential as explored in Carl Jung's research into the "collective unconscious". * Maybe it's a little of all of the above. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:OT: The Abduction Paradigm
There are distinct physical aspects common among many experiencers which are known by investigators but are not shared with the public. It serves as a test of the experience. It has to do with the surroundings seen by the victim and certain events that occur during the "examination". AFAIK, investigators have yet to disclose all of these aspects; but, they do point to either a real, physical event or one heck of a cosmic unconscious sharing experience. Terry On Sun, Aug 2, 2009 at 3:43 PM, OrionWorks wrote: > The fact that so many individuals have independently > reported(experienced) the same classic "abduction" scenario over and > over (a scenario that DOES CHANGE depending on one's cultural > background) strongly suggests to me that we are witnessing a > fundamental aspect of our psyche as expressed in a form of a highly > symbolic language of sorts.
Re: [Vo]:OT: The Abduction Paradigm
>From Mr. Blanton: > One of the most well-known and examined artifacts is from the crash at > Ubatuba, Brazil: > > http://ufologie.net/htm/ubatuba57.htm > > The examination of some of the material: > > http://www.nicap.org/ubatubanal.htm Excerpt: "These tests indicated that the material was very pure magnesium. The chemist also noted that the normal trace elements expected in magnesium were all missing." --- But since we can't crack nuts with it. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:OT: The Abduction Paradigm
>From Mr. Lawrence: ... > I was objecting to a discussion of the *definition* of an alien > artifact, not to the question of whether we've got some. And it is > also quite possible that I totally missed your point. Let's go back to some previous comments in an attempt to pick up our discussions from there. >From Mr. Lawrence >> I don't think there's any disagreement at all over what would >> constitute an "authentic alien artifact" -- it would be a piece of >> litter left by an authentic alien, and an authentic alien is a >> non-earth creature. An *authentic* non-imaginary real-type >> actually existing non-earth creature who can potentially drive >> a flying saucer around and maybe crash it on the White House lawn. I disagree. I think there is considerable disagreement on this point. The point I'm trying to suggest that some of us might want to consider pondering in more depth is the possibility that while we *think* we know what would constitute an "authentic alien aircraft" or associated "alien artifacts", by the simple fact that within the Vort Collective alone we are witness to so many different flavors concerning what constitutes "reality" that attempts to define what constitutes an authentic "alien artifact" is not going to be any easier to come to any consensus. To an alien the discarded object is your simple run-of-the-mill "xx3%%#$ used for #^%()&" - but to us: "can I crack nuts with it?" As Mr. Beene has hinted in a related post concerning alleged UFOs and the nature of "contacts", a comment posted many many months ago, the idea that an advance civilization would even NEED to travel in space ships - and subsequently suffer the slings and arrows of an occasional "flat tire" - is primarily a concept of our own limited perceptions, where we desperately attempt to define the boundaries of a disquieting concept (the archetype "alien") within familiar parameters in our attempts to make it easier for us to handle so many unknown variables. But to be honest. Much of my recent "treatise" deals more with a different angle altogether, one that suggests that the classic UFO Abduction Paradigm has its roots more in a symbolic meta-language of the human psyche. Some might think that because I'm coaching it in such terms I'm attempting to dismiss the abduction scenario as nothing more than a psychological matter best dealt with within the confines of a psychologist/therapists room. Not so. From my perspective the UFO Abduction Paradigm may in fact hint of an ever more interesting aspect concerning the nature of reality, particularly how we perceive reality. The fact that so many individuals have independently reported(experienced) the same classic "abduction" scenario over and over (a scenario that DOES CHANGE depending on one's cultural background) strongly suggests to me that we are witnessing a fundamental aspect of our psyche as expressed in a form of a highly symbolic language of sorts. Not surprising, many of us are absolutely terrified of the prospects of tapping into a portion of ourselves that we have allowed to become so "alienated" from the more acceptable portions of ourselves that some even prefer to label such primal encounters as demonic in nature. Incidentally, I need to thank Mauro Lacy once again for bringing to my attention the fact that the famous doctor, Carl Jung, discussed the Flying Saucer archetype in one of his books. I'm very much a fan of the "collective unconscious". I am in pursuit of Jung's publication through the local library. In the meantime I'm reading "PAULI and JUNG, The Meeting of Two Great Minds" by David Lindorff, PhD. http://www.amazon.com/Pauli-Jung-Meeting-Great-Minds/dp/0835608379/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1249244788&sr=1-1 http://tinyurl.com/ly68fq Excerpt: Page 29: Jung wrote, "[For Pauli] the word 'soul' was nothing but an intellectual obscenity, not to be touched with a barge pole." Needless to say, I'm hooked! Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:OT: The Abduction Paradigm
>From Mr. Zell, > Without commenting on individual abduction cases, the general descriptions > of aliens fits what I would expect from an extremely advanced technological > culture. Such as: > > Minimized Individuality ( or none!) Take a good look at our technology > and consider that we have progressed from spears to guns to missiles to > near doomsday weapons that could be loosed by one individual. You have > to wonder if the only way an advanced tech culture could exist is if > they telepathically share thoughts and thereby avoid Lee Harvey Oswald/Bin > Laden - ish behavior. > A Propensity to Fabricate. Does this seem odd? Well, if you were > telepathic with a hive like mind ( see above) , you might feel that > lesser beings 'can't handle the truth' (like us). > Have you ever known any people deeply involved in clandestine activity? > Ever notice how they switch back and forth between entirely credible > accounts and wild BS stories? They do it because they will never get > caught telli(ng a dangerous truth that way. You can't tell when they > are kidding you - or not. Take a look at Howard Hunt or Ali Aja (the > Pope's attempted assasin) > An advanced race would also know something about humans that we often > can't understand - fantasy works better than truth for motivation. > How many '70's engineering students plowed thru calculus because of > the image of Scotty on Startrek? (not a joke, this came up in > studies) How many wars - filled with the most extreme self sacrifice > - are based on fantasies? > I would also expect that descriptions of alien "religion" would sound > very "Buddhisty" to us. > Finally, an advanced race would explore the final frontier : how to > manipulate reality itself including all consciousness and matter > ... See that Airship? (1880's) that Flying Saucer? That > Silent Black Helicopter? A Fairy? An Angel? A Grey? Whatever you > expect, we can synthesize. These are all concepts worth pondering. After all, we are the Vort collective! We are assimilating! ;-) Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:OT: The Abduction Paradigm
One of the most well-known and examined artifacts is from the crash at Ubatuba, Brazil: http://ufologie.net/htm/ubatuba57.htm The examination of some of the material: http://www.nicap.org/ubatubanal.htm Terry On Sun, Aug 2, 2009 at 2:12 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: > Certainly discussion of whether there are alien artifacts present is > perfectly on-topic, for the thread and for the mailing list.
Re: [Vo]:OT: The Abduction Paradigm
OrionWorks wrote: >>From Mr Lawrance: > >> You don't sound like an annoying broken record. To be blunt, you sound >> silly, asking that. I don't think there's any disagreement at all over >> what would constitute an "authentic alien artifact" -- it would be a >> piece of litter left by an authentic alien, and an authentic alien is a >> non-earth creature. An *authentic* non-imaginary real-type actually >> existing non-earth creature who can potentially drive a flying saucer >> around and maybe crash it on the White House lawn. >> >> PLEASE don't start denying that words which have perfectly clear >> definitions can be defined! If *you* want to go off and use the word >> "alien" to mean something entirely different, go ahead, but please >> stick to the usual dictionary definition when attempting to hold >> conversations with others in which information will be successfully >> transferred through use of words: >> >> alien n 3: a form of life assumed to exist outside the Earth or its >> atmosphere [syn: extraterrestrial being] >> >> (from Wordnet -- there are a number of definitions of 'alien' but I >> don't think anyone here was intending the word to mean, e.g., "a >> foreigner".) >> >> The debate is over the question of whether there are any aliens within >> 2 lightyears of the Sun, and whether there have been any of them flying >> around dropping bits of random cruft on Earth any time in the last few >> decades. The debate is *NOT* over whether the cruft dropped by an >> alien should be called an "artifact" or not, nor over whether a creature >> from another planet driving around Earth in a flying machine should be >> called an "alien". > > Just to be clear on this point I sez (previously): > >>> There is a story, an advertisement (I think it came from IBM) that >>> described how a 3rd world tribe found an appropriate use for one of >>> their expedition's laptops - a nutcracker. At least it proved the >>> artifact was constructed well. > > Silly me! > > A contraire! I think discussions concerning whether there are > legitimate "artifacts" amongst us indigenous folk is just as much a > legitimate a discussion here as compared to whether there are any > aliens within 2 light-years of the Sun and whether some of those > "trips" may have resulted in them having to deal with a flat tire or > two. > > But if some of those discarded "lug bolts" don't crack my nuts, and > it's such a simple request I make here, the object of interest is not > likely carry a lot of significance within my sphere of influence. > > Incidentally, is "...within 2 light-years" the magic number? No, no, just a rather arbitrary value picked as being closer to this star than any other ... And sorry, I was yelping about your discussion of semantics, nothing more. I don't have any bones to pick with your thoughts, just their expression. Certainly discussion of whether there are alien artifacts present is perfectly on-topic, for the thread and for the mailing list. I was objecting to a discussion of the *definition* of an alien artifact, not to the question of whether we've got some. And it is also quite possible that I totally missed your point. > > Regards > Steven Vincent Johnson > www.OrionWorks.com > www.zazzle.com/orionworks >
Re: [Vo]:OT: The Abduction Paradigm
>From Mr. Lawrence, ... > > Just some idle off-the-wall speculation follows...a fable of sorts: ... > > They pondered these issues for a millennium or two, or perhaps it was > > for only a couple of microseconds - time can be such an ephemeral > > state of mind. > > If you're going to use English to communicate with others, please use > the words to mean what we all agree that they mean. > > "time" is not a state of mind. "time" is what a clock reads, and > elapsed time is the time recorded by a clock between two events. In > any particular reference frame, the time between two events can be a > millennium or it can be a microsecond but it can't be both, and the > elapsed time between those events is most certainly not an "ephemeral > state of mind". An "ephemeral state of mind" is something quite > different. > > Similarly, a tomato is not an alien cab driver, and a horse is not a > flying saucer. > > A country mile is not an hour. > > A minute is not euphoria. Euphoria is a state of mind, it's not a > measure of time. A sad feeling after breakfast is not a month. A sad > feeling is a state of mind, not a measure of time, while a month is a > measure of time, not a state of mind. > > And a letter in which you mix up a state of mind with an elapsed time > is not a serious attempt at communication, IMNSHO. I gather you didn't like portions of my fable. I'm not a scientist. That is obvious. Nevertheless: "The End of Time, The Next Revolution in Physics", by Julian Brbour http://www.amazon.com/End-Time-Next-Revolution-Physics/dp/0195145925/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1249237658&sr=1-1 http://tinyurl.com/nwxxbb But Mr. Barbour's book is not what I really what I wanted to comment on. In my own not so humble opinion, when writing in the guise of a fable one has permission to exploit the perception of "time", or any perception pertaining to the human condition, any damn way they please. Least I sound like I'm admonishing Mr. Lawrence's perceptions, no, I'm not. I suspect there are strong reasons as to why Mr. Lawrence has felt the need to express his concerns as adamantly has he appears to have done so. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:OT: The Abduction Paradigm
>From Mr Lawrance: > You don't sound like an annoying broken record. To be blunt, you sound > silly, asking that. I don't think there's any disagreement at all over > what would constitute an "authentic alien artifact" -- it would be a > piece of litter left by an authentic alien, and an authentic alien is a > non-earth creature. An *authentic* non-imaginary real-type actually > existing non-earth creature who can potentially drive a flying saucer > around and maybe crash it on the White House lawn. > > PLEASE don't start denying that words which have perfectly clear > definitions can be defined! If *you* want to go off and use the word > "alien" to mean something entirely different, go ahead, but please > stick to the usual dictionary definition when attempting to hold > conversations with others in which information will be successfully > transferred through use of words: > > alien n 3: a form of life assumed to exist outside the Earth or its > atmosphere [syn: extraterrestrial being] > > (from Wordnet -- there are a number of definitions of 'alien' but I > don't think anyone here was intending the word to mean, e.g., "a > foreigner".) > > The debate is over the question of whether there are any aliens within > 2 lightyears of the Sun, and whether there have been any of them flying > around dropping bits of random cruft on Earth any time in the last few > decades. The debate is *NOT* over whether the cruft dropped by an > alien should be called an "artifact" or not, nor over whether a creature > from another planet driving around Earth in a flying machine should be > called an "alien". Just to be clear on this point I sez (previously): >> There is a story, an advertisement (I think it came from IBM) that >> described how a 3rd world tribe found an appropriate use for one of >> their expedition's laptops - a nutcracker. At least it proved the >> artifact was constructed well. Silly me! A contraire! I think discussions concerning whether there are legitimate "artifacts" amongst us indigenous folk is just as much a legitimate a discussion here as compared to whether there are any aliens within 2 light-years of the Sun and whether some of those "trips" may have resulted in them having to deal with a flat tire or two. But if some of those discarded "lug bolts" don't crack my nuts, and it's such a simple request I make here, the object of interest is not likely carry a lot of significance within my sphere of influence. Incidentally, is "...within 2 light-years" the magic number? Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:OT: The Abduction Paradigm
Kyle Mcallister wrote: > --- On Sat, 8/1/09, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: > >>> state of mind. >> If you're going to use English to communicate with others, please >> use the words to mean what we all agree that they mean. > > > >> "time" is not a state of mind. > > > >> A country mile is not an hour. > > > >> And a letter in which you mix up a state of mind with an elapsed >> time is not a serious attempt at communication, IMNSHO. > > Er. To be honest, I understood pretty clearly what Steven was saying. > I don't see what the irritation is about. Why are you getting so > irritated with posts concerning this topic? Before you ask, no, I'm > not really a 'believer' in abductions and all that, but I am open > minded enough to say, 'let's have a look.' > > When you get down to it, perception is all we have. Period. Notes > mean nothing, from a certain point of view. "What did I /really/ mean > when I wrote that? What was the feeling behind it?" OR "Does the > voltmeter really say 12.03V, or is there a trick of light on it? Am I > perceiving something /other/ than what it really is?" But that's > beside my point. > > You seem like this topic is annoying you. Why? Just enjoy it, go > along for the ride. Or as some would say, "Dude. Chill." > > Hell, if *I* can mellow out, it should be child's play for anyone > else to. OK.
Re: [Vo]:OT The Abduction Paradigm
Without commenting on individual abduction cases, the general descriptions of aliens fits what I would expect from an extremely advanced technological culture. Such as: Minimized Individuality ( or none!) Take a good look at our technology and consider that we have progressed from spears to guns to missiles to near doomsday weapons that could be loosed by one individual. You have to wonder if the only way an advanced tech culture could exist is if they telepathically share thoughts and thereby avoid Lee Harvey Oswald/Bin Laden - ish behavior. A Propensity to Fabricate. Does this seem odd? Well, if you were telepathic with a hive like mind ( see above) , you might feel that lesser beings 'can't handle the truth' (like us). Have you ever known any people deeply involved in clandestine activity? Ever notice how they switch back and forth between entirely credible accounts and wild BS stories? They do it because they will never get caught telli(ng a dangerous truth that way. You can't tell when they are kidding you - or not. Take a look at Howard Hunt or Ali Aja (the Pope's attempted assasin) An advanced race would also know something about humans that we often can't understand - fantasy works better than truth for motivation. How many '70's engineering students plowed thru calculus because of the image of Scotty on Startrek? (not a joke, this came up in studies) How many wars - filled with the most extreme self sacrifice - are based on fantasies? I would also expect that descriptions of alien "religion" would sound very "Buddhisty" to us. Finally, an advanced race would explore the final frontier : how to manipulate reality itself including all consciousness and matter.. See that Airship? (1880's) that Flying Saucer? That Silent Black Helicopter? A Fairy? An Angel? A Grey? Whatever you expect, we can synthesize.
Re: [Vo]:OT: The Abduction Paradigm
--- On Sat, 8/1/09, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: > > state of mind. > > If you're going to use English to communicate with others, > please use > the words to mean what we all agree that they mean. > "time" is not a state of mind. > A country mile is not an hour. > And a letter in which you mix up a state of mind with an > elapsed time is > not a serious attempt at communication, IMNSHO. Er. To be honest, I understood pretty clearly what Steven was saying. I don't see what the irritation is about. Why are you getting so irritated with posts concerning this topic? Before you ask, no, I'm not really a 'believer' in abductions and all that, but I am open minded enough to say, 'let's have a look.' When you get down to it, perception is all we have. Period. Notes mean nothing, from a certain point of view. "What did I /really/ mean when I wrote that? What was the feeling behind it?" OR "Does the voltmeter really say 12.03V, or is there a trick of light on it? Am I perceiving something /other/ than what it really is?" But that's beside my point. You seem like this topic is annoying you. Why? Just enjoy it, go along for the ride. Or as some would say, "Dude. Chill." Hell, if *I* can mellow out, it should be child's play for anyone else to. Cheers, --Kyle Postscript: would have posted my own thoughts on alien minds and motivations (pure speculation of course), but given how this thread is now being beaten, I am given pause to do so.
Re: [Vo]:OT: The Abduction Paradigm
OrionWorks wrote: >>From Mr. Storms: > > ... > >> Who is doing this planting of coordinated vision? Who wants us to >> believe in aliens? The government is doing everything it can to kill >> this belief. > > Just some idle off-the-wall speculation follows...a fable of sorts: > > Once upon a time there existed a civilization millions of years more > advanced than the human race. In their vast travels it was inevitable > that they would eventually come across our planet, the one filled with > homo sapiens and a few sentient aquatic species. They noticed that the > sentient land animals seemed to spend a lot of time scurrying about on > the surface as they went about the businesses of going here to there. > They also noticed that these creatures didn't seem to be taking very > good care of their planet, and oh, how they often seemed to argue > amongst each other. > > They pondered these issues for a millennium or two, or perhaps it was > for only a couple of microseconds - time can be such an ephemeral > state of mind. If you're going to use English to communicate with others, please use the words to mean what we all agree that they mean. "time" is not a state of mind. "time" is what a clock reads, and elapsed time is the time recorded by a clock between two events. In any particular reference frame, the time between two events can be a millennium or it can be a microsecond but it can't be both, and the elapsed time between those events is most certainly not an "ephemeral state of mind". An "ephemeral state of mind" is something quite different. Similarly, a tomato is not an alien cab driver, and a horse is not a flying saucer. A country mile is not an hour. A minute is not euphoria. Euphoria is a state of mind, it's not a measure of time. A sad feeling after breakfast is not a month. A sad feeling is a state of mind, not a measure of time, while a month is a measure of time, not a state of mind. And a letter in which you mix up a state of mind with an elapsed time is not a serious attempt at communication, IMNSHO.
Re: [Vo]:OT: The Abduction Paradigm
OrionWorks wrote: >>From Mr. Lawrence: > > ... > >> Here, let me make this more concrete: I have a perpetual motion >> machine in my basement. I can describe what it does, and how >> wonderfully it works. I'll explain to you how I've tied it into >> my house wiring, and how I no longer have to pay anything for my >> electricity. But, you are not allowed to see the machine -- I >> will not let you, even if you ask; even if you fly out here, you >> will not be allowed to see it! Will you believe me, though, that >> it really does exist? > > Can I get one installed in my basement...secretly? ;-) > >> By the same token, alien artifacts which have been described in detail >> but which we, the common folk who are not in the inner circle, are "not >> allowed to see" are not convincing of *anything*. > > I realize I risk sounding like an annoying broken record, but can we > agree on what constitutes an authentic alien artifact? You don't sound like an annoying broken record. To be blunt, you sound silly, asking that. I don't think there's any disagreement at all over what would constitute an "authentic alien artifact" -- it would be a piece of litter left by an authentic alien, and an authentic alien is a non-earth creature. An *authentic* non-imaginary real-type actually existing non-earth creature who can potentially drive a flying saucer around and maybe crash it on the White House lawn. PLEASE don't start denying that words which have perfectly clear definitions can be defined! If *you* want to go off and use the word "alien" to mean something entirely different, go ahead, but please stick to the usual dictionary definition when attempting to hold conversations with others in which information will be successfully transferred through use of words: alien n 3: a form of life assumed to exist outside the Earth or its atmosphere [syn: extraterrestrial being] (from Wordnet -- there are a number of definitions of 'alien' but I don't think anyone here was intending the word to mean, e.g., "a foreigner".) The debate is over the question of whether there are any aliens within 2 lightyears of the Sun, and whether there have been any of them flying around dropping bits of random cruft on Earth any time in the last few decades. The debate is *NOT* over whether the cruft dropped by an alien should be called an "artifact" or not, nor over whether a creature from another planet driving around Earth in a flying machine should be called an "alien". > What makes it > "alien"? Elements are elements across the universe...presumably so. > > There is a story, an advertisement (I think it came from IBM) that > described how a 3rd world tribe found an appropriate use for one of > their expedition's laptops - a nutcracker. At least it proved the > artifact was constructed well. > > Regards > Steven Vincent Johnson > www.OrionWorks.com > www.zazzle.com/orionworks >
Re: [Vo]:OT: The Abduction Paradigm
>From Mr. Fink: ... > You and most people on this list are not going to like my answer to > this. Demons (evil spirits) and their hosts are intending to masquerade > as benevolent aliens in the near future. The victims thus far are not > the hosts but pawns. A brief epilogue to my previous off-the-wall fable: Several hundred thousand years later, the remnants of Homo Sapiens managed to finally unravel a curious message fragment which was suspected to have been the result of a mysterious contact logged in the race's ancient past. While there remains considerable debate concerning the concept of who "we" might mean, the most favored translation of the message went as follows: "Well... [we] gave it our best shot. Nobody bat's a hundred!" Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:OT: The Abduction Paradigm
>From Mr. Storms: ... > Who is doing this planting of coordinated vision? Who wants us to > believe in aliens? The government is doing everything it can to kill > this belief. Just some idle off-the-wall speculation follows...a fable of sorts: Once upon a time there existed a civilization millions of years more advanced than the human race. In their vast travels it was inevitable that they would eventually come across our planet, the one filled with homo sapiens and a few sentient aquatic species. They noticed that the sentient land animals seemed to spend a lot of time scurrying about on the surface as they went about the businesses of going here to there. They also noticed that these creatures didn't seem to be taking very good care of their planet, and oh, how they often seemed to argue amongst each other. They pondered these issues for a millennium or two, or perhaps it was for only a couple of microseconds - time can be such an ephemeral state of mind. Eventually they decided that it would be a nice friendly gesture if they left them a few suggestions before they went on their way. After all, they themselves had been around for a few million years, and as such, they had acquired a few useful pointers, as well as a few bloopers. But how should they go about introducing themselves? And what would they say? They certainly didn't want to come off as too pushy. From past experience they knew it was best to let children play with minimal parental supervision. They pondered how these creatures seemed to perceive the concept of advanced civilizations, and how such advanced civilizations would likely communicate with them. They accumulated a lot iconic visions which seemed to gravitate around the concept of space ships and little spindly creatures with large heads. After all, advanced races would HAVE to have undeveloped bodies (lack of physical use) but large heads in order to contain large super-advanced brains, an absolute prerequisite if one is going to go about traveling vast distances across the universe. "OK", they thought. "We can do that." "Now, what should we talk about? And while we're at it, let's make sure our messages are consistent. From past experience we know how easy it is to misinterpret what we're trying to suggest. We don't want to confuse them! As we all know, children seem to benefit the most through rote repetition." Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:OT: The Abduction Paradigm
>From Mr. Lawrence: ... > Here, let me make this more concrete: I have a perpetual motion > machine in my basement. I can describe what it does, and how > wonderfully it works. I'll explain to you how I've tied it into > my house wiring, and how I no longer have to pay anything for my > electricity. But, you are not allowed to see the machine -- I > will not let you, even if you ask; even if you fly out here, you > will not be allowed to see it! Will you believe me, though, that > it really does exist? Can I get one installed in my basement...secretly? ;-) > By the same token, alien artifacts which have been described in detail > but which we, the common folk who are not in the inner circle, are "not > allowed to see" are not convincing of *anything*. I realize I risk sounding like an annoying broken record, but can we agree on what constitutes an authentic alien artifact? What makes it "alien"? Elements are elements across the universe...presumably so. There is a story, an advertisement (I think it came from IBM) that described how a 3rd world tribe found an appropriate use for one of their expedition's laptops - a nutcracker. At least it proved the artifact was constructed well. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:OT: The Abduction Paradigm
>From Mr. Zell > In short, it may send chills up the spines of many academics to > say so but one day, the bill for Promissary Materialism is going > to come due for payment in full. When that happens ghosts, > reincarnation, UFOs, poltergeists and heaven knows what else may > look very different. Perhaps they "just are". Chris, on more than one occasion I have enjoyed what I consider to be astute pot shots. "Dogs and cats living together!" Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:OT: The Abduction Paradigm
>From Mr. Fink ... > Then why are we not being contacted by real aliens? The Conundrum brought to our attention by Jeff in a sense goes to the heart of what I've tried to explore in my hypothesis. We have a problem agreeing on what is real. If we cannot agree on what is real it is unlikely that we are ever going to get a better grip on what constitutes an authentic alien... whatever that might be. The fact that there is so much disagreement on "what is real" is not anybody's fault. It's part of the process we go through as we continue exploring our environment and ourselves. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:OT: The Abduction Paradigm
As to titration and medicine, you don't understand what I mean. A long time ago, Bill Beaty commented on this problem - and the recent report on DNA segments 'just knowing where to go' illustrates the issue. You have positive and negative charges, attraction and repulsion and this is nowhere even close to explaining how the right chemicals get attached to the right receptors amidst thousands or millions equally equipped with a willing charge. Sure, biochemistry exists - but a big mystery exists at its heart.
RE: [Vo]:OT: The Abduction Paradigm
-Original Message- From: Edmund Storms [mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com] Sent: Saturday, August 01, 2009 1:58 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: The Abduction Paradigm On Aug 1, 2009, at 11:32 AM, Jeff Fink wrote: > > > -Original Message- > From: Edmund Storms [mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com] > Sent: Saturday, August 01, 2009 12:00 PM > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com > Cc: Edmund Storms > Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: The Abduction Paradigm > > But Jeff, artifacts do exist. They have been seen by people and > described in detail. Granted, you are not allowed to see them, but is > that required for you to believe? > > > That would really help> > > > In addition, the abductees describe > conditions in the space crafts and instruments used for examination > that are in many cases identical even though this information is not > generally known and the various abductees never talked to each other. > > > Of course, it would be simple to plant coordinated visions in multiple > people. It would be the most effective strategy they have to gain > believers. Who is doing this planting of coordinated vision? Who wants us to believe in aliens? You and most people on this list are not going to like my answer to this. Demons (evil spirits) and their hosts are intending to masquerade as benevolent aliens in the near future. The victims thus far are not the hosts but pawns. The government is doing everything it can to kill this belief. > > > In addition, physical evidence in the form of changes in soil > properties and indentations where the craft landed have been described > in detail. Although the aliens are well ahead of us in science, we do > not need to explain their existence by using excessive imagination, as > I think you have done. > > As for the universe being empty of life except ours, this is simply > not a rational possibility. The earth is a late comer to the > universe. We should expect life that formed on older planets than ours > to be more advanced. > > > Then why are we not being contacted by real aliens? This is a strange circular question. The UFO experience and the crop circles show that we are being contacted. But you reject this evidence and you wonder why the evidence is not of a kind you would accept. Crop circles! Some alien is going to come all the way to earth to dazzle us with crop circles! The guys who started crop circles fessed up and showed the world how they did it, the types of simple tools required, and then did demo circles before the camera as proof. It was amazing how fast they were able to produce complex patterns. Frankly, if I were an alien visitor, I would not want the natives, especially the crazy ones, to be certain of my existence. I would try to keep the natives confused while I went about my business in plain sight. Ed > > Jeff > > > > >
Re: [Vo]:OT: The Abduction Paradigm
Edmund Storms wrote: > Of course your point is good, Steven. If the hidden artifacts were the > only evidence, believing the UFO claims would be impossible. But, let's > use you example. Suppose people could drive up to your house and see > that the lights are on but you are not hooked to the grid or to any > other obvious source of energy. Oh, but I am hooked to the grid. I just don't actually draw any power from it. But of course I won't let you see my utility bills; you'll just have to take my word for it. > Suppose a few respected people gain > entry and report that they saw a strange machine in your basement that > seem to be providing energy for your house. Suppose over the years, > thousands of people report the same observations even though their > experiences are totally independent. Are you saying thousands of respected scientists have studied the UFO artifacts and published their conclusions? That would certainly be interesting. What peer reviewed journals have published their conclusions? > Would you then expect people to > believe you had a perpetual motion machine? > > I suggest people believe correctly many things about which they have no > personal knowledge and such knowledge is impossible to obtain. For > example, do you believe humans went to the Moon? Different situation. The lunar landings were a historical event, which by definition we can't observe directly; consequently all the evidence is at least somewhat indirect. And as far as I know, I, or qualified people who are otherwise no different from me, actually do have access to all relevant evidence regarding those historical events. If the Hasselblad slides from the missions were kept under wraps, marked top secret, and only a few "insiders" had ever seen them, and all "outsiders" had to be content with descriptions of the slides along with prints of just two or three selected frames, then the situation might be analogous -- but in fact qualified scientists who have reason to look at the original film are able to do so, and there are high quality scans of all the slides available for all the rest of us. It's when the evidence is direct and currently exists, but we are *not* *allowed* *access*, that one immediately must question whether the evidence actually exists. The claim of artifacts which aren't available for examination by any interested scientist is actually not neutral: It is evidence *against*, not *for*, because it seems to conform to a common pattern exhibited by human liars. Here's a better analogy: The WTC collapsed and the evidence of what made it fall was presumably right there, on the ground, for all to see. But the Government ran an extremely efficient cleanup effort, and disposed of the debris, retaining little or none for further examination, thus making it impossible for all but the few people who got samples before it all vanished to study it. Like the secret UFO artifacts, this makes the situation seem suspicious -- it is evidence that something is not right. It is not proof, of course, and neither is the hidden nature of the UFO artifacts. > All of the evidence on > which you base your belief is either obtained by accepting the > experience of others or from photographs that can be easily faked. Wrong. I've studied the photographs. With technology available in that era, it would have been hard as all get out to fake the photographic evidence. :-) The reflections in the helmets of the astronauts, alone, would have been an absolute nightmare to get right, and since at that time nobody had the technology to really study them and see that the reflections were correct, there wasn't any reason to invest that kind of effort in it. Yet, the reflections were there, on the slides, and they remained there, lying fallow, for over 30 years before somebody, using some heavy computer technology which was less than a dream when Apollo took off, analyzed them and found that they are *correct*. So, no, the photo evidence could not have been easily faked, and the records which say that those slides really do date from that era would be equally hard to fake, requiring as it would a conspiracy of thousands coupled with very carefully timed swapping in of modern fakes to replace the old film, while carefully not disturbing any of the visible details on images which were previously published. > Even > the rocks and returned space craft, which you can see in museums, can be > fake. You have to take the word of honest and respected people that the > event actually happened. An identical problem applies to the UFO claims. > > Ed > > > > On Aug 1, 2009, at 11:11 AM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: > >> >> >> Edmund Storms wrote: >>> But Jeff, artifacts do exist. They have been seen by people and >>> described in detail. Granted, you are not allowed to see them, but is >>> that required ... >> >> Of course, in the realm of science, actually "seeing" something is not >> necessary to believe in it
Re: [Vo]:OT: The Abduction Paradigm
On Aug 1, 2009, at 11:32 AM, Jeff Fink wrote: -Original Message- From: Edmund Storms [mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com] Sent: Saturday, August 01, 2009 12:00 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: The Abduction Paradigm But Jeff, artifacts do exist. They have been seen by people and described in detail. Granted, you are not allowed to see them, but is that required for you to believe? That would really help> In addition, the abductees describe conditions in the space crafts and instruments used for examination that are in many cases identical even though this information is not generally known and the various abductees never talked to each other. Of course, it would be simple to plant coordinated visions in multiple people. It would be the most effective strategy they have to gain believers. Who is doing this planting of coordinated vision? Who wants us to believe in aliens? The government is doing everything it can to kill this belief. In addition, physical evidence in the form of changes in soil properties and indentations where the craft landed have been described in detail. Although the aliens are well ahead of us in science, we do not need to explain their existence by using excessive imagination, as I think you have done. As for the universe being empty of life except ours, this is simply not a rational possibility. The earth is a late comer to the universe. We should expect life that formed on older planets than ours to be more advanced. Then why are we not being contacted by real aliens? This is a strange circular question. The UFO experience and the crop circles show that we are being contacted. But you reject this evidence and you wonder why the evidence is not of a kind you would accept. Frankly, if I were an alien visitor, I would not want the natives, especially the crazy ones, to be certain of my existence. I would try to keep the natives confused while I went about my business in plain sight. Ed Jeff
Re: [Vo]:OT: The Abduction Paradigm
Chris Zell wrote: > I don't understand how the whole of medicine can rest on the assumption > that simple diffusion can get extremely small doses of medicine to the > proper receptors. Like DNA "telekinesis"? I guess you've never been involved with setting doses through titration, then. It's not generally a fun thing to do but it does clarify the process enormously. The blood gets stirred very thoroughly in the course of going around the loop. "Titrating" the dose is adding enough medicine to the body to get the blood concentration to the desired value, with frequent blood samples drawn in order to measure said concentration. The blood concentration is directly tied to the concentration at the site where the medicine is needed, and in general medicines act in a way that's broadly similar to what they do to individual cells in vitro when the in vitro concentration is in the same ballbark as the blood level used in treatment. You may be aware that doses in medical literature are typically quoted not as "total mg needed for the effect" but are, rather, quoted as "mg per kg needed for the effect". If you weigh 100 kg you need twice the dose of someone who weighs 50 kg. The daily dose of phenobarb needed for a 2 pound rabbit with epilepsy is not the same as the dose needed for a 60 kg human with epilepsy (and titrating the dose in such a case is very rough on everyone involved). In short, your *whole* *body* gets dosed up to the necessary level, not just the "proper receptors". God is not doing the driving to see that the medicine goes to the right place -- in fact, *nobody* is doing the driving, and the medicine goes all over the place, hitting every cell in your body which is directly tied to your circulatory system (brain cells and corneal cells are two notable cases of cells which are not tied directly to the blood circulatory system). Most medicines have a wide enough useful range of activity that one can just go by general dose guidelines without precise dose titration (or one can boost the dose until the desired result is observed, which is, of course, a very crude form of titration). Medicines with nasty side effects at slight overdose are the common exception to this. Most things that do stuff to cells are poisons rather than medicines because they don't exhibit their activity at a concentration which is low enough that we can tolerate that concentration throughout our whole body. In cases where the blood stream doesn't go where we need the medicine, such as tumors with poor circulation within, or with things which must affect the brain, or with infections which have become 'walled off', well, the medicine typically doesn't work. One either finds a medicine which somehow gets past the barrier, or one doesn't, and in the latter case one lives with the disease, waits for the immune system to take care of it, or one dies. There is no magic in how medicine gets to the "proper receptors". And life doesn't make entropy decrease, and the body doesn't suddenly lose an ounce or two at the moment of death, and ... ça suffit.
Re: [Vo]:OT: The Abduction Paradigm
Of course your point is good, Steven. If the hidden artifacts were the only evidence, believing the UFO claims would be impossible. But, let's use you example. Suppose people could drive up to your house and see that the lights are on but you are not hooked to the grid or to any other obvious source of energy. Suppose a few respected people gain entry and report that they saw a strange machine in your basement that seem to be providing energy for your house. Suppose over the years, thousands of people report the same observations even though their experiences are totally independent. Would you then expect people to believe you had a perpetual motion machine? I suggest people believe correctly many things about which they have no personal knowledge and such knowledge is impossible to obtain. For example, do you believe humans went to the Moon? All of the evidence on which you base your belief is either obtained by accepting the experience of others or from photographs that can be easily faked. Even the rocks and returned space craft, which you can see in museums, can be fake. You have to take the word of honest and respected people that the event actually happened. An identical problem applies to the UFO claims. Ed On Aug 1, 2009, at 11:11 AM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: Edmund Storms wrote: But Jeff, artifacts do exist. They have been seen by people and described in detail. Granted, you are not allowed to see them, but is that required ... Of course, in the realm of science, actually "seeing" something is not necessary to believe in it. However, in general, we must know that, in principle, we *could* see it -- that *possibility* is extremely important; I might even say *necessary*. For example, I have never seen the MM experiment performed, and never expect to; it's a rather delicate experiment which requires specialized apparatus. However, the knowledge that I *could* do so is vitally important in believing that it's not just a hoax by people trying to support Einstein. Here, let me make this more concrete: I have a perpetual motion machine in my basement. I can describe what it does, and how wonderfully it works. I'll explain to you how I've tied it into my house wiring, and how I no longer have to pay anything for my electricity. But, you are not allowed to see the machine -- I will not let you, even if you ask; even if you fly out here, you will not be allowed to see it! Will you believe me, though, that it really does exist? By the same token, alien artifacts which have been described in detail but which we, the common folk who are not in the inner circle, are "not allowed to see" are not convincing of *anything*.
RE: [Vo]:OT: The Abduction Paradigm
-Original Message- From: Edmund Storms [mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com] Sent: Saturday, August 01, 2009 12:00 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: The Abduction Paradigm But Jeff, artifacts do exist. They have been seen by people and described in detail. Granted, you are not allowed to see them, but is that required for you to believe? That would really help> In addition, the abductees describe conditions in the space crafts and instruments used for examination that are in many cases identical even though this information is not generally known and the various abductees never talked to each other. Of course, it would be simple to plant coordinated visions in multiple people. It would be the most effective strategy they have to gain believers. In addition, physical evidence in the form of changes in soil properties and indentations where the craft landed have been described in detail. Although the aliens are well ahead of us in science, we do not need to explain their existence by using excessive imagination, as I think you have done. As for the universe being empty of life except ours, this is simply not a rational possibility. The earth is a late comer to the universe. We should expect life that formed on older planets than ours to be more advanced. Then why are we not being contacted by real aliens? Jeff
Re: [Vo]:OT: The Abduction Paradigm
Edmund Storms wrote: > But Jeff, artifacts do exist. They have been seen by people and > described in detail. Granted, you are not allowed to see them, but is > that required ... Of course, in the realm of science, actually "seeing" something is not necessary to believe in it. However, in general, we must know that, in principle, we *could* see it -- that *possibility* is extremely important; I might even say *necessary*. For example, I have never seen the MM experiment performed, and never expect to; it's a rather delicate experiment which requires specialized apparatus. However, the knowledge that I *could* do so is vitally important in believing that it's not just a hoax by people trying to support Einstein. Here, let me make this more concrete: I have a perpetual motion machine in my basement. I can describe what it does, and how wonderfully it works. I'll explain to you how I've tied it into my house wiring, and how I no longer have to pay anything for my electricity. But, you are not allowed to see the machine -- I will not let you, even if you ask; even if you fly out here, you will not be allowed to see it! Will you believe me, though, that it really does exist? By the same token, alien artifacts which have been described in detail but which we, the common folk who are not in the inner circle, are "not allowed to see" are not convincing of *anything*.
Re: [Vo]:OT: The Abduction Paradigm
There is an interesting book called "The Science of Extraterrestrials" by Eric Julien. It goes with the temporal bubble idea. There's a notion I have about weird phenomena that I avoided discussing because it is so difficult to articulate. It concerns reductionism. By its very nature, science is reductionistic. Events have causes. And those causes have smaller causes. Eventually, you hit bottom, at the quantum level, wherein all phenomena becomes arbitrary, "uncaused". There is no further explanation or reductionism after that, other than statistical observation. We commonly assume that this "it just is" (Astrophysicist Victor Mansfield) phenomena is limited to the murky quantum realm but is it really? Emergence tells us that some complex things seem to be lacking a set of causes that lead directly to their full explanation. I read that Celera failed to manifest that a "blueprint" for a human exists within our genome. Instead they referred to "guideposts". I tried to ask a Biology PhD about this and she became uncomfortable about it and quickly left. I don't understand how the whole of medicine can rest on the assumption that simple diffusion can get extremely small doses of medicine to the proper receptors. Like DNA "telekinesis"? In short, it may send chills up the spines of many academics to say so but one day, the bill for Promissary Materialism is going to come due for payment in full. When that happens ghosts, reincarnation, UFOs, poltergeists and heaven knows what else may look very different. Perhaps they "just are".
Re: [Vo]:OT: The Abduction Paradigm
But Jeff, artifacts do exist. They have been seen by people and described in detail. Granted, you are not allowed to see them, but is that required for you to believe? In addition, the abductees describe conditions in the space crafts and instruments used for examination that are in many cases identical even though this information is not generally known and the various abductees never talked to each other. In addition, physical evidence in the form of changes in soil properties and indentations where the craft landed have been described in detail. Although the aliens are well ahead of us in science, we do not need to explain their existence by using excessive imagination, as I think you have done. As for the universe being empty of life except ours, this is simply not a rational possibility. The earth is a late comer to the universe. We should expect life that formed on older planets than ours to be more advanced. Ed On Aug 1, 2009, at 9:41 AM, Jeff Fink wrote: Could we all consider the possibility that the sightings and abductions reported over the years were experienced in a manner that bypassed the five senses and were sent directly to a person's brain by entities that cannot effectively manipulate matter and energy but operate outside the "real" world. That would explain why we have no authentic UFO artifacts. Somebody is trying very hard to make us think there are real aliens in our universe, when perhaps there are none. They have a purpose, and it is important to them that the human race believes in space aliens. They wouldn't have to do this if there actually were some. Maybe the universe to this point really is an awful waste of space. Jeff -Original Message- From: OrionWorks [mailto:svj.orionwo...@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, August 01, 2009 11:05 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: The Abduction Paradigm From Jed: OrionWorks wrote: I'm under the impression that you have not looked into this subject to any great extent. That is correct. That's why I asked how many pilots have reported anomalies. . . . your comments about the reliability of the pilots you've known seems uncharacteristically anecdotal. It is completely anecdotal and not to be taken seriously. However, I have met quite a number of weirdo pilots, with very odd beliefs, especially ones who resemble Gen. Jack D. Ripper in Dr. Strangelove. So there are at least some you should not trust. It wouldn't take many to introduce a little noise in the data set, with one or two reports per year. I wished I had had the chance to have been introduced to your mother. I think I would have learned a lot listening to her and subsequently discussing the subtleties of various perceptions. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
RE: [Vo]:OT: The Abduction Paradigm
Could we all consider the possibility that the sightings and abductions reported over the years were experienced in a manner that bypassed the five senses and were sent directly to a person's brain by entities that cannot effectively manipulate matter and energy but operate outside the "real" world. That would explain why we have no authentic UFO artifacts. Somebody is trying very hard to make us think there are real aliens in our universe, when perhaps there are none. They have a purpose, and it is important to them that the human race believes in space aliens. They wouldn't have to do this if there actually were some. Maybe the universe to this point really is an awful waste of space. Jeff -Original Message- From: OrionWorks [mailto:svj.orionwo...@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, August 01, 2009 11:05 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: The Abduction Paradigm >From Jed: > OrionWorks wrote: > >> I'm under the impression that you have not looked into this subject to >> any great extent. > > That is correct. That's why I asked how many pilots have reported anomalies. > > >> . . . your comments about the reliability of the pilots you've known seems >> uncharacteristically anecdotal. > > It is completely anecdotal and not to be taken seriously. However, I have > met quite a number of weirdo pilots, with very odd beliefs, especially ones > who resemble Gen. Jack D. Ripper in Dr. Strangelove. So there are at least > some you should not trust. It wouldn't take many to introduce a little noise > in the data set, with one or two reports per year. I wished I had had the chance to have been introduced to your mother. I think I would have learned a lot listening to her and subsequently discussing the subtleties of various perceptions. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:OT: The Abduction Paradigm
Allow me to point out that some of these incidents wherein people "went apeshit" with "delusions" had a basis in fact. In Europe and possibly in the Witch trials in early America, Huntington's disease was undiagnosed: http://curehd.blogspot.com/2008/08/roots-of-our-stigma.html As for other "delusions", I would point out that even Carl Sagan felt that childhood evidence of reincarnation needed to be investigated, rather than written off. There is a huge body of work on this via Stevenson ( Old Souls). If eyewitness testimony is given decisive weight in some circumstances, then it should be a simple matter to find cases that repeat those conditions and end this nonsense about "extraordinary claims needing extraordinary proof". Such "logic" suggests that there is no such thing as "proof" in the first place and beyond that, keeps moving the goalposts whenever infidels find it convenient to do so.
Re: [Vo]:OT: The Abduction Paradigm
>From Jed: > OrionWorks wrote: > >> I'm under the impression that you have not looked into this subject to >> any great extent. > > That is correct. That's why I asked how many pilots have reported anomalies. > > >> . . . your comments about the reliability of the pilots you've known seems >> uncharacteristically anecdotal. > > It is completely anecdotal and not to be taken seriously. However, I have > met quite a number of weirdo pilots, with very odd beliefs, especially ones > who resemble Gen. Jack D. Ripper in Dr. Strangelove. So there are at least > some you should not trust. It wouldn't take many to introduce a little noise > in the data set, with one or two reports per year. I wished I had had the chance to have been introduced to your mother. I think I would have learned a lot listening to her and subsequently discussing the subtleties of various perceptions. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:OT: The Abduction Paradigm
This reminds me of another 'flat'. The movie "Flatliners" offers an expalnation for these near death experiences. Terry On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 8:38 PM, OrionWorks wrote: > I would only want to add here the possibility that your mother may > have been more perceptive than what many assume. As I'm sure you are > well aware, with approaching death many individuals begin > spontaneously recalling visits and conversations with loved ones who > have already died. We think their mind is going. Maybe... maybe not.
Re: [Vo]:OT: The Abduction Paradigm
Or that what we observe is a three dimensional intersection of a multi-dimensional object. Flatworlders would observe a growing and shrinking circle as a sphere passed through their reality. Terry On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 8:35 PM, OrionWorks wrote: > Reminds me of another concept, where it is conjectured that UFOs are > not actually physically present. What we are actually witnessing is an > "observer" peeping into our reality from somewhere else.
Re: [Vo]:OT: The Abduction Paradigm
OrionWorks wrote: I'm under the impression that you have not looked into this subject to > any great extent. That is correct. That's why I asked how many pilots have reported anomalies. . . . your comments about the reliability of the pilots you've known seems > uncharacteristically anecdotal. It is completely anecdotal and not to be taken seriously. However, I have met quite a number of weirdo pilots, with very odd beliefs, especially ones who resemble Gen. Jack D. Ripper in Dr. Strangelove. So there are at least some you should not trust. It wouldn't take many to introduce a little noise in the data set, with one or two reports per year. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:OT: The Abduction Paradigm
Selected valued comments from the Peanut Gallery. >From Mr. Rothwell >> Likewise, many of the most dramatic encounters come from >> airline pilots or law enforcement officers or those >> charged with defense of our nation . . . > Approximately how many incidents have their been? What is > the frequency? How many airline pilots in particular? > > Here at the airport where I work, I encounter many pilots, > albeit mostly private jets or unscheduled flights such as > medivac. They do not strike me as exceptionally sane or > reliable people, but then neither do electrochemists, > psychiatrists, programmers or other groups I have > encountered. All in all, as they say in England, there's > naught so strange as folks. I'm under the impression that you have not looked into this subject to any great extent. For someone who makes no bones about how important it is to follow strict protocol such as in regards to the collection of data (observations), particularly in regards to matters like CF, your comments about the reliability of the pilots you've known seems uncharacteristically anecdotal. Regards, Steven Vincnet Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:OT: The Abduction Paradigm
Selected valued comments from the Peanut Gallery. >From Mr. Lacy > What you said is similar to what Carl Jung said related > to the UFO/alien experience: > > "The UFO/alien is an image of the human soul". You don't say! I was aware that Jung wrote a book on the UFO subject but I haven't read it yet. I've been so busy doing my own thing that I forgot that the venerable old doctor had a few things to say on the subject. Silly me! I knew his work was about powerful Mandelas of the mind, a concept that resonates for me. Thanks for reminding me of my next homework assignment, Mario. Much appreciated. > The excessive belief in technology, science, an excessive > rationality, in spite of other, more subtle experiences > and modes of knowledge, and the associated materialism, can > all be forms of superstition, too. Well articulated. Regards, Steven Vincnet Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:OT: The Abduction Paradigm
Selected valued comments from the Peanut Gallery. >From Mr. Rothwell, responding to Mr. Storms >> In the case of the UFO experience, the shared >> experience is overwhelming. > If UFOs are delusions, we would expect the delusion > to be shared (stereotyped) and widespread. That's > why so many people used to imagine they saw witches > flying on brooms. What mechanism causes a UFO "delusion" be a shared experience? What delusional mechanisms are in place that cause these so called deluded individuals to independently (with no prior knowledge of such subject material) experience classic UFO abduction paradigms such as... (the following cut-and-pasted from a previous post: * Of being rendered helpless to resist. Not only do some experiencers feel they are rendered helpless many, after they recall their experiences later, feel they have, in a sense, betrayed their own integrity, their own souls, because they were either unable or unwilling to resist. Many can feel a sense of shame and/or defeat because they recall accompanying memories of their own rebellious attitude suddenly, in an instant, shifting or transforming to becoming willing participants. This shift in perception can later cause many experiencers as assume they must have been temporarily "brainwashed" or that some form of alien "mind control" was extended over them. The more emotionally adjusted experiencers, on the other hand, eventually begin to suspect there is something more interesting transpiring between themselves and the "aliens". Many begin to perceive a conscious partnership is in the process of evolving. Granted, some may perceive this transformation, such a partnership, as classic Stockholm syndrome at work. However, and IMHO, there seems to be much more going on here than brutal acts of "terrorism", where victims attempt to align their sense of survival with the enemy in order to regain a sense of safety. For one thing, the "transformation" to a willing participant is often instantaneous, for example, the moment an "alien" touches them. * Of having surgery performed on your body. Of being examined, typically in the gynecological sense. Eggs are removed from females - sperm removed from males. * Of at subsequent abductions being shown their "offspring", the result of their eggs (and sperm) having been "combined" in some fashion with "alien" DNA components to produce "hybrids." * When being shown their "hybrid" offspring, they are asked to "nurture", to extend their human love towards the hybrid. Often the "hybrids" are perceived as weak or sickly. It is often made clear to the abductee, particularly "mothers" that the essential missing ingredient is "LOVE", that the "mother" needs to extend her love towards these "hybrid" children in order to make them healthy. * Of being shown highly detailed futuristic scenes, "movies" of global apocalyptic events that will soon transpire across the planet. They are told these events will occur if we don't clean up our act, especially our misbehavior towards the environment. Such "movies" typically evoke strong and primal emotional responses from within the experiencer. Experiencers often feel overwhelmed, helpless to rectify such catastrophic events. For example, the experiencer I conversed with last month described being shown a catastrophic scene where the state of California simply loses its footing, so to speak, and slides into the Pacific Ocean. --- Please keep in mind that such experiences were independently collected from many individuals who had no prior knowledge or interest in UFOs, especially alien creatures. Such experiential tags have been documented in numerous books. Regards, Steven Vincnet Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:OT: The Abduction Paradigm
Selected valued comments from the Peanut Gallery. >From Mr. Rothwell: > There is no likelihood that abductions are hoaxes. > There are countless other experiences in the past, > such as people who thought they were visited by witches > and succubuses and so on, which were obviously false > memories of physically impossible events. But the > people reporting these experiences believed them > sincerely. Again, psychological tests have shown that > it is easy to implant a false memory in most people. > The techniques for doing this are settled and > have been repeated in many psychological studies "Obviously false memories... physically impossible events..." For someone who seems to go to extraordinary measures to maintain a strict protocol concerning the collections of observations pertaining to a broad spectrum of controversial phenomenon I find this statement uncharacteristically fundamentalist in the conclusions it seems to draw. Said differently, it seems very un-Jed of you! I would personally be a bit more cautious in implying that the mechanisms that govern how false memories are generated can somehow equally explain the abduction phenomenon – which again I gather you seem to be implying here. Mr. Rothwell continues: > My late mother was an expert in these issue (public > opinion, perception and psychology). In the last years of > her life, her mind was affected by Parkinson's and by the > drugs she was taking for it. One day she told my sister: > "I just came back from a visit with uncle Danny, upstairs." > Uncle Danny had been dead for 20 years and she was > living in a one-floor retirement home, with no upstairs. > My sister went along with it, saying "oh really, and how > is he?" A few hours later after a nap she said, "What did > I tell you before? Uncle Danny? That's ridiculous; he's > been dead for years. It must be that damned medication, > causing hallucinations," which it was. I told her that if > she were a shade more superstitious or spiritual she would > count that as a visit to heaven "upstairs," but knowing > too much about pharmacology ruined the experience for her. This is a wonderful story, Jed! Oh, how we try so valiantly not to fool ourselves! I would only want to add here the possibility that your mother may have been more perceptive than what many assume. As I'm sure you are well aware, with approaching death many individuals begin spontaneously recalling visits and conversations with loved ones who have already died. We think their mind is going. Maybe... maybe not. This brings up an issue I've often witnessed when in the presence of numerous atheists I've known. I've NEVER understood the pretext that death somehow means one's consciousness doesn't have the natural propensity to continue. It seems to me that most (not all, but most) atheists automatically link the belief in "survival-after-death" with god and religion, and as such, life-after-death automatically becomes another taboo subject. I've never understood the propensity to create such a linkage. As best as I can tell it's an independent variable. All this talk about God and religion and their attempts to make survival-after-death their exclusive right to own and control seems rather silly to me. Incidentally, I know an atheist friend who is convinced he/she experienced a direct contact with his/her dead father. As far as I know, he/she's still an atheist. Thank god! > If you think you have been abducted, that does not mean > you are crazy by any means, any more than it meant that > young native Americans who went on "vision quests" and > saw impossible things were crazy. The "vision quest" > methods were optimized to trigger delusions. Many other > rituals, dances that go for hours and other ceremonies > are also known to induce delusions or extreme emotions. > Soldiers in WWII battles often reported extreme delusions > that were more vivid than reality, such as their dead > friends walking in front of them, or a woman with scull > head trying to entice them into no-man-land (both > described by William Manchester in "Goodbye, Darkness"). > However, just because these experiences were vivid > certainly does not mean they were real! At least we can agree on the premise that experiencers are not crazy. Every one I've met seem to function in society just like everyone else. Some experiencers I like, and some I don't. Just like a normal cross-section of society. -- Regards, Steven Vincnet Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:OT: The Abduction Paradigm
Selected valued comments from the Peanut Gallery. >From Mr. Roarty: > Ed, I have to say that my temporal lens idea better > fits the known facts regarding electromagnetic observations, > be they visual or radar and may even allow some physical > contact although the lack of physical evidence suggests > otherwise. Interesting hypothesis continues... ... Reminds me of another concept, where it is conjectured that UFOs are not actually physically present. What we are actually witnessing is an "observer" peeping into our reality from somewhere else. We perceive the "UFO" as occasionally darting about seemingly defying the laws of physics, particularly the laws of inertia, because their tentacles are furiously working away at the knobs and dials as they move their interdimensional periscope about the surface of our planet from one vantage point to another. "Ooooh look'at'that... No wait! Look at that! Wait! Get your appendages off of the dial. Its my turn at the controls now!" -- Regards, Steven Vincnet Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:OT: The Abduction Paradigm
Selected valued comments from the Peanut Gallery. >From Mr. Lawrence: > The question to be considered is, what causes them? Is > it aliens, in the case of abductions? Is it God, in the > case of theophanies? Or is it some internal change in > state, like, say, a sudden drop in GABA levels in the > midbrain? That is an objective question which surely has > an objective answer, and looking for the answer seems > perfectly reasonable, rational, and even called for. If > we actually knew the answer, then that answer would > certainly not change "with the times". There is certainly every legitimate reason to pursue "causes" for such experiences. However, as we may end up with numerous technical/medical/physiological explanations that attempt to explain the mechanisms behind such experiences – such "causes" don't go to the heart of the experience itself. What I have tried to bring forth here is that in the end it may be the experience itself that is the most important component – how it affects the experiencer as well as those who listen to the recounting of the experience. It seems to change according to the culture one is living in. I realize my comment is likely to be considered unsatisfactory to some. Regards, Steven Vincnet Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:OT: The Abduction Paradigm
Selected valued comments from the Peanut Gallery. >From Mr. Storms: > But, Steven, the experience is important. It is either real > or it isn't. If it is real, it means the earth has been and > is being influenced by intelligent beings from another planet > for a long time, with all that this implies. If the > experience is not real, it means that we cannot trust our > eyes, our memory or even radar to correctly determine reality. > It means that hundreds of thousands of people have been > deceived by very clever hoaxes and we cannot believe anything > a person claims to have personally experienced without > physical proof, and all that this conclusion implies. I agree 100%, these experiences ARE important. We may be splitting hairs on the reasons such experiences might be considered important. To reiterate a point I've made in the past, it is conceivable that a certain percentage of UFO encounters reports are indeed classic physical 3-D UFOs (alien craft) possibly performing "catch and release" programs on indigenous life forms. As you correctly point out we have compiled a tremendous amount of classic evidence such as in the form of radar targets, photos and videos. My "treatise" however attempts to focus on what I suspect is the bulk of alleged UFO encounters, the type that take the form for which I call the classic "UFO Abduction Paradigm". My conjecture is that, yes, indeed, they are real too, but not in the classic physical sense most are used to thinking what "real" means. > If claims about the general UFO phenomenon are based on a > real experience, then we can start to evaluate the details > to determine the nature of this reality. Of course, people > with imagination will suggest all kinds of explanations. > The number of crazy ideas should not distract serious > investigators from seeing the most obvious conclusion, i.e. > that life has evolved on many planets and some of this life > is more advanced than we are, probably because they started > earlier in the history of the universe. They are now able > to visit other planets and have done this for centuries. > We just have to accept the idea that humans are not the top > of the line life form and we > are not in God's image, at > least on the surface. For centuries? Hell! I bet such travellers have been visiting us probably for a LOT longer than that! ;-) -- Regards, Steven Vincnet Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:OT: The Abduction Paradigm
Chris Zell wrote: As to hallucinations, there have been a number of people since the '60's who function very well in responsible jobs despite having them. People who understand what hallucinations are, and who have been warned to expect them, may not be fooled. People not expecting them, or people suffering from hallucinations or voices from mental disease may well be convinced that they are real. More to the point with regard to UFOs (assuming they are imaginary), society-wide manias and hallucinations have been common throughout history, and there is no reason to think their number is reduced today in modern U.S. society. People are unaware of the extent to which societies as a whole have gone ape-shit in the past. In the European witch-hunt manias of 14th and 15th centuries, approximately 50,000 to 100,000 women were tortured and burned at the stake. That's a lot of people given the population at the time; it is not far from the proportion of modern "ethnic cleansing" in which millions are killed. In some towns most of the unmarried or elderly women were killed. This was partly done to steal their property, but mainly because of people sincerely believed in witchcraft, and there were plenty of witnesses. If hundreds of thousands of modern people suffer from the sincere delusion that they have seen UFOs or been abducted, that would not be the least bit surprising, considering how many people honestly believe that they are actually Jesus Christ or some other religious figure, or animals, aliens, movie stars, reincarnated, or famous people such as (in the old days) Napoleon or Anastasia. The fact that these delusions have common elements is not a bit surprising. They always did in the past. People have limited imaginations and their fantasies or delusions are based on stories they have heard. The variations are about as wide as you see in folk-tales from different districts of pre-modern Japan, when peasants did not travel much. If eyewitness information is to be ignored so completely and written off as unreliable, then much of our legal system is worthless and little better than selecting individuals for punishment randomly . . . This is more or less the case. The number of wrongful convictions is very high. As I said, numerous tests have been done of eyewitness reports in set-up situations (with actors) where the witnesses are normal, sane young college students and the like. Reports written immediately after the incidents are hopelessly garbled. The actors' roles are reversed, and the words they said are grossly misreported. Very often, unconscious race and sex prejudice in the witness distorts the events. This happens even though the witnesses are aware that what they saw was an act. (They are typically not aware it is fake when the incident occurs; that is to say, they are not forewarned.) Naturally, there are many eyewitness reports of crimes which are entirely reliable. For example, if someone you know commits a crime, it takes a long time, and you are within sight of the person, your report will be highly reliable. Eyewitness reports fail when: Events occur quickly Events are extraordinary and not at all expected The witness does not know the criminal The witness is terribly frightened (which is not always the case with a crime, for example, not with embezzlement) Likewise, many of the most dramatic encounters come from airline pilots or law enforcement officers or those charged with defense of our nation . . . Approximately how many incidents have their been? What is the frequency? How many airline pilots in particular? Here at the airport where I work, I encounter many pilots, albeit mostly private jets or unscheduled flights such as medivac. They do not strike me as exceptionally sane or reliable people, but then neither do electrochemists, psychiatrists, programmers or other groups I have encountered. All in all, as they say in England, there's naught so strange as folks. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:OT: The Abduction Paradigm
Good arguments, Chris. However, I find the human mind typically resists ideas that are too far from personal experience. We can't do anything about this resistance in a general way. We can only work to overcome this genetic limitation in ourselves and learn to avoid people who cannot go beyond their small world view. Ed On Jul 31, 2009, at 3:03 PM, Chris Zell wrote: As to hallucinations, there have been a number of people since the '60's who function very well in responsible jobs despite having them. You may not hear much about them since the problem can be an embarrassment. They quickly understand to ignore walls moving as if breathing or rainbow colored rain in a clear sky. If you encounter a potential hallucination, quickly ask yourself some "bandwidth" questions: Can I feel it? smell it? hear it? and so on. The more senses are involved, the less able the brain is able to simulate reality. It is strange that I do not perceive continuous panic or intense advocacy or depressive paralysis from many skeptics as to UFO and related phenomena. If eyewitness information is to be ignored so completely and written off as unreliable, then much of our legal system is worthless and little better than selecting individuals for punishment randomly ( which worked well for Stalin). Likewise, many of the most dramatic encounters come from airline pilots or law enforcement officers or those charged with defense of our nation - even those who literally "have their finger on the button" of nuclear missiles. If they are all lying or hallucinating, I wonder why some skeptics even bother with any hope, investment or child rearing in an environment in which we depend for our lives on such people. "I hope you enjoyed flying with us". More than that, these people are often the most competently trained, experienced and vetted as to accurate observation relative to the general population. There is a 'law of unintended effects" that needs attention in our collective opinions about science and reality. Anything taken to an extreme can cause a result that is the opposite of what was intended --- and I believe that the persistent denial of UFOs and related psychic phenomena is now encouraging an anti-science public outlook - contrary to what skeptics think. If you keep encountering opinions that would classify you as a fool, you may stop listening altogether. Reality , as a concept, seems to be drifting away from common sense into a rarified ivory tower world of merely what some "approved" scientists say it is - and that "approved" can mean no foreigners allowed, also! ( Are results from Russian or Japanese scientists really given the same credibility? Italians? How about Mexican officials?) Let's add medicine to the denial destruction of scientific reality: So, marijuana has no medical uses according to the Federal government ( two days ago). Really? Are people expected to deny the evidence of their own bodies direct experience? They don't actually feel good because the government says otherwise? Is this a brick apartment building held together by mass hypnosis, a la Monty Python? Do I need a computer and range finders to guide me across a street busy with traffic? Or can I take my life in my hands and use intuition to cross like everybody else? There isn't a day that passes that I don't witness the abuse of what is termed science by authorities and cold fusion has been but one example. I really fear we may evolve into a situation in which the investigation of ANY subtle or intermitent anomaly becomes impossible because of "spin", bias, pseudo-skepticism, superficial debunking or "elegant" theories that act as a permanent barrier to the discovery of truth.
Re: [Vo]:OT: The Abduction Paradigm
As to hallucinations, there have been a number of people since the '60's who function very well in responsible jobs despite having them. You may not hear much about them since the problem can be an embarrassment. They quickly understand to ignore walls moving as if breathing or rainbow colored rain in a clear sky. If you encounter a potential hallucination, quickly ask yourself some "bandwidth" questions: Can I feel it? smell it? hear it? and so on. The more senses are involved, the less able the brain is able to simulate reality. It is strange that I do not perceive continuous panic or intense advocacy or depressive paralysis from many skeptics as to UFO and related phenomena. If eyewitness information is to be ignored so completely and written off as unreliable, then much of our legal system is worthless and little better than selecting individuals for punishment randomly ( which worked well for Stalin). Likewise, many of the most dramatic encounters come from airline pilots or law enforcement officers or those charged with defense of our nation - even those who literally "have their finger on the button" of nuclear missiles. If they are all lying or hallucinating, I wonder why some skeptics even bother with any hope, investment or child rearing in an environment in which we depend for our lives on such people. "I hope you enjoyed flying with us". More than that, these people are often the most competently trained, experienced and vetted as to accurate observation relative to the general population. There is a 'law of unintended effects" that needs attention in our collective opinions about science and reality. Anything taken to an extreme can cause a result that is the opposite of what was intended --- and I believe that the persistent denial of UFOs and related psychic phenomena is now encouraging an anti-science public outlook - contrary to what skeptics think. If you keep encountering opinions that would classify you as a fool, you may stop listening altogether. Reality , as a concept, seems to be drifting away from common sense into a rarified ivory tower world of merely what some "approved" scientists say it is - and that "approved" can mean no foreigners allowed, also! ( Are results from Russian or Japanese scientists really given the same credibility? Italians? How about Mexican officials?) Let's add medicine to the denial destruction of scientific reality: So, marijuana has no medical uses according to the Federal government ( two days ago). Really? Are people expected to deny the evidence of their own bodies direct experience? They don't actually feel good because the government says otherwise? Is this a brick apartment building held together by mass hypnosis, a la Monty Python? Do I need a computer and range finders to guide me across a street busy with traffic? Or can I take my life in my hands and use intuition to cross like everybody else? There isn't a day that passes that I don't witness the abuse of what is termed science by authorities and cold fusion has been but one example. I really fear we may evolve into a situation in which the investigation of ANY subtle or intermitent anomaly becomes impossible because of "spin", bias, pseudo-skepticism, superficial debunking or "elegant" theories that act as a permanent barrier to the discovery of truth.
Re: [Vo]:OT: The Abduction Paradigm
OrionWorks wrote: > ... > However, I've come around to the suspicion that the majority of alien > abduction experiences are the result of a timeless, ancient > phenomenon, a unique and valid human experience that is just as > "real", and IMHO, a possibly whole lot more important. > > ... > > At present there seems to be, IMO, an > ongoing tendency for the abduction scenario (the abduction paradigm if > you wish) to be interpreted far too literally, both in the > skeptic/debunker camps, as well as within the believer camps. If I > could leave the curious reader with just one insight, a concept that > hopefully a few might consider pondering at their own leisure, it > would be to explore both the possibility and subsequent ramifications > that these timeless experiential encounters may themselves be the > manifestations of a vast symbolic oriented meta-language, a unique > universal form of communication that has probably been with us since > the dawn of humanity. If one is willing to entertain this concept... > this "meta-language" as possibly being a more precise architecture in > which to walk down the halls of this vast and mysterious mansion, the > nature of the experiences, particularly in the collective sense, will > begin to have the capacity of taking on a far richer dimension and > potential value for both the experiencer and the listener. > > ... > Hi What you said is similar to what Carl Jung said related to the UFO/alien experience: "The UFO/alien is an image of the human soul". In the same way as the individuals of a superstitious, "primitive" culture will dream with and encounter witches, goblins and magicians in their dreams, or angels and demons, a technologically oriented culture will tend to encounter technologically advanced aliens. A culture which is both overly rational and materialistic, will tend to dream with highly intelligent and cold, rational aliens, which manage advanced technologies. These aliens will be the projection of their depth fears, and of their highest longings. Their (culturally projected) angels and demons. If so many people have similar experiences, it could be interesting to study what other things they have in common: are they overly rational? are they materialistic/technologically inclined? Do they or a majority of them use sleeping pills? Do they have similar nutritional habits? Are they closely related culturally and/or geographically? etc. etc. The most firm beliefs some people have during day time, can give place to nightmares during the night. Particularly if more "subtle" and warm feelings are repressed, or put in denial. In the name of rationality or objectivity, by example. The excessive belief in technology, science, an excessive rationality, in spite of other, more subtle experiences and modes of knowledge, and the associated materialism, can all be forms of superstition, too. Best regards, Mauro
Re: [Vo]:OT: The Abduction Paradigm
Edmund Storms wrote: While I agree that people can suffer from hallucinations and false memory, this explanation must not and is not used to explain all strange experiences. I am not familiar with the dataset of modern strange experiences, or the radar and physical evidence. But I am 100% sure that delusions and lies can account for all pre-modern experiences such as witchcraft, faith-healing, miracles, superstitions and the like. These things were extremely widespread -- much more widespread than abduction reports -- but they were all physically impossible and plainly wrong. This is particularly obvious to people outside a given culture. For example, Japanese folk beliefs, modern superstitions and religions seem preposterous to Americans, and vice versa. Try explaining to a modern educated Japanese person what the Catholic rite of transubstantiation is all about and you will see. He will eventually realize you are talking about ritualistic cannibalism, and he will be grossed out and appalled. Purely ritualistic cannibalism is common in many cultures, and you can find examples in any anthropology textbook. But I don't recall any examples in East Asian culture so they are unused to the idea. (Actual, peaceful, non-threatening cannibalism is also fairly widespread and still practiced, by the way. Typically, people eat a few ashes from the cremated dead person. Public health authorities are trying to encourage this in lieu of eating human brains at funerals, which spreads Creuzfeldt-Jakob disease. And if that grosses you out, now you know how a Japanese visitor to a Catholic church feels! In Japan, the ancestors eat a little of your food before supper, but you never eat your ancestors.) Society uses personal experience as a basis for judging reality with reasonable success, including yourself Jed. Not me! I use notes and photographs. I learned to write everything down at a tender age. As I said, my mother taught me a hundred ways that memory can and will deceive you. Memory is a lovely thing, but fiction. Otherwise you would have no opinions you would wish to share because they all could be pure imagination. Not at all! As Francis Bacon said: "[W]e are not to deny the authority of the human senses and understanding, although weak; but rather to furnish them with assistance" (with instruments and experiments). Bacon's book "Novum Organum" is largely devoted to the problems, weakness and delusions of the human senses, which he calls "idols of the mind" and the methods by which science can overcome them. Modern people still have not learned many of the lessons he teaches. See apothegms 20 through 60, for example: "The human understanding is most excited by that which strikes and enters the mind at once and suddenly, and by which the imagination is immediately filled and inflated. . . . The human understanding is active and cannot halt or rest, but even, though without effect, still presses forward. . . . The human understanding resembles not a dry light, but admits a tincture of the will and passions, which generate their own system accordingly: for man always believes more readily that which he prefers. But by far the greatest impediment and aberration of the human understanding proceeds from the dulness, incompetency, and errors of the senses . . . The human understanding is, by its own nature, prone to abstraction, and supposes that which is fluctuating to be fixed. . . ." In the case of the UFO experience, the shared experience is overwhelming. If UFOs are delusions, we would expect the delusion to be shared (stereotyped) and widespread. That's why so many people used to imagine they saw witches flying on brooms. Like cold fusion, eventually the evidence overwhelms any skeptical argument. Eyewitness reports are not evidence. There may be other kinds of evidence I have not heard of, but eyewitness reports are meaningless. Millions of people in the U.S. think they have undergone various impossible experiences, usually stereotypical. That tells you a great deal about the human brain and nothing about reality. The evidence for cold fusion is data recorded by instruments. If it were only eyewitness reports I would not believe a word of it. I would have some difficulty believing Mizuno's report of the massive heat-after-death event if I had not seen the actual bucket, the cell, and the thermocouple pen-recorder trace from before he put the cell in the bucket. I still have difficulty believing Fleischmann & Pons description of the explosion in February 1985. Why they did not preserve physical evidence I shall never understand. I berated Martin for that! It seems highly unprofessional to me. He ruefully admitted that he should have preserved the evidence. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:OT: The Abduction Paradigm
While I agree that people can suffer from hallucinations and false memory, this explanation must not and is not used to explain all strange experiences. Society uses personal experience as a basis for judging reality with reasonable success, including yourself Jed. Otherwise you would have no opinions you would wish to share because they all could be pure imagination. In addition, people trained to make observations are accepted as valid observers especially If several people see and describe the same event. Such testimony is normally accepted by the law and is the basis for demanding replication in science. In the case of the UFO experience, the shared experience is overwhelming. Like cold fusion, eventually the evidence overwhelms any skeptical argument. The only rational skeptic remaining is the one who is simply ignorant of the evidence. Of course, irrational skeptics will always exist no matter what evidence is presented. These people have no importance and are eventually ignored. Ed On Jul 30, 2009, at 1:34 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Edmund Storms wrote: If the experience is not real, it means that we cannot trust our eyes, our memory or even radar to correctly determine reality. I do not know about radar but there is abundant proof that we cannot trues our eyes or memory to determine reality. This is why science must be based on objective instrument readings and physical evidence. People's senses are good for nothing when it comes to establishing reality. This is especially true of untrained, amateur observers. A naturalist looking at beetles in the woods may have a reliable memory of the event, but anyone else's memory is bound to mixed up with false memories, mistakes and mythology. People today and in the past often have experiences that are entirely imaginary. They often mistake dreams for reality, for example. Memory is extremely malleable and not to be trusted at all. This has been demonstrated in many simple tests. For example, in the middle of a psychology lecture, an unannounced fake drama is performed by actors. Say, a woman drops her purse, hits someone, and runs out of the room shouting something. Then the professor asks the students to write what they say. The accounts vary wildly. It means that hundreds of thousands of people have been deceived by very clever hoaxes . . . There is no likelihood that abductions are hoaxes. There are countless other experiences in the past, such as people who thought they were visited by witches and succubuses and so on, which were obviously false memories of physically impossible events. But the people reporting these experiences believed them sincerely. Again, psychological tests have shown that it is easy to implant a false memory in most people. The techniques for doing this are settled and have been repeated in many psychological studies. . . . and we cannot believe anything a person claims to have personally experienced without physical proof, and all that this conclusion implies. For traumatic and unlikely events, no one should ever believe anything a person claims to have personally experienced, including the person himself. That is never a reliable basis for belief. Highly rational people who are used to studying human beliefs, opinions and reactions know this to be true of themselves, even when their brain is diseased and not functioning correctly. My late mother was an expert in these issue (public opinion, perception and psychology). In the last years of her life, her mind was affected by Parkinson's and by the drugs she was taking for it. One day she told my sister: "I just came back from a visit with uncle Danny, upstairs." Uncle Danny had been dead for 20 years and she was living in a one-floor retirement home, with no upstairs. My sister went along with it, saying "oh really, and how is he?" A few hours later after a nap she said, "What did I tell you before? Uncle Danny? That's ridiculous; he's been dead for years. It must be that damned medication, causing hallucinations," which it was. I told her that if she were a shade more superstitious or spiritual she would count that as a visit to heaven "upstairs," but knowing too much about pharmacology ruined the experience for her. Based on our knowledge of psychology, it is 99.% likely that all reports of abductions, religious experiences, witchcraft, ESP, hypnotic conditions and similar effects are a product of normal, widely observed brain functions. I mean "normal" in sense that they are widespread and can be induced in most people, and they are not necessarily a sign of pathology (although they were in my mother's case). The cause of these phenomena is not yet known (to my knowledge) but the phonomena themselves been observed and carefully documented by doctors and psychologists for 200 years. Delusions such as abductions, n
RE: [Vo]:OT: The Abduction Paradigm
Ed, I disagree in that the premise requires 2 HV fields and there isn't likely to be that many airborne HV fields to set up the lens at the far end -also the focal point on our end may be different for time displacement. As far as ground based observations of HV installations from the future we may be up against the distance to the horizon and intervening structures that haven't even been built yet. Fran -Original Message- From: Edmund Storms [mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com] Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2009 3:27 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: The Abduction Paradigm Fran, in proposing your explanation, you conveniently ignore a large amount of the evidence. In addition, a temporal lens effect should show a lot more than just a few UFOs. We should see a variety of objects and events, which is clearly not the case. A theory is not worth considering if it is so rigid that it is applied to everything by making ad hoc assumption and using selective evidence. Ed On Jul 30, 2009, at 1:11 PM, Roarty, Francis X wrote: > Snip: Of course, people with imagination will > suggest all kinds of explanations. The number of crazy ideas should > not distract serious investigators from seeing the most obvious > conclusion, i.e. that life has evolved on many planets and some of > this life is more advanced than we are.. > > Reply: > Ed, I have to say that my temporal lens idea better fits the > known facts regarding electromagnetic observations, be they visual or > radar and may even allow some physical contact although the lack of > physical evidence suggests otherwise. There is already a corollary in > place called gravitational lensing so my proposal attempts to explain > the observations with the fewest assumptions possible. I see the > spacecraft reports and radar returns as evidence of our own future > spacecraft probably interacting with HV fields in the present to > create > focal points where the observer views across time lines. The NASA > shuttle controversy where the charged tether broke and UFO like > objects > appear behind the miles of still charged tether line viewed by the > shuttle camera filming down the axis of the charged line suggest > temporal lensing is real. It is also a fact that many photos and > reports > are near HV lines which would act as a single lens, I would presume > the > UFO propulsion supplies a second lens and then it is just a matter of > the observer to be at the correct coordinates where the focal point > resolves. Maybe this hypothesis can be tested with the appropriate > selection of an observation point near a HV nexus > Fran >
Re: [Vo]:OT: The Abduction Paradigm
Edmund Storms wrote: If the experience is not real, it means that we cannot trust our eyes, our memory or even radar to correctly determine reality. I do not know about radar but there is abundant proof that we cannot trues our eyes or memory to determine reality. This is why science must be based on objective instrument readings and physical evidence. People's senses are good for nothing when it comes to establishing reality. This is especially true of untrained, amateur observers. A naturalist looking at beetles in the woods may have a reliable memory of the event, but anyone else's memory is bound to mixed up with false memories, mistakes and mythology. People today and in the past often have experiences that are entirely imaginary. They often mistake dreams for reality, for example. Memory is extremely malleable and not to be trusted at all. This has been demonstrated in many simple tests. For example, in the middle of a psychology lecture, an unannounced fake drama is performed by actors. Say, a woman drops her purse, hits someone, and runs out of the room shouting something. Then the professor asks the students to write what they say. The accounts vary wildly. It means that hundreds of thousands of people have been deceived by very clever hoaxes . . . There is no likelihood that abductions are hoaxes. There are countless other experiences in the past, such as people who thought they were visited by witches and succubuses and so on, which were obviously false memories of physically impossible events. But the people reporting these experiences believed them sincerely. Again, psychological tests have shown that it is easy to implant a false memory in most people. The techniques for doing this are settled and have been repeated in many psychological studies. . . . and we cannot believe anything a person claims to have personally experienced without physical proof, and all that this conclusion implies. For traumatic and unlikely events, no one should ever believe anything a person claims to have personally experienced, including the person himself. That is never a reliable basis for belief. Highly rational people who are used to studying human beliefs, opinions and reactions know this to be true of themselves, even when their brain is diseased and not functioning correctly. My late mother was an expert in these issue (public opinion, perception and psychology). In the last years of her life, her mind was affected by Parkinson's and by the drugs she was taking for it. One day she told my sister: "I just came back from a visit with uncle Danny, upstairs." Uncle Danny had been dead for 20 years and she was living in a one-floor retirement home, with no upstairs. My sister went along with it, saying "oh really, and how is he?" A few hours later after a nap she said, "What did I tell you before? Uncle Danny? That's ridiculous; he's been dead for years. It must be that damned medication, causing hallucinations," which it was. I told her that if she were a shade more superstitious or spiritual she would count that as a visit to heaven "upstairs," but knowing too much about pharmacology ruined the experience for her. Based on our knowledge of psychology, it is 99.% likely that all reports of abductions, religious experiences, witchcraft, ESP, hypnotic conditions and similar effects are a product of normal, widely observed brain functions. I mean "normal" in sense that they are widespread and can be induced in most people, and they are not necessarily a sign of pathology (although they were in my mother's case). The cause of these phenomena is not yet known (to my knowledge) but the phonomena themselves been observed and carefully documented by doctors and psychologists for 200 years. Delusions such as abductions, non-existent rapes, witchcraft and the like are not a bit surprising or unusual, and probably about as common as appendicitis was before antibiotics. If you think you have been abducted, that does not mean you are crazy by any means, any more than it meant that young native Americans who went on "vision quests" and saw impossible things were crazy. The "vision quest" methods were optimized to trigger delusions. Many other rituals, dances that go for hours and other ceremonies are also known to induce delusions or extreme emotions. Soldiers in WWII battles often reported extreme delusions that were more vivid than reality, such as their dead friends walking in front of them, or a woman with scull head trying to entice them into no-man-land (both described by William Manchester in "Goodbye, Darkness"). However, just because these experiences were vivid certainly does not mean they were real! - Jed
RE: [Vo]:OT: The Abduction Paradigm
It also does away with much of the high G reports of UFO's in that it means that size and distance is relative to the observers distance to the focal window - since we assume the craft is miles away while the image is actually floating to the surface of a nearby temporal window we misinterpret the sudden motion due to perspective as actual acceleration. Like the flashing of objects past our peripheral vision as we drive down a tree lined street. Fran
Re: [Vo]:OT: The Abduction Paradigm
Fran, in proposing your explanation, you conveniently ignore a large amount of the evidence. In addition, a temporal lens effect should show a lot more than just a few UFOs. We should see a variety of objects and events, which is clearly not the case. A theory is not worth considering if it is so rigid that it is applied to everything by making ad hoc assumption and using selective evidence. Ed On Jul 30, 2009, at 1:11 PM, Roarty, Francis X wrote: Snip: Of course, people with imagination will suggest all kinds of explanations. The number of crazy ideas should not distract serious investigators from seeing the most obvious conclusion, i.e. that life has evolved on many planets and some of this life is more advanced than we are.. Reply: Ed, I have to say that my temporal lens idea better fits the known facts regarding electromagnetic observations, be they visual or radar and may even allow some physical contact although the lack of physical evidence suggests otherwise. There is already a corollary in place called gravitational lensing so my proposal attempts to explain the observations with the fewest assumptions possible. I see the spacecraft reports and radar returns as evidence of our own future spacecraft probably interacting with HV fields in the present to create focal points where the observer views across time lines. The NASA shuttle controversy where the charged tether broke and UFO like objects appear behind the miles of still charged tether line viewed by the shuttle camera filming down the axis of the charged line suggest temporal lensing is real. It is also a fact that many photos and reports are near HV lines which would act as a single lens, I would presume the UFO propulsion supplies a second lens and then it is just a matter of the observer to be at the correct coordinates where the focal point resolves. Maybe this hypothesis can be tested with the appropriate selection of an observation point near a HV nexus Fran
RE: [Vo]:OT: The Abduction Paradigm
Snip: Of course, people with imagination will suggest all kinds of explanations. The number of crazy ideas should not distract serious investigators from seeing the most obvious conclusion, i.e. that life has evolved on many planets and some of this life is more advanced than we are.. Reply: Ed, I have to say that my temporal lens idea better fits the known facts regarding electromagnetic observations, be they visual or radar and may even allow some physical contact although the lack of physical evidence suggests otherwise. There is already a corollary in place called gravitational lensing so my proposal attempts to explain the observations with the fewest assumptions possible. I see the spacecraft reports and radar returns as evidence of our own future spacecraft probably interacting with HV fields in the present to create focal points where the observer views across time lines. The NASA shuttle controversy where the charged tether broke and UFO like objects appear behind the miles of still charged tether line viewed by the shuttle camera filming down the axis of the charged line suggest temporal lensing is real. It is also a fact that many photos and reports are near HV lines which would act as a single lens, I would presume the UFO propulsion supplies a second lens and then it is just a matter of the observer to be at the correct coordinates where the focal point resolves. Maybe this hypothesis can be tested with the appropriate selection of an observation point near a HV nexus Fran
Re: [Vo]:OT: The Abduction Paradigm
But, Steven, the experience is important. It is either real or it isn't. If it is real, it means the earth has been and is being influenced by intelligent beings from another planet for a long time, with all that this implies. If the experience is not real, it means that we cannot trust our eyes, our memory or even radar to correctly determine reality. It means that hundreds of thousands of people have been deceived by very clever hoaxes and we cannot believe anything a person claims to have personally experienced without physical proof, and all that this conclusion implies. If claims about the general UFO phenomenon are based on a real experience, then we can start to evaluate the details to determine the nature of this reality. Of course, people with imagination will suggest all kinds of explanations. The number of crazy ideas should not distract serious investigators from seeing the most obvious conclusion, i.e. that life has evolved on many planets and some of this life is more advanced than we are, probably because they started earlier in the history of the universe. They are now able to visit other planets and have done this for centuries. We just have to accept the idea that humans are not the top of the line life form and we are not in God's image, at least on the surface. Ed On Jul 30, 2009, at 11:52 AM, OrionWorks wrote: From: Edmund Storms I have no idea what you mean Steven when you say "The experience IS what it IS." It was my somewhat crude attempt to suggest that such experiences not be judged. They are what they are. "Judging" such experiences as either authentic or false messages from aliens or god, in a sense, only makes us go around in circles as we argue incessantly over who might be behind the curtain that Toto sees. I'm trying to suggest that the experience itself, in whatever costumes and theatre it's currently playing in, may matter more than the endless speculation over whom the actors might be portraying the characters. The version will change with the times, with the culture. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:OT: The Abduction Paradigm
OrionWorks wrote: > From: Edmund Storms > >> I have no idea what you mean Steven when you say >> "The experience IS what it IS." > > It was my somewhat crude attempt to suggest that such experiences not > be judged. They are what they are. "Judging" such experiences as > either authentic or false messages from aliens or god, in a sense, > only makes us go around in circles as we argue incessantly over who > might be behind the curtain that Toto sees. I'm trying to suggest that > the experience itself, in whatever costumes and theatre it's currently > playing in, may matter more than the endless speculation over whom the > actors might be portraying the characters. The version will change > with the times, with the culture. I'd have to say that I think there is a false premise here. "Judging" the experience is not at all the same as making a "value judgment", which seems to be what you're implying. If we assume for a moment that there *is* such a thing as "objective reality", and that science in general is an effort to work toward a progressively clearer view of that reality, then there is a perfectly legitimate and reasonable issue regarding these experiences which can (and should) be "judged" objectively: The question to be considered is, what causes them? Is it aliens, in the case of abductions? Is it God, in the case of theophanies? Or is it some internal change in state, like, say, a sudden drop in GABA levels in the midbrain? That is an objective question which surely has an objective answer, and looking for the answer seems perfectly reasonable, rational, and even called for. If we actually knew the answer, then that answer would certainly not change "with the times". Of course, those who experience these things, as well as those who profit from the experiences, frequently seem to be throwing enough dust in the air that the attempt at sorting out what's really going on may prove impossible to complete -- but that doesn't mean the attempt is unjustified, nor does it mean the questions we ask about such experiences are not well founded. And as to what's important here, I'd say deciding the question of whether there really are alien abductions, and whether there really are God(s) walking among us, would be a whole lot more important than the emotional interpretation Joe the Plumber puts on his memories of aliens. I seem to recall that some experiments have been done on theophanies which seemed to point vaguely in the direction of internal changes in state as the root, but they were not conclusive. There has also been some research done in the area of false memories, "recovered" memories, and related phenomena which might bear on alien abduction memories, but not nearly enough to convince anyone who already has an opinion to change their mind about what they think is going on, AFAIK.
Re: [Vo]:OT: The Abduction Paradigm
From: Edmund Storms > I have no idea what you mean Steven when you say > "The experience IS what it IS." It was my somewhat crude attempt to suggest that such experiences not be judged. They are what they are. "Judging" such experiences as either authentic or false messages from aliens or god, in a sense, only makes us go around in circles as we argue incessantly over who might be behind the curtain that Toto sees. I'm trying to suggest that the experience itself, in whatever costumes and theatre it's currently playing in, may matter more than the endless speculation over whom the actors might be portraying the characters. The version will change with the times, with the culture. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:OT: The Abduction Paradigm
I have no idea what you mean Steven when you say "The experience IS what it IS." We accumulate information about reality by experience. This experience gradually forms an impression of reality on which we base our beliefs in science, religion and in every other reality based belief system. The experiments either contributes to and refines the present belief systems or it does not. If it contributes, knowledge moves forward and we become more understanding of the reality that surrounds us. If the experience does not contribute, we become more ignorant. The experience is never neutral and only an experience. Ed On Jul 30, 2009, at 11:06 AM, OrionWorks wrote: From Mr. Lawrence: If alien abductions -- which are pretty rare -- are taken as convincing proof of the existence of aliens, shouldn't theophanies -- which are rather common, certainly far more common than alien abductions -- be taken as convincing proof of the existence of God? (The people who experience them typically interpret them that way, of course.) I think you bring up a crucial point which goes to the heart of my hypothesis. Is there really a difference between what I've called "the abduction paradigm" experience and theophany oriented experiences. I speculate: Perhaps both experiences spring from the same meta-language of universal symbols unique to homo sapiens. It would seem natural that cultural conditioning would clothe how such experiences will manifest themselves within the experiencer's psyche. IOW, it's not a matter of whether one is actually in contact with aliens or god. I think we tend to get far too lost in our attempts to interpret the experiences in literal clothing. IMO, it can never be successfully interpreted in literal terms - of being messages from aliens or god. It's the experience itself that matters, the current costume it has chosen to reveal the drama within. What's important is how the experience affects the transmitter of the tale, as well as those who chose to listen. The experience IS what it IS. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:OT: The Abduction Paradigm
>From Mr. Lawrence: > If alien abductions -- which are pretty rare -- are > taken as convincing proof of the existence of aliens, > shouldn't theophanies -- which are rather common, certainly > far more common than alien abductions -- be taken as > convincing proof of the existence of God? (The people who > experience them typically interpret them that way, of course.) I think you bring up a crucial point which goes to the heart of my hypothesis. Is there really a difference between what I've called "the abduction paradigm" experience and theophany oriented experiences. I speculate: Perhaps both experiences spring from the same meta-language of universal symbols unique to homo sapiens. It would seem natural that cultural conditioning would clothe how such experiences will manifest themselves within the experiencer's psyche. IOW, it's not a matter of whether one is actually in contact with aliens or god. I think we tend to get far too lost in our attempts to interpret the experiences in literal clothing. IMO, it can never be successfully interpreted in literal terms - of being messages from aliens or god. It's the experience itself that matters, the current costume it has chosen to reveal the drama within. What's important is how the experience affects the transmitter of the tale, as well as those who chose to listen. The experience IS what it IS. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:OT: The Abduction Paradigm
Sorry; I was feeling crabby when I wrote that last letter about alien abductions. But now that I've thrown a rock in the pond, I have a pebble to throw in after it: If alien abductions -- which are pretty rare -- are taken as convincing proof of the existence of aliens, shouldn't theophanies -- which are rather common, certainly far more common than alien abductions -- be taken as convincing proof of the existence of God? (The people who experience them typically interpret them that way, of course.)
Re: [Vo]:OT: The Abduction Paradigm
OrionWorks wrote: > * Of having surgery performed on your body. Of being examined, > typically in the gynecological sense. Eggs are removed from females - > sperm removed from males. > > * Of at subsequent abductions being shown their "offspring", the > result of their eggs (and sperm) having been "combined" in some > fashion with "alien" DNA components to produce "hybrids." But why would they bother to do that? If they're so advanced, *and* if they're capable of cross-breeding with humans (yeah right, that seems likely, for sure -- unless these 'aliens' actually originate somewhere on Earth, I find that a tad hard to swallow), then they should certainly have the know-how to be able to induce meiosis in any stem cell ... in which case why would they need gametes? There's nothing very special about a gamete, after all, except that (a) it's descended from a stem cell (telomeres fully intact) and (b) it was formed through meiosis, rather than mitosis, so it's haploid. And they don't really need stem cells, either, of course. All they need to do is take any old cell, remove the methyl groups from the chromosomes (which are used to differentiate the cell), throw the switch which causes the cell to express telomerase, and one generation later, poof, they've got stem cells. We can't do it today, and no doubt there's more to it than what I've just outlined, but surely by the time a civilization is zooming across the galaxy snatching victims from random worlds and fiddling with their genes they should be able to do this sort of thing in their sleep. And I don't need to point out that it's a whole lot easier to obtain a sample of differentiated cells (which can then be dropped into your handy-dandy 24th century Kitchenaide de-differentiator and meiosis inducer) than it is to dig out a few thimblefulls of pre-built gametes! But they don't do anything clever or advanced; instead they do their experiments using the same exact technology which is in use today on Earth at reproductive health centers across the globe. Their anesthesia is improved versus Earth technology, of course -- but that seems to be all. In fact, if what they want is human DNA, all they really need to do is set down on the outskirts of town and catch a few thousand mosquitoes; no doubt some will turn up with a nice sample already "on board" (cf Jurassic Park). The problem I have with all these scenarios is that the aliens are just *too* late-20th-century human -- it's a sci-fi writer's image of what an encounter would look like. Like the surprising realization that God so loved bilateral symmetry that He made the aliens all look just like humans, only with a different number of fingers and some very slightly off-kilter proportions -- they're cartoon aliens... They've apparently not only got our looks (slightly modified), they've got roughly our level of technology, with *none* of the not-yet-here technology we can imagine humans acquiring in the next half century, starting with nano-machines to do their bidding (like getting their silly DNA samples for them). In fact, they seem to have *exactly* the level of technology which would be imagined by a late 20th century human from the United States if that person tried to picture somebody from a flying saucer. And that's a pretty darn big coincidence ... if they're really aliens.
Re: [Vo]:OT: The Abduction Paradigm
>From Harry Veeder: > The 'threat' might be taken more seriously if the number of > people abducted each year exceeded the number of people killed > in car accidents. >From Terry > We don't know that it doesn't. One theory is that everyone has been > abducted, sampled and tagged. Both Harry and Terry bring up important issues that reveal why, IMO, "The Abduction Paradigm" often gravitates into the hotly contested debates that have raged on and on between skeptics/debunkers and true believers for decades. It also goes to the crux of my "treatise", where I attempt to bring forth what I perceive as a subtle often overlooked perception in the rush to either prove or disprove the alleged reality of this phenomenon. Again, I'll say for the record that it is entirely conceivable that a certain percentage of abduction experiences may indeed be the result of something akin to a "catch and release" program; perhaps the work of off-world exo-biologists making entries in the Galactic Encyclopedia - the revised edition... "Mostly Harmless." However, I've come around to the suspicion that the majority of alien abduction experiences are the result of a timeless, ancient phenomenon, a unique and valid human experience that is just as "real", and IMHO, a possibly whole lot more important. About a month ago I had the privilege of conversing with another experiencer (an abductee) at an informal pot-luck gathering held in the Milwaukee area. She is one of the luckier ones in the sense that she is both highly intelligent, perceptive, and emotionally balanced. She received adequate emotional support as she began unraveling the suppressed memories locked within herself - that comprised the essence of her "encounters." Like many exeriencers, she has come around to the conclusion that her "encounters" are NOT occurring strictly in the physical sense. Like many experiencers, she finds it more plausible to believe that her "encounters" are occurring in what she describes as a "...multi-dimensional" environment. As one can surmise right here, the boundaries as to what is we consider "real", particularly what is considered "physically" real are being blurred beyond the point where the current paradigms of scientific investigation can ascertain their validity. It is far too easy at this point for most skeptics trained in objective rational thinking to assume (quite logically I might add) that these experiences/encounters are nothing more than creative fabrications of the mind. "Please forward these notes to the psych ward." But there is IMO much more to this mystery than what the current rigors of objective investigation can effectively analyze. What skeptics often have a difficult time rationalizing away (even though many have attempted to do so valiantly, I might add) is explain why so many experiencers, independently and completely unbeknownst to each other, continue to describe experiencing a series of events, the details therein, with incredible similarity to each other. Again, I repeat: With incredible similarity to each other. Within our western objective oriented culture experiencers have independently recounted with incredible similarity what could be described as classic UFO abduction scenarios. Here are just a few experiential conundrums that have been independently recounted countless times: --- * Of being rendered helpless to resist. Not only do some experiencers feel they are rendered helpless many, after they recall their experiences later, feel they have, in a sense, betrayed their own integrity, their own souls, because they were either unable or unwilling to resist. Many can feel a sense of shame and/or defeat because they recall accompanying memories of their own rebellious attitude suddenly, in an instant, shifting or transforming to becoming willing participants. This shift in perception can later cause many experiencers as assume they must have been temporarily "brainwashed" or that some form of alien "mind control" was extended over them. The more emotionally adjusted experiencers, on the other hand, eventually begin to suspect there is something more interesting transpiring between themselves and the "aliens". Many begin to perceive a conscious partnership is in the process of evolving. Granted, some may perceive this transformation, such a partnership, as classic Stockholm syndrome at work. However, and IMHO, there seems to be much more going on here than brutal acts of "terrorism", where victims attempt to align their sense of survival with the enemy in order to regain a sense of safety. For one thing, the "transformation" to a willing participant is often instantaneous, for example, the moment an "alien" touches them. * Of having surgery performed on your body. Of being examined, typically in the gynecological sense. Eggs are removed from females - sperm removed from males. * Of at subsequent abductions being shown their "offspring", the result of their eggs (and sperm) having been "combined" in
Re: [Vo]:OT: The Abduction Paradigm
We don't know that it doesn't. One theory is that everyone has been abducted, sampled and tagged. Terry On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 1:28 AM, Harry Veeder wrote: > The 'threat' might be taken more seriously if the number of > people abducted each year exceeded the number of people killed > in car accidents. > > > Harry
Re: [Vo]:OT: The Abduction Paradigm
The 'threat' might be taken more seriously if the number of people abducted each year exceeded the number of people killed in car accidents. Harry - Original Message - From: Edmund Storms Date: Monday, July 27, 2009 11:56 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: The Abduction Paradigm > I too have studied and given lot of thought to the UFO phenomenon. > > Steven has provided a good description of many of my conclusions, > so I > won't try to add anything except to ask one question. Why do people > > have such a difficult time accepting such a well documented > phenomenon? To start the discussion, I will provide my answer. > > Most people are incapable of accepting anything that is a threat to > > them. Such threats produce anxiety and are rejected in various > ways > as much as is possible. The idea of a superior life form that can > > abduct individuals at will is too much for most people to handle on > an > emotional level. Since nothing can be done about this threat, it > is > best ignored. Since this is a universal reaction of people with > respect to many aspects of life, the opinion of the crowd cannot be > > accepted as a description of reality. This being the case, who can > be > trusted? This is the basic question we all have to answer because > our > individual fates in all aspects of life depend on choosing well. > What > criteria do you use to trust the opinion of another person? How > much > evidence, if any, do you need to accept a belief? The UFO > phenomenon > provides an incentive to answer such questions. > > Ed > > > > On Jul 26, 2009, at 7:11 PM, OrionWorks wrote: > > > Indeed, it's been an interesting slo Sunday. > > > > As is probably evident by some within the catacombs of the Vort > > Collective, I have occasionally expressed a few opinions on this > > so-called "abduction" matter. So, off the races I go once again > in the > > hope that the following thought fodder might stimulate some to > ponder> this mystery in a manner where no-one has gone before. > > > > IMO, there isn't an educated person on this planet who doesn't > > implicitly believe in the indisputable fact that UFOs exist. The > real> question is: What *are* UFOs, and a smarmy subject that is, > be it > > "swamp gas", or encounters with nearby neighbors. Regarding the > > abduction experience, sometimes referred to as the "experiencer" > > phenomenon, I have begun to draw a few tentative conclusions over > the> past couple of decades: > > > > It is possible that a sub-category of "encounters" may very well > turn> out to be classic abduction experiences, something akin to > "catch and > > release" programs that we ourselves perform as we study and gather > > information on endangered life forms on our own planet. > > > > However, at present I've come to the tentative suspicion that a > > significant sampling, if not most of "abductions", are the result of > > our species attempt to interface with something far more interesting > > and profound than your typical run-of-the-mill "catch and release" > > program. > > > > Anyone who has studied the phenomenon quickly discovers the > > interesting fact that the "abduction" experience tends to run in the > > family. Abduction experiences are inter-generational – grandparents, > > parents, children... A logical conclusion to draw from this > > observation is the likelihood that there must exist a genetic > > component, a predisposition to having the abduction experience. Just > > how far back in the gene pool have these experiences been > manifesting> their effects on our species? It seems logical for me > to speculate: > > Possibly since the inception of Homo Sapiens. > > > > From what I can tell there doesn't seem to be anything special about > > those who claim they are abductees/experiencers. The propensity to > > experience the abduction scenario seems to be randomly disbursed > > throughout the entire human population. The result of such > randomness> would suggest that some experiencers will turn out to > be naturally > > smarter, better educated than others. One's cultural background will > > definitely influence how one interprets it. Depending on how much > > support an experiencer receives when they first begin the often > > difficult and all-too-often psychologically harrowing journey of > > consciously acknowledging their experiences, the better equipped > t
Re: [Vo]:OT: The Abduction Paradigm
Fran, The government may be lousy at keeping secrets but they are very good at protecting physical objects, especially the military. For example, when a military airplane crashes, it is immediately isolated and every piece is cleaned up and taken away. They do the same careful cleanup when a UFO crashes. People who claim to find an occasional unusual object are labeled as crackpots or fakers. This approach is so routine, people accept it as normal behavior on the part of the government, all in the interest of national security. Of course, all governments have a huge self interest in keeping evidence for alien invasion secret, as long as the aliens play along with the effort, which they apparently are doing. Nevertheless, the details of their technology are not discoverable at this time and are pointless to discuss. Their existence and their goals are the only important thing we need to understand right now. The human race believed for a long time that we we created in the image of God and were the only life in the universe. Gradually we realized we were not likely to be unique and started looking for evidence for other life forms. We search the radio waves and now look for life on other planets in the solar system. Yet, we actively ignore evidence for intelligent life from beyond of the solar system that is right here on earth. Of course, a growing number of people accept this reality, but since we can't do anything about their presence, they are ignored but not forgotten. Ed On Jul 27, 2009, at 11:59 AM, Roarty, Francis X wrote: Ed, I have no issue with long observations or even radar returns but the argument for physical evidence would require some sort of temporal paradox preventing these artifacts from being revealed. The observations have been frequent, widespread and stretch too far into the past for normal security to conceal a proportionally smaller amount of physical evidence. If you are correct then there is another mystery of how the security for these events was so well maintained for so long. Fran -Original Message- From: Edmund Storms [mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com] Sent: Monday, July 27, 2009 12:44 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: The Abduction Paradigm Hi Fran, If you want to explain a phenomenon, you need to be aware of all the evidence, not just that which fits a model. Physical evidence has been found, a few UFO have been shot down, and they are seen for long periods of time by many people including by radar. People have even been taken into the crafts. While aliens are clearly using phenomenon we do not yet understand, nothing that has been reported requires an explanation such as you suggest. In fact, an organized group of people exists who hold regular conferences in an effort to arrive at an understanding based on the evidence, not imagination. You can probably find out about this effort on the internet if you are interested. I don't have time right now to track down the sources. Ed On Jul 27, 2009, at 10:26 AM, Roarty, Francis X wrote: Hi Ed, I didn't know you were a member on here or I wouldn't have forwarded you that last thread. Regarding UFOs I feel the lack of physical evidence compared to the huge number of visual observations makes a stronger case for some kind of temporal lensing akin to gravitational lensing where we are able to view future spacecraft through a "window". This of course would also explain the difficulty chase aircraft have in following these UFO that suddenly appear to speed up and disappear as the aircraft fly past the temporal window and they scream past our peripheral vision even though our senses told us they were miles away as judged by their scale. If a star can bend spacetime to gravitationally lens a starfield hidden behind it then maybe Tesla was onto something regarding his theory of solidification of ether with high voltage, maybe a couple of high voltage shaped fields spaced miles apart could form some sort of temporal telescope where the observer catches glimpses of these everyday spacecraft from our future. Fran -Original Message- From: Edmund Storms [mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com] Sent: Monday, July 27, 2009 11:56 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: The Abduction Paradigm I too have studied and given lot of thought to the UFO phenomenon. Steven has provided a good description of many of my conclusions, so I won't try to add anything except to ask one question. Why do people have such a difficult time accepting such a well documented phenomenon? To start the discussion, I will provide my answer. Most people are incapable of accepting anything that is a threat to them. Such threats produce anxiety and are rejected in various ways as much as is possible. The idea of a superior life form that can abduct individuals at
RE: [Vo]:OT: The Abduction Paradigm
Ed, I have no issue with long observations or even radar returns but the argument for physical evidence would require some sort of temporal paradox preventing these artifacts from being revealed. The observations have been frequent, widespread and stretch too far into the past for normal security to conceal a proportionally smaller amount of physical evidence. If you are correct then there is another mystery of how the security for these events was so well maintained for so long. Fran -Original Message- From: Edmund Storms [mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com] Sent: Monday, July 27, 2009 12:44 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: The Abduction Paradigm Hi Fran, If you want to explain a phenomenon, you need to be aware of all the evidence, not just that which fits a model. Physical evidence has been found, a few UFO have been shot down, and they are seen for long periods of time by many people including by radar. People have even been taken into the crafts. While aliens are clearly using phenomenon we do not yet understand, nothing that has been reported requires an explanation such as you suggest. In fact, an organized group of people exists who hold regular conferences in an effort to arrive at an understanding based on the evidence, not imagination. You can probably find out about this effort on the internet if you are interested. I don't have time right now to track down the sources. Ed On Jul 27, 2009, at 10:26 AM, Roarty, Francis X wrote: > Hi Ed, > I didn't know you were a member on here or I wouldn't have > forwarded you that last thread. > > Regarding UFOs I feel the lack of physical evidence compared to the > huge > number of visual observations makes a stronger case for some kind of > temporal lensing akin to gravitational lensing where we are able to > view > future spacecraft through a "window". This of course would also > explain > the difficulty chase aircraft have in following these UFO that > suddenly > appear to speed up and disappear as the aircraft fly past the temporal > window and they scream past our peripheral vision even though our > senses > told us they were miles away as judged by their scale. If a star can > bend spacetime to gravitationally lens a starfield hidden behind it > then > maybe Tesla was onto something regarding his theory of > solidification of > ether with high voltage, maybe a couple of high voltage shaped fields > spaced miles apart could form some sort of temporal telescope where > the > observer catches glimpses of these everyday spacecraft from our > future. > > Fran > > -Original Message- > From: Edmund Storms [mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com] > Sent: Monday, July 27, 2009 11:56 AM > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com > Cc: Edmund Storms > Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: The Abduction Paradigm > > I too have studied and given lot of thought to the UFO phenomenon. > Steven has provided a good description of many of my conclusions, so I > won't try to add anything except to ask one question. Why do people > have such a difficult time accepting such a well documented > phenomenon? To start the discussion, I will provide my answer. > > Most people are incapable of accepting anything that is a threat to > them. Such threats produce anxiety and are rejected in various ways > as much as is possible. The idea of a superior life form that can > abduct individuals at will is too much for most people to handle on an > emotional level. Since nothing can be done about this threat, it is > best ignored. Since this is a universal reaction of people with > respect to many aspects of life, the opinion of the crowd cannot be > accepted as a description of reality. This being the case, who can be > trusted? This is the basic question we all have to answer because our > individual fates in all aspects of life depend on choosing well. What > criteria do you use to trust the opinion of another person? How much > evidence, if any, do you need to accept a belief? The UFO phenomenon > provides an incentive to answer such questions. > > Ed > > > > On Jul 26, 2009, at 7:11 PM, OrionWorks wrote: > >> Indeed, it's been an interesting slo Sunday. >> >> As is probably evident by some within the catacombs of the Vort >> Collective, I have occasionally expressed a few opinions on this >> so-called "abduction" matter. So, off the races I go once again in >> the >> hope that the following thought fodder might stimulate some to ponder >> this mystery in a manner where no-one has gone before. >> >> IMO, there isn't an educated person on this planet who doesn't >> implicitly believe in the indi
Re: [Vo]:OT: The Abduction Paradigm
MUFON has their 40th anniversary symposium in Denver in August: http://www.mufon.com/ I used to be the MUFON moderator on a CompuServe forum (so many years ago!) Terry On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 12:43 PM, Edmund Storms wrote: > You can probably find out about this effort on > the internet if you are interested.
Re: [Vo]:OT: The Abduction Paradigm
Hi Fran, If you want to explain a phenomenon, you need to be aware of all the evidence, not just that which fits a model. Physical evidence has been found, a few UFO have been shot down, and they are seen for long periods of time by many people including by radar. People have even been taken into the crafts. While aliens are clearly using phenomenon we do not yet understand, nothing that has been reported requires an explanation such as you suggest. In fact, an organized group of people exists who hold regular conferences in an effort to arrive at an understanding based on the evidence, not imagination. You can probably find out about this effort on the internet if you are interested. I don't have time right now to track down the sources. Ed On Jul 27, 2009, at 10:26 AM, Roarty, Francis X wrote: Hi Ed, I didn't know you were a member on here or I wouldn't have forwarded you that last thread. Regarding UFOs I feel the lack of physical evidence compared to the huge number of visual observations makes a stronger case for some kind of temporal lensing akin to gravitational lensing where we are able to view future spacecraft through a "window". This of course would also explain the difficulty chase aircraft have in following these UFO that suddenly appear to speed up and disappear as the aircraft fly past the temporal window and they scream past our peripheral vision even though our senses told us they were miles away as judged by their scale. If a star can bend spacetime to gravitationally lens a starfield hidden behind it then maybe Tesla was onto something regarding his theory of solidification of ether with high voltage, maybe a couple of high voltage shaped fields spaced miles apart could form some sort of temporal telescope where the observer catches glimpses of these everyday spacecraft from our future. Fran -Original Message- From: Edmund Storms [mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com] Sent: Monday, July 27, 2009 11:56 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: The Abduction Paradigm I too have studied and given lot of thought to the UFO phenomenon. Steven has provided a good description of many of my conclusions, so I won't try to add anything except to ask one question. Why do people have such a difficult time accepting such a well documented phenomenon? To start the discussion, I will provide my answer. Most people are incapable of accepting anything that is a threat to them. Such threats produce anxiety and are rejected in various ways as much as is possible. The idea of a superior life form that can abduct individuals at will is too much for most people to handle on an emotional level. Since nothing can be done about this threat, it is best ignored. Since this is a universal reaction of people with respect to many aspects of life, the opinion of the crowd cannot be accepted as a description of reality. This being the case, who can be trusted? This is the basic question we all have to answer because our individual fates in all aspects of life depend on choosing well. What criteria do you use to trust the opinion of another person? How much evidence, if any, do you need to accept a belief? The UFO phenomenon provides an incentive to answer such questions. Ed On Jul 26, 2009, at 7:11 PM, OrionWorks wrote: Indeed, it's been an interesting slo Sunday. As is probably evident by some within the catacombs of the Vort Collective, I have occasionally expressed a few opinions on this so-called "abduction" matter. So, off the races I go once again in the hope that the following thought fodder might stimulate some to ponder this mystery in a manner where no-one has gone before. IMO, there isn't an educated person on this planet who doesn't implicitly believe in the indisputable fact that UFOs exist. The real question is: What *are* UFOs, and a smarmy subject that is, be it "swamp gas", or encounters with nearby neighbors. Regarding the abduction experience, sometimes referred to as the "experiencer" phenomenon, I have begun to draw a few tentative conclusions over the past couple of decades: It is possible that a sub-category of "encounters" may very well turn out to be classic abduction experiences, something akin to "catch and release" programs that we ourselves perform as we study and gather information on endangered life forms on our own planet. However, at present I've come to the tentative suspicion that a significant sampling, if not most of "abductions", are the result of our species attempt to interface with something far more interesting and profound than your typical run-of-the-mill "catch and release" program. Anyone who has studied the phenomenon quickly discovers the interesting fact that the "abduction" experience tends to run in the family. Abduc
RE: [Vo]:OT: The Abduction Paradigm
Hi Ed, I didn't know you were a member on here or I wouldn't have forwarded you that last thread. Regarding UFOs I feel the lack of physical evidence compared to the huge number of visual observations makes a stronger case for some kind of temporal lensing akin to gravitational lensing where we are able to view future spacecraft through a "window". This of course would also explain the difficulty chase aircraft have in following these UFO that suddenly appear to speed up and disappear as the aircraft fly past the temporal window and they scream past our peripheral vision even though our senses told us they were miles away as judged by their scale. If a star can bend spacetime to gravitationally lens a starfield hidden behind it then maybe Tesla was onto something regarding his theory of solidification of ether with high voltage, maybe a couple of high voltage shaped fields spaced miles apart could form some sort of temporal telescope where the observer catches glimpses of these everyday spacecraft from our future. Fran -Original Message- From: Edmund Storms [mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com] Sent: Monday, July 27, 2009 11:56 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: The Abduction Paradigm I too have studied and given lot of thought to the UFO phenomenon. Steven has provided a good description of many of my conclusions, so I won't try to add anything except to ask one question. Why do people have such a difficult time accepting such a well documented phenomenon? To start the discussion, I will provide my answer. Most people are incapable of accepting anything that is a threat to them. Such threats produce anxiety and are rejected in various ways as much as is possible. The idea of a superior life form that can abduct individuals at will is too much for most people to handle on an emotional level. Since nothing can be done about this threat, it is best ignored. Since this is a universal reaction of people with respect to many aspects of life, the opinion of the crowd cannot be accepted as a description of reality. This being the case, who can be trusted? This is the basic question we all have to answer because our individual fates in all aspects of life depend on choosing well. What criteria do you use to trust the opinion of another person? How much evidence, if any, do you need to accept a belief? The UFO phenomenon provides an incentive to answer such questions. Ed On Jul 26, 2009, at 7:11 PM, OrionWorks wrote: > Indeed, it's been an interesting slo Sunday. > > As is probably evident by some within the catacombs of the Vort > Collective, I have occasionally expressed a few opinions on this > so-called "abduction" matter. So, off the races I go once again in the > hope that the following thought fodder might stimulate some to ponder > this mystery in a manner where no-one has gone before. > > IMO, there isn't an educated person on this planet who doesn't > implicitly believe in the indisputable fact that UFOs exist. The real > question is: What *are* UFOs, and a smarmy subject that is, be it > "swamp gas", or encounters with nearby neighbors. Regarding the > abduction experience, sometimes referred to as the "experiencer" > phenomenon, I have begun to draw a few tentative conclusions over the > past couple of decades: > > It is possible that a sub-category of "encounters" may very well turn > out to be classic abduction experiences, something akin to "catch and > release" programs that we ourselves perform as we study and gather > information on endangered life forms on our own planet. > > However, at present I've come to the tentative suspicion that a > significant sampling, if not most of "abductions", are the result of > our species attempt to interface with something far more interesting > and profound than your typical run-of-the-mill "catch and release" > program. > > Anyone who has studied the phenomenon quickly discovers the > interesting fact that the "abduction" experience tends to run in the > family. Abduction experiences are inter-generational - grandparents, > parents, children... A logical conclusion to draw from this > observation is the likelihood that there must exist a genetic > component, a predisposition to having the abduction experience. Just > how far back in the gene pool have these experiences been manifesting > their effects on our species? It seems logical for me to speculate: > Possibly since the inception of Homo Sapiens. > > From what I can tell there doesn't seem to be anything special about > those who claim they are abductees/experiencers. The propensity to > experience the abduction scenario seems to be randomly disbursed > t
Re: [Vo]:OT: The Abduction Paradigm
I too have studied and given lot of thought to the UFO phenomenon. Steven has provided a good description of many of my conclusions, so I won't try to add anything except to ask one question. Why do people have such a difficult time accepting such a well documented phenomenon? To start the discussion, I will provide my answer. Most people are incapable of accepting anything that is a threat to them. Such threats produce anxiety and are rejected in various ways as much as is possible. The idea of a superior life form that can abduct individuals at will is too much for most people to handle on an emotional level. Since nothing can be done about this threat, it is best ignored. Since this is a universal reaction of people with respect to many aspects of life, the opinion of the crowd cannot be accepted as a description of reality. This being the case, who can be trusted? This is the basic question we all have to answer because our individual fates in all aspects of life depend on choosing well. What criteria do you use to trust the opinion of another person? How much evidence, if any, do you need to accept a belief? The UFO phenomenon provides an incentive to answer such questions. Ed On Jul 26, 2009, at 7:11 PM, OrionWorks wrote: Indeed, it's been an interesting slo Sunday. As is probably evident by some within the catacombs of the Vort Collective, I have occasionally expressed a few opinions on this so-called "abduction" matter. So, off the races I go once again in the hope that the following thought fodder might stimulate some to ponder this mystery in a manner where no-one has gone before. IMO, there isn't an educated person on this planet who doesn't implicitly believe in the indisputable fact that UFOs exist. The real question is: What *are* UFOs, and a smarmy subject that is, be it "swamp gas", or encounters with nearby neighbors. Regarding the abduction experience, sometimes referred to as the "experiencer" phenomenon, I have begun to draw a few tentative conclusions over the past couple of decades: It is possible that a sub-category of "encounters" may very well turn out to be classic abduction experiences, something akin to "catch and release" programs that we ourselves perform as we study and gather information on endangered life forms on our own planet. However, at present I've come to the tentative suspicion that a significant sampling, if not most of "abductions", are the result of our species attempt to interface with something far more interesting and profound than your typical run-of-the-mill "catch and release" program. Anyone who has studied the phenomenon quickly discovers the interesting fact that the "abduction" experience tends to run in the family. Abduction experiences are inter-generational – grandparents, parents, children... A logical conclusion to draw from this observation is the likelihood that there must exist a genetic component, a predisposition to having the abduction experience. Just how far back in the gene pool have these experiences been manifesting their effects on our species? It seems logical for me to speculate: Possibly since the inception of Homo Sapiens. From what I can tell there doesn't seem to be anything special about those who claim they are abductees/experiencers. The propensity to experience the abduction scenario seems to be randomly disbursed throughout the entire human population. The result of such randomness would suggest that some experiencers will turn out to be naturally smarter, better educated than others. One's cultural background will definitely influence how one interprets it. Depending on how much support an experiencer receives when they first begin the often difficult and all-too-often psychologically harrowing journey of consciously acknowledging their experiences, the better equipped they are likely to be in handling and ultimately integrating it into the intimate fabric of their lives. Of course, everyone wants to know the $64,000 question: Is the phenomenon really real? Are people *really*, physically being abducted, or is it all just fantasy? All that most of us non-abductees, us mundanes can conclude is the fact that it feels real, terrifying real and acutely physical to those who experience it. I personally think far too much emphasis has been put on attempts to either legitimize or debunk the experience. Just as debunkers attempt to ridicule and marginalize the experience as nothing more than weird clinically diagnosable psychological aberrations possibly pertaining the brain chemistry (or perhaps the result of bad upbringing), some experiencers try just as valiantly to prove with equal ferocity that their experiences are physically happening. I've personally come to the tentative conclusion that attempts to either prove or disprove its legitimacy will fail. The continuing struggle also distracts us from the real work at hand. Continued confrontations, I fear, miss the mark,
Re: [Vo]:OT: The Abduction Paradigm
>From Terry: > Well written essay. Of all the researchers, John Mack, Budd Hopkins, > Whitley Streiber, it is David Jacobs' view that frightens me the most. > Have you read "The Threat"? > > Anyway, he has a web site: > > http://www.ufoabduction.com/ > > Terry Hi Terry, Thanks for the complement. Vortex-l got the first draft. I've whittled away at my "treatise" since. (My first drafts tend to be overly redundant.) There is so much more that can be discussed, but that would be for a different time and place. I am aware of Jacob's books. I'm sure I have one or two of his publications squirreled away in my dusty library. I probably saw Jacobs at Roswell. I must confess the fact that I no longer recall the specific details pertaining to "The Threat", other than the fact that, yes, Jacobs does subscribe to a belief that our society should be more concerned (perhaps even alarmed) about the phenomenon. Jacobs isn't the only writer by any means who expresses a view that "abductions" may be a potential threat to the human race. For various reasons, some of which were hopefully extolled in my previous essay, I don't subscribe to "...the human race is about to be converted into... something else, possibly quite alien, etc... etc..." theory. After years of reading, listening, talking with, and pondering I've come more around to a viewpoint that such conclusions are far too literal and absolute in their interpretation. The nature of these experiences strike me, personally, more as symbolic metaphor, POWERFUL metaphors that are just as important and significant to the human race. >From my POV, when HAVEN'T homo sapiens NOT been on the verge of transforming into something else. We don't need no stinkin-aliens to act as the primary reason or excuse (to be the whipping boy) of our possible demise, our unintended transformation into something else! ;-) But on a more serious note: A fascinating aspect to the recounting of these experiences is the fact that experiencers (isolated individuals who do not know each other, and as such have not had time to cross-check their notes on their way to forming a conspiracy of sorts) recall similar details pertaining to their "abductions". Their experiences are incredibly similar in nature and detail. This fact alone should make most rational researchers sit up and ponder: what the hell is going on. Paraphrasing Yoko Ono, she once stated that dreams experienced in isolation are but dreams. But "dreams" shared by many is reality. Consider the possibility that the form of communication, the symbols and events that unfold with incredible universal exactitude suggests to me the possibility that this may be the only way that we humans would seriously consider taking such "dreams" more seriously. The metaphor, ACC's "Childhood's End" is playing out. We fear our own potential. All children fear growing up. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:OT: The Abduction Paradigm
Well written essay. Of all the researchers, John Mack, Budd Hopkins, Whitley Streiber, it is David Jacobs' view that frightens me the most. Have you read "The Threat"? Anyway, he has a web site: http://www.ufoabduction.com/ Terry On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 9:11 PM, OrionWorks wrote: > Indeed, it's been an interesting slo Sunday. > > As is probably evident by some within the catacombs of the Vort > Collective, I have occasionally expressed a few opinions on this > so-called "abduction" matter.