There are certain blog posts, but mainly You Tube videos, that are so promising but are only seemingly "in depth" to those who have no idea.
The lack of any real research on the topic of on board experiences/ "abductions" is glaringly obvious and the grasping at straws to explain away a case. Mentioning that Dr Leo Sprinkle may have "introduced two little men" and so influenced a percipient to include this in their testimony to introduce that angle in an hypnotic session is slanderous.
I have often been accused of being a debunker when I am a sceptic and follow the evidence. I found out a decade before it was touted around on the outskirts of Ufology, that Budd Hopkins was guilty of evidence tampering and corrupting testimony. Ditto David Jacobs and even, and it took some digging, John Mack. Men I had championed and in Hopkins' case even contributed to his work financially.
Anyone who has read the first of the CE3K/AE books, UFO Contact? Looking At The Evidence For Alien Visitation, will know that I looked deeply into not just alleged on board experiences but also those involved in the investigation of them. It did not paint a pretty picture.
I concentrated on Dr. Leo R Sprinkle at one point since, if I could prove he was proceeding somehow in a way that altered or added to testimony then I could start to dismiss cases he had worked on. But it turned out that he was the only prominent person in these cases who could not be faulted. He was a professional psychologist rather than a Ufologist and throughout his career his primary concern (criticised by some in Ufology who wanted the "big breakthroughs") were the percipients. I have read some of his archived interviews and at no point does he add or suggest things. The transcripts in his official archives -typed from recordings my someone other than Sprinkle- are, honestly, very dry and could be considered boring (if not for the subject). If you want to find fault in a case then Sprinkle is not it.
Then there are aspects of on board cases (or "abductions") that are used to indicate "something off" and if you know the subject, and I am in my 50th year of studying it, it is like a giant flashing neon exclamation mark. It shows that the person mentioning or writing about these aspects has not carried out any real research but are picking and choosing from online work or works of less than credible standards. This I have gone into before so I will not bore on it again.
One aspect in these cases, whether it involves a family group or group of friends (and it is interesting that the multiple percipient cases are always dodge around) we hear of someone spotting an odd light or "light on a very low aircraft" and then there is a physical "bump" of the car (as though going over speed bumps) or the electrics cut out -often both. One person will recall looking around to the passengers and finding one missing but then (with distorted time) double checking, find that person/child is now present. It is an aspect that even many Ufologists are unaware of because they even ignore the whole "Grey syndrome" and would sooner chase around for months after a light in the sky.
We then have quotes or interviews with "veteran researchers" who are in the main either borderline debunkers when it comes to CE3K/AE cases or state: "I've been in Ufology 30 years and I still don't understand what these little men reports are about". Honestly, if you have not looked at any CE3Ks in 30 years you are NOT a researcher/investigator and if you say "I still don't understand what these little men reports are about" you are a triple dumb ass because not all reports are of "The little guys" and if you are really, truly convinced that UFOs are constructed craft of some type who or what do you think operate/control them -Benny the Bookworm?
If you are going to stick your nose and blow hot air or write crap at least act like you have a brain and RESEARCH the subject and not by reading trash books by known grifters and fakers.
My first book was intended to totally debunk (with evidence) these cases and I dug into the Ufologist and debunkers claims and counter claims and the results were a shock to me. No, we do not have 100% evidence of any sort of visitation and as Michio Kaku has stated before: anyone on board any such object should try to steal something that we can at least analyze. What we have are strong anecdotal evidence: multiple percipients, physiological and psychological effects, physiological evidence as well as, in some cases, confirmation in some way (observation usually) by one or more independent observers.
I chose some of the best for the book series and all are fully referenced. They are there to be peer reviewed or followed up on by credible researchers not the chuckling "oh isn't it all so silly" self claimed "veteran researchers".
No comments:
Post a Comment