'International Centre For Abduction Research'- Opinions And Ideas Please

[Czarcasm]

Originally Posted by Space_Ed

Hmmm thats an interesting point.

Several phrases come to mind when addressing that comment.

-You don't know me from Adam
-Go ***** yourself
-Eat **** and die

We know who you are, but thank you very much for clarifying the issue.

[Space_Ed]

Originally Posted by Czarcasm

We know who you are, but thank you very much for clarifying the issue.

very good

[Space_Ed]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=rCjIrEZ7j...elated&search=

Okay.... sorry folks I must have seen those pictures somewhere else. Ill try and find them Theres just a few unlikely pictures and sculptures on this documentary.

This is where I came across Dr David Jacobs. Nothing in this 'documentary' has anything that could be considered evidence. I don't trust anything written in the bible because it was written by many unknown, unreliable, biased and much less educated people, and has been translated through also biased and unreliable translators.

Dr David Jacobs' lines are:

Video 1

1.30 - 3.32
8.43 - 10.47

Video 2

0.44 - 1.48
6.00 -7.15
7.32 - 9.40

Video 3

2.15 - 4.23
4.56 - 5.25

I did not take anything that he said to be true and that is why I went on his website and then opened this discussion. I still do not believe it but noone here has said anything to put serious doubt on anything he is saying as all arguments here have been countered by him in places on his website:

www.ufoabduction.com

Ill try to find those pictures.

[Space_Ed]

When I say less educated I mean things like at the time it was written it was up for debate whether or not the earth was flat and that the Pharoh was descended from the Gods. Whereas now, I would think that on the whole, neither is up for debate.

[Space_Ed]

Ive emailed him a link to this discussion too and invited him to join in.

[Space_Ed]

Him being Dr Jacobs. Look what you've done to me! I'm paranoid some know-it-all is gonna come back with some snydy comment, "erm well actually....."

[Space_Ed]

Dont take that seriously either.

[The Pig]

Space Ed, if you spot a mistake in a posting you've made, you can edit it by clicking "Edit" at the bottom of the post.

[Space_Ed]

Originally Posted by The Pig

Space Ed, if you spot a mistake in a posting you've made, you can edit it by clicking "Edit" at the bottom of the post.

Grazie

[Cuddles]

[Hellbound]

You realize that the "counter-arguments" we've seen so far are nothing but post-hoc rationalization, a type of logical fallacy, yes?

The evidence issue is a perfect example. The first issue we brought up was the lack of physical evidence. No effects left from anything: no alien trash, no odd chemical effects, no alien dna. COnsidering that a human cannot walk through a room without leaving hair follicles and skin flakes, this begins to become suspicious. The "counter-argument" to this was, essentially, "They're just really really sneaky!". That's not a counter-argument, it's a rationalization to explain why you can still be right even though no evidence supports your claims. This type of counter-argument actually weakens his position, because now he's added another supposition he has to support: not only that people are getting abducted but also that aliens are supernaturally sneaky and cautious. Instead of supporting either of these assertions, he gets into a circular reasoning loop: There's no evidence because aliens are sneaky. Aliens are sneaky because people are getting abducted.

Just as an asdie, you seem to have a misunderstanding of Occam's Razor, as well, from your earlier post ([url]here on page 1[/url). Supposing some type of extra-terrestrial craft to explain her sighting is not an application of Occam's Razor. O's Razor is not "the simplest answer is the likely one" with simple meaning a single sentence. It's the idea of avoiding un-needed mutiplication of entitities. Simpler, in this case, means "fewer assumptions". A better way of stating OR is "Any new phenomena should first be explained in the known, before positing any new or unknown entities." Think of it as the corrallary to Sherlock Holmes's "When you eliminate the possible, whatever is left, however improbable, is the truth." The key phrase for OCcam's Razor is "eliminate the possible, no matter how improbable."

[Space_Ed]

Originally Posted by Huntsman

You realize that the "counter-arguments" we've seen so far are nothing but post-hoc rationalization, a type of logical fallacy, yes?

The evidence issue is a perfect example. The first issue we brought up was the lack of physical evidence. No effects left from anything: no alien trash, no odd chemical effects, no alien dna. COnsidering that a human cannot walk through a room without leaving hair follicles and skin flakes, this begins to become suspicious. The "counter-argument" to this was, essentially, "They're just really really sneaky!". That's not a counter-argument, it's a rationalization to explain why you can still be right even though no evidence supports your claims. This type of counter-argument actually weakens his position, because now he's added another supposition he has to support: not only that people are getting abducted but also that aliens are supernaturally sneaky and cautious. Instead of supporting either of these assertions, he gets into a circular reasoning loop: There's no evidence because aliens are sneaky. Aliens are sneaky because people are getting abducted.

Just as an asdie, you seem to have a misunderstanding of Occam's Razor, as well, from your earlier post ([url]here on page 1[/url). Supposing some type of extra-terrestrial craft to explain her sighting is not an application of Occam's Razor. O's Razor is not "the simplest answer is the likely one" with simple meaning a single sentence. It's the idea of avoiding un-needed mutiplication of entitities. Simpler, in this case, means "fewer assumptions". A better way of stating OR is "Any new phenomena should first be explained in the known, before positing any new or unknown entities." Think of it as the corrallary to Sherlock Holmes's "When you eliminate the possible, whatever is left, however improbable, is the truth." The key phrase for OCcam's Razor is "eliminate the possible, no matter how improbable."

Ok. Thanks for that. Well noones ever taught me how to apply OR. She and her friend couldnt think of anything they knew it could be but ofcourse that does not mean that it was alien.

Yes. The reason why I can't believe what he is saying is because it isn't backed up by physical evidence. I don't fool hardedly disbelieve it but I can't put my eggs in either basket. Can't fault your skin flake stuff (other than that it is possible that they would have skin like ours and possibly wouldn't leave traces). I think the whole thing is immensely suspicious. It could be a ploy to sell books, get money and appear on TV.

When you say 'a type of logical fallacy' do you mean that it appears like logical thought but actually isnt?

Also on his website theres nothing other than his word. No interviews or data that I've found. Although there are personal accounts. One woman has seen devils too and some other odd stuff which would cast serious doubt on her sanity.

[sinnikal]

Ok Ed. Here's your homework
http://www.unc.edu/depts/wcweb/handouts/fallacies.html
http://www.logicalfallacies.info/

or remember GIYF.

When you've learnt how to use logical fallacies to more devastating effect come back and practice on us

[Space_Ed]

Quote from someone commenting on the above video on Youtube:

"this will blow your mind what if the devil created the bible so that we would bring war on god when he returns, mabey god looks like what they say the devil; looks like in the bible and the devil looks like a man, we would attack god and help the devil then"
-*insert expletive*

[Space_Ed]

Originally Posted by Garrette

For the things pointed to, see the video you linked.

For the balloons they resemble, see the Spoiler in Post #50 by Gravy.

Its taken me too long to notice that...

http://www.aber.ac.uk/ozone/UFAM/radiosonde_launch.jpg

The above photo is of a 'radiosonde' and I felt a wave of relief when I saw it.

I think we can all agree that the voices in his head aren't aliens or Him.

[Space_Ed]

Looks like the photo has been taken in sunny old England too. Whey

[Space_Ed]

Now that video is of an IFO its pure comedy. Watched Superbad tonight which I expecting to be all-american trash but I thought it was pure comedy too.


1- http://www.aber.ac.uk/ozone/UFAM/radiosonde_launch.jpg

2- http://media.ebaumsworld.com/2006/07/ufoguy.wmv

[Space_Ed]

Okay skeptics have a look at these...

http://www.alienvideo.net/video-miss...o-wormhole.php
http://www.alienvideo.net/video-nasa...nsmissions.php
http://www.alienvideo.net/video-alien-autopsy.php
http://www.alienvideo.net/video-dan-aykroyd-cnn.php
http://www.alienvideo.net/video-mexico-ufo.php

Evidence?
http://www.alienvideo.net/real-alien-pictures.php

Some of those bodies look plasticy but some like the one with the head trauma look undeniably biological, to me anyway.

Can you explain these? Again I am not commiting myself completely but the consistency of abduction reports, video footage and photographic 'evidence' of the appearence of the 'Greys' is on a solid path to leading me to the conclusion that these things are real. Can you get me to stray off the path and turn back?

By the way I dont think that (if it is real or not a missile (I don't buy the missile idea at all, that thing would be intercepted by AA missiles no problem hence why missiles travel fast)) the top UFO video is of a wormhole. I think it has got something to do with entry into the atmosphere, perhaps a cooling mechanism, not a wormhole as it makes no sense to make a shortcut through 3D space a few hundred metres infront. The entrance of the wormhole would surely be lightyears away and the bridge would not be visible. No?

[Space_Ed]

I emailed Dr Jacobs a link to this discussion and briefly explained the purpose of it and here is his reply:

Hi Ed, Thanks for the rational approach. The subject is so odd and so seemingly unlikely that it is the continual butt of humor and most people, of course, do not take it seriously. I am constantly embarrassed talking about my findings, but I am confident of the data. Going into this field was not the best career move I could have made but as an academic I feel that it is important to stick with the facts regardless of where they might lead me and what light they might put me in. I am obviously aware of the difficulty of the evidence, memory, hypnosis, etc. But there are ways to control for this. I have also found that being skeptical can be an abduction researcher's most important tool. Thanks, David Jacobs

[Garrette]

Space Ed, you have at times shown an admirable willingness to accept contrary evidence and to change your opinion. I congratulate you on that.

I suggest, however, that if you are truly serious about looking at these claims, then you must begin actually looking at these claims. Yourself. First. Before you post a bunch of things demanding they be debunked.

There are thousands upon thousands of spurious claims. It is not reasonable to expect each individual claim to be actively debunked before you yourself call "fraud," nor is it feasible for skeptics to debunk each individual claim on demand.

You are quite capable of researching yourself.

That said, here are some quick comments.

Originally Posted by Space_Ed

http://www.alienvideo.net/video-miss...o-wormhole.php

It is exactly what it is claimed to be. It is a missile firing at an Air Force base. There is nothing inconsistent with that explanation in the video.

Quote:

http://www.alienvideo.net/video-nasa...nsmissions.php

NASA transmissions involving astronauts reporting unidentified objects.

First, your link starts off by asking "Why hasn't NASA made these public?" How on earth do you think they got the transmissions if they aren't public? Did they steal them? If so, why hasn't the government swooped down and arrested them, hiding the transmissions forever?

Second, read the Condon Report. You will find it is quite honest. It does not explain away all these transmissions (it does some of them). But it also does not make the unwarranted jump from "We see something we can't explain" to "We see extraterrestrial spacecraft." You should learn the skill of accepting that "I don't know" sometimes means "I don't know" and NEVER justifies jumping to unsupported conclusions.

Quote:

http://www.alienvideo.net/video-alien-autopsy.php

The Alien Autopsy? You're serious?

Go to this site. Notice the bit not too far from the beginning where they mention that Kodak didn't use the type of film stock that the film is on at the alleged time of the filming.

Quote:

http://www.alienvideo.net/video-dan-aykroyd-cnn.php

A two minute clip on Anderson Cooper showing absolutely zero evidence? What's to explain? I'm asking seriously.

The lead-in montage of film clips shows several things repeatedly debunked (I recognize some of the footage from the Gulf Breeze frauds). Dan Aykroyd neither shows nor talks about any evidence. In fact, he mentions quite clearly that ALL he has is a "preponderance of the anecdotal evidence."

Quote:

http://www.alienvideo.net/video-mexico-ufo.php

The Mexican Air Force UFOs?

Go to this thread. I did not participate in this thread, but you will find it extremely informative if you take the time to read through it. You will discover how easy it is for completely natural and explainable phenomena can convince intelligent and sincere people that something unnatural and unexplainable is happening. You will also pick up good examples of how to research claims.

Quote:

http://www.alienvideo.net/real-alien-pictures.php

Now you have me thinking you are a troll. You admit some look plasticy. If some look plasticy, why do any need to be trusted? Seriously? If the source cannot be trusted to throw out obviously fake evidence, why should the source be trusted at all?


On a slightly different topic which you have mentioned in this thread:

You said you would research UFOs in historical art for me to comment upon. I take it you have given up on that.

Just in case, I will give you my answer up front.

Go to this site. It will explain it for you.

[Garrette]

Originally Posted by Space_Ed

I emailed Dr Jacobs a link to this discussion and briefly explained the purpose of it and here is his reply:

Hi Ed, Thanks for the rational approach. The subject is so odd and so seemingly unlikely that it is the continual butt of humor and most people, of course, do not take it seriously. I am constantly embarrassed talking about my findings, but I am confident of the data. Going into this field was not the best career move I could have made but as an academic I feel that it is important to stick with the facts regardless of where they might lead me and what light they might put me in. I am obviously aware of the difficulty of the evidence, memory, hypnosis, etc. But there are ways to control for this. I have also found that being skeptical can be an abduction researcher's most important tool. Thanks, David Jacobs

Good for you. I mean that sincerely.

Do you notice that he offers no other evidence? Given the comments in this thread demonstrating Dr. Jacob's unreliability in this matter, what is your stance on his research?

[Space_Ed]

No i havnt given up on it i just havnt found where i saw them yet. I've been busy you know being a real person with a life and all...

Thanks for your reply. I'll look it all over properly. The alien autopsy uhuh and dan ackroyd uhuh some of those i just posted but i know theres nothing there evidence wise. As for what you agree is a missile I could well be being a dumbass.

[Denver]

Originally Posted by Space_Ed

Okay skeptics have a look at these...

http://www.alienvideo.net/video-miss...o-wormhole.php
http://www.alienvideo.net/video-nasa...nsmissions.php
http://www.alienvideo.net/video-alien-autopsy.php
http://www.alienvideo.net/video-dan-aykroyd-cnn.php
http://www.alienvideo.net/video-mexico-ufo.php

Evidence?
http://www.alienvideo.net/real-alien-pictures.php

Some of those bodies look plasticy but some like the one with the head trauma look undeniably biological, to me anyway.

Can you explain these?

Is it just me, or does the first one look more like either a condensation trail, or something burning up on reentry?

Also, on the alien autopsy, it looks well done. If I were to fake one, though, I think I'd want to:

1) Keep it in black and white, to look 'period', and also to make sure any bad coloring on the faker's part wasn't obvious.
2) Keep the camera jittering around, so no details would ever be too clear.
3) Tantalize just enough with almost-closeups, then either cut to a new view, or have the lighting go too dark or light to see clearly.
4) Show some unimportant things clearly (like toes), but always keep the internal organs blurry.
5) Show what looks like an incision, but cut away before you see any blood actually trickle from the incision. Then come back and show it once it's already made a trail, to insure the actual trickle dynamic couldn't be examined and determined if it had a fake viscosity.
6) Same with the 'peeling' and 'sawing'. Show some of it as it is started, but cut away before the actual seperation, to insure the dynamics there couldn't be criticized.
7) Don't move the body much, as it would betray poor internal skeletal faking. Maybe lift one leg a little, and keep your hand near the knee area, so it will bend just enough to imply a joint there.
8) Don't record sound. That might reveal too much about the tools or 'tissues' involved.
9) When there's not much danger with seeing anything too telling (like the internal structure), get nice viewing angles. Once the really important stuff starts to show, make sure there are usually people in the way to block the view.
10) Figure out a way to hide the 'doctors' identities. Maybe use some kind of radiation or environment suit, that looks like they are protecting themsevles from exposure to the alien. Hope no one notices they don't have portable air supplies and are still breathing the room air anyways.

Not that I can prove anything about the video link you posted. But, if I were to fake it, this is some of the stuff I would do...

[Garrette]

Originally Posted by Denver

Is it just me, or does the first one look more like either a condensation trail, or something burning up on reentry?

Also, on the alien autopsy, it looks well done. If I were to fake one, though, I think I'd want to:

1) Keep it in black and white, to look 'period', and also to make sure any bad coloring on the faker's part wasn't obvious.
2) Keep the camera jittering around, so no details would ever be too clear.
3) Tantalize just enough with almost-closeups, then either cut to a new view, or have the lighting go too dark or light to see clearly.
4) Show some unimportant things clearly (like toes), but always keep the internal organs blurry.
5) Show what looks like an incision, but cut away before you see any blood actually trickle from the incision. Then come back and show it once it's already made a trail, to insure the actual trickle dynamic couldn't be examined and determined if it had a fake viscosity.
6) Same with the 'peeling' and 'sawing'. Show some of it as it is started, but cut away before the actual seperation, to insure the dynamics there couldn't be criticized.
7) Don't move the body much, as it would betray poor internal skeletal faking. Maybe lift one leg a little, and keep your hand near the knee area, so it will bend just enough to imply a joint there.
8) Don't record sound. That might reveal too much about the tools or 'tissues' involved.
9) When there's not much danger with seeing anything too telling (like the internal structure), get nice viewing angles. Once the really important stuff starts to show, make sure there are usually people in the way to block the view.
10) Figure out a way to hide the 'doctors' identities. Maybe use some kind of radiation or environment suit, that looks like they are protecting themsevles from exposure to the alien. Hope no one notices they don't have portable air supplies and are still breathing the room air anyways.

Not that I can prove anything about the video link you posted. But, if I were to fake it, this is some of the stuff I would do...

You forgot one:

11) Assume no one will bother to check the history of your film stock and therefore use a film stock not in use at the alleged time of the filming.

[Garrette]

Originally Posted by Space_Ed

No i havnt given up on it i just havnt found where i saw them yet. I've been busy you know being a real person with a life and all...

Thanks for your reply. I'll look it all over properly. The alien autopsy uhuh and dan ackroyd uhuh some of those i just posted but i know theres nothing there evidence wise. As for what you agree is a missile I could well be being a dumbass.

Thanks for posting this.

For others' benefits: DOC sent this to me as a pm. I recommended he post it on this thread for everyone so that lurkers will know that what he is linking to is not intended as actual evidence.

[Denver]

Originally Posted by Garrette

You forgot one:

11) Assume no one will bother to check the history of your film stock and therefore use a film stock not in use at the alleged time of the filming.

I did see that reference in your post, but I didn't forget to put it in. I didn't put it in because, seriously, my list was the list of things I would have thought of. I would not have thought of messing with the film stock. I'm not that sophistimicated!