Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [LeftLibertarian2] Re: Alien abductions

Expand Messages
  • Dan
    I don t completely disagree. Without independent lines of evidence, it seems far less likely. Since you believe there are independent lines of evidence
    Message 1 of 1143 , Mar 1, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      I don't completely disagree. Without independent lines of evidence, it seems far less likely. Since you believe there are independent lines of evidence (namely, that UFO sightings are that evidence), it's not surprising that you'd take that view and not unreasonable.

      Back to abductions, though. There are other possibilities that would not make them dream-like experiences. One is that something is being done to these people, but by other people. And I don't mean something like a brutal rape leading to some sort of constructed memory. I mean something along the lines of, say, a government agency or a private group running experiments. And while I'm just offering this as a possibility -- one I don't believe -- it seems it would have more independent evidence backing it. After all, I think everyone would agree that governments and even private groups have carried out what we would consider unethical experiments.

      Regards,

      Dan

      From: Jeff Olson <jlolson53@...>
      To: LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Wednesday, February 29, 2012 5:29 PM
      Subject: Re: [LeftLibertarian2] Re: Alien abductions

       
      Well, one's view of the possibility of abductions hinges, as always, on one's "belief premises."

      Since I believe there is an ET presence here, that opens up the possibility of various behaviors, including field biology-type operations.  If your premise is no-ET presence, then of course abductions are a non-starter.

      I'm agnostic about the so-called abduction phenomenon because - unlike for UFOs - hard evidence, or evidence of any sort, appears to be almost entirely lacking.  But then I haven't looked into it much, so I don't know for sure.  

      JO 

      On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 3:42 PM, Dan <dan_ust@...> wrote: 
      Well, they often believe they've been really abducted by aliens -- or by non-human beings. I think that's almost certainly not the case.

      I also don't think it's impossible for people to have similar nightmares or other mental states. And dreams and dreamlike states seem to have very similar formal features -- such as intense perceptions, uncertain time, jumbling of the order of events, geography, and identity, and intense emotions or feelings. (In fact, much recent dream research has focused on the formal similarities and ignored the content because the latter has been, it seems, mostly a dead end in understanding what's going on here.)

      One must also be aware, too, that in a large population, there will be many coincidences. If ten people claim they were abducted in last month out of a population of twenty, I'd say that's strong evidence for some event happening to all of them. But if the same ten are ten out of a population of millions, then we do have to wonder about coincidence as opposed to external cause, no?

      Regards,

      Dan
    • Jeff Olson
      Thanks a lot for being so fucking agreeable. JO ;) ... From: James To: LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 6:25 PM Subject:
      Message 1143 of 1143 , Mar 13, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        Thanks a lot for being so fucking agreeable.
         
        JO ;)
         
         
        ----- Original Message -----
        From: James
        Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 6:25 PM
        Subject: [LeftLibertarian2] 9-11 United 93

         

        I agree that his actions do nothing to support your beliefs about 9-11.

        --- In LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com, Jeff Olson <jlolson53@...> wrote:
        >
        > I'm not reaching for anything. His behavior doesn't particularly support
        > my beliefs about 9/11 (nor does it not support it).
        >
        > Yeah, like those are the choices: sit there like a dolt while precious
        > minutes tick by OR run screaming from the room.
        >
        > JO
        >
        > On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 11:44 PM, James <jeo1@...> wrote:
        >
        > > **
        > >
        > >
        > > Panicked as in indecisive, nervous and tentative.
        > >
        > > Not everyone, especially a President knowing he is on video, runs around
        > > screaming when they experience panic or shock.
        > >
        > > I think you are reaching here, again, to see what you want to see but
        > > we've been down this road.
        > >
        > >
        > > --- In LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com, Jeff Olson <jlolson53@> wrote:
        > > >
        > > > Wow - he didn't look any panicked person I ever saw. If anything he
        > > struck
        > > > me as rather preoccupied - a bit distracted.
        > > >
        > > > But reading another person's emotions can be tricky. Still, I consider
        > > his
        > > > response to be bizarre.
        > > >
        > > > Jeff O.
        > > >
        > > > On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 11:25 PM, James <jeo1@> wrote:
        > > >
        > > > > **
        > >
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > > More consistent with being surprised. He was confused and I think, on
        > > the
        > > > > edge of panic. Recall he was a relatively new President.
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > > --- In LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com, "Nathan Byrd" <nfactor13@>
        > > > > wrote:
        > > > > >
        > > > > > Do you see his behavior as more consistent with knowing what would
        > > > > happen ahead of time or more consistent with being surprised by it?
        > > > > >
        > > > > > As for straightening him out, if you were on his staff, wouldn't you
        > > > > have given up on that a while before then?
        > > > > >
        > > > > > Nathan
        > > > > >
        > > > > > --- In LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com, Jeff Olson <jlolson53@>
        > > wrote:
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > Well, maybe, but his behavior overall was bizarre on that morning
        > > - he
        > > > > should've hightailed it to his limo the instant he heard about the
        > > second
        > > > > crash - and he's told that nonsensical story about seeing the first
        > > crash
        > > > > several times. You would think someone in his staff would've tried to
        > > > > straighten him out.
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > JO
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 6:08 PM, Nathan Byrd <nfactor13@> wrote:
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > **
        > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > Memory is a process of reconstruction. This kind of thing happens
        > > > > all the
        > > > > > > > time, and I don't find it at all unusual that Bush said that (or
        > > > > that he
        > > > > > > > believed it at the time he said it).
        > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > Nathan
        > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > --- In LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com, Jeff Olson <jlolson53@>
        > > > > wrote:
        > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > Well, that was Norm Minetta who said Cheney gave a stand-down
        > > > > order, not
        > > > > > > > I;
        > > > > > > > > and it appeared to refer to the plane or whatever was
        > > approaching
        > > > > the
        > > > > > > > > Pentagon. This was about thirty minutes after the Twin Tower
        > > > > impacts.
        > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > Bush also issued the strange and possibly telling lie that he'd
        > > > > observed
        > > > > > > > a
        > > > > > > > > plane crash into the north tower (first crash, Flight 11):
        > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > " "I was sitting outside the classroom and I saw an airplane
        > > hit
        > > > > the
        > > > > > > > tower.
        > > > > > > > > The TV was on." [CNN,
        > > > > > > > > 12/4/01<http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0112/04/se.04.html>]
        > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > "When we walked into the classroom, I had seen this plane fly
        > > into
        > > > > the
        > > > > > > > > first building." [White House,
        > > > > > > > > 1/5/02<
        > > > > > > >
        > > > >
        > > http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2002/01/20020105-3.html
        > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > ]."
        > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > But there was no coverage of the first crash on TV, and he
        > > wasn't
        > > > > > > > watching
        > > > > > > > > TV in the classroom, so his claim must be false. So why did he
        > > lie
        > > > > like
        > > > > > > > > this? I'm still scratching my head about that.
        > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > JO
        > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 11:44 AM, James <jeo1@> wrote:
        > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > **
        > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > Jeff wrote that eyewitnesses saw what looked like missiles
        > > and
        > > > > that the
        > > > > > > > > > debris was scattered over a larger period than would have
        > > been
        > > > > expected
        > > > > > > > > > with a crash in a field.
        > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > I just suspect a shoot down because there IS evidence Cheney
        > > > > gave a
        > > > > > > > shoot
        > > > > > > > > > down order (yet Jeff says Cheney told gave a "stand down"
        > > > > order). Bush
        > > > > > > > also
        > > > > > > > > > is said to have given a shoot down order but this was of
        > > course
        > > > > AFTER
        > > > > > > > the
        > > > > > > > > > WTC collisions (a shoot down order before that would have
        > > been
        > > > > > > > > > preposterous).
        > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > Also the conflicting narratives about this plane, first the
        > > > > passengers
        > > > > > > > > > were heroes for deliberately crashing the plane, etc.
        > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > So I suspect a shoot down, and always have. Haven't
        > > researched
        > > > > it and
        > > > > > > > not
        > > > > > > > > > sure it matters all that much, other than it would be an
        > > example
        > > > > of
        > > > > > > > another
        > > > > > > > > > gov't lie.
        > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > --- In LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com, Dan <dan_ust@>
        > > wrote:
        > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > > I'm no scholar of that flight, but is there any evidence
        > > for it
        > > > > > > > actually
        > > > > > > > > > being shot down, such as someone spotting fighters en route
        > > to
        > > > > it or
        > > > > > > > > > explosives residue in the wreckage?
        > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > > Regards,
        > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > > Dan
        > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________
        > > > > > > > > > > From: James <jeo1@>
        > > > > > > > > > > To: LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com
        > > > > > > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, March 7, 2012 1:14 PM
        > > > > > > > > > > Subject: [LeftLibertarian2] 9-11
        > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > > I don't agree with your implication or even
        > > characterization
        > > > > here
        > > > > > > > that
        > > > > > > > > > some of us are falling victim to the "Domino Theory Fallacy".
        > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > > I'm very skeptical of gov't claims including 9-11. I was
        > > the
        > > > > first
        > > > > > > > one
        > > > > > > > > > here positing that perhaps the PA was shot down by gov't, for
        > > > > example.
        > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > > Nor do I have any trouble separating the question of Jesus'
        > > > > existence
        > > > > > > > > > from the rest of the Christian narrative.
        > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > > Perhaps some others fit what you describe, but I don't.
        > > And I
        > > > > haven't
        > > > > > > > > > seen evidence that others here are adhering to this logical
        > > > > fallacy
        > > > > > > > either.
        > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > > --- In LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com, Jeff Olson
        > > > > <jlolson53@>
        > > > > > > > wrote:
        > > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > > > Since I'm having so much fun naming logical fallacies, I
        > > > > thought
        > > > > > > > I'd
        > > > > > > > > > add
        > > > > > > > > > > > another which I think is relevant to these kinds of
        > > > > discussions
        > > > > > > > > > > > (discussions where evidence and arguments are being
        > > assessed
        > > > > > > > regarding
        > > > > > > > > > > > events that comprise many unclear elements).
        > > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > > > I'll call this one The Domino Theory Fallacy (people are
        > > > > welcome to
        > > > > > > > > > improve
        > > > > > > > > > > > on these names, btw! ;). The Domino Theory Fallacy
        > > consists
        > > > > of
        > > > > > > > > > believing
        > > > > > > > > > > > that should you grant someone's first premise that you
        > > must
        > > > > share
        > > > > > > > their
        > > > > > > > > > > > conclusions. Therefore, regardless of how logically
        > > sound and
        > > > > > > > warranted
        > > > > > > > > > > > the first premise may be, one should not accept it
        > > because
        > > > > then,
        > > > > > > > like
        > > > > > > > > > the
        > > > > > > > > > > > first domino causing all the others to fall, all one's
        > > other
        > > > > > > > objections
        > > > > > > > > > > > will fall and you'll be compelled to accept the entirety
        > > of
        > > > > your
        > > > > > > > > > opponent's
        > > > > > > > > > > > position.
        > > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > > > I think this often happens in discussions of 9/11 - and
        > > > > perhaps
        > > > > > > > even in
        > > > > > > > > > > > those about the historicity of Jesus. Some may be
        > > unwilling
        > > > > to
        > > > > > > > accept
        > > > > > > > > > that
        > > > > > > > > > > > Jesus was a real historical figure because that's the
        > > first
        > > > > domino
        > > > > > > > > > toward
        > > > > > > > > > > > other objectionable beliefs - much like the fall of South
        > > > > Vietnam
        > > > > > > > to
        > > > > > > > > > > > communists would cause all the other adjoining countries
        > > to
        > > > > fall to
        > > > > > > > > > > > communism as well. ;)
        > > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > > > With 9/11, the clearly warranted first step of being
        > > > > skeptical of
        > > > > > > > > > > > government claims is viewed as a step toward accepting a
        > > > > massive
        > > > > > > > > > conspiracy
        > > > > > > > > > > > by government and private actors. Thus, this clearly
        > > > > warranted
        > > > > > > > > > skepticism
        > > > > > > > > > > > is rejected. The Domino Theory Fallacy in spades.
        > > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > > > Someone who is NOT committing this fallacy is Dan Ust. He
        > > > > > > > understands
        > > > > > > > > > > > that being highly skeptical of government claims is the
        > > > > rationally
        > > > > > > > > > > > warranted response, but this does not require him to
        > > accept
        > > > > all the
        > > > > > > > > > > > possible implications that flow from this.
        > > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > > > However, it is true that once you do accept the first
        > > > > premise -
        > > > > > > > that
        > > > > > > > > > > > skepticism is warranted - you do open yourself to other
        > > > > > > > possibilities,
        > > > > > > > > > > > including those involving Reichstag Fire-type false flag
        > > > > > > > operations.
        > > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > > > JO
        > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > >
        > > > > > >
        > > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        >

      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.