1528 replies to this topic

[Slave2Fate]

synchronomy, on 21 November 2012 - 03:45 PM, said:

It amazes me that so called (self-professed) experts get away with crap like this.
There is an abundance of hustlers, cheats, and conmen associated with UFO's, conspiracy theories, and black-ops myths.
And when I say abundance, I mean that the vast majority of them are lying just to make cash.
They are even permitted to publish their books as "non-fiction".
As long as the subject is dominated by twits like this perpetuating and creating falsehoods, we will never be able to determine the truth in anything.
Just take a look at the Hoagland video I submitted a few posts back.  He claims there are huge structures built within the rings of Saturn.  He even says that due to the low gravity environment, "they could be built using spaghetti".
And the audience sits there silently taking it all in as facts.
It makes me sick.

I think that most of the people who buy into this obvious nonsense have a fantasy prone personality.

Quote

Fantasy prone personality (FPP) is a disposition or personality trait in which a person experiences a lifelong extensive and deep involvement in fantasy.^[1] This disposition is an attempt, at least in part, to better describe the popular term "overactive imagination".^[2] An individual with this trait (termed a fantasizer) may have difficulty differentiating between fantasy and reality and may experience hallucinations, as well as self-suggested psychosomatic symptoms. Three closely related psychological constructs are daydreaming, absorption and eidetic memory.

Wilson and Barber also put forth 14 characteristics in their 1981 study. They require having six or more of these traits to be characterised as "fantasy prone." These are:

• excellent hypnotic subject
  
• having imaginary friends as child
  
• fantasizing often as child
  
• having an actual fantasy identity
  
• experiencing imagined sensations as real
  
• having vivid sensory perceptions
  
• reliving past experiences
  
• claiming psychic powers
  
• having out-of-body experiences
  
• receiving information from higher powers, spirits, intelligences
  
• involved in "healing"
  
• encountered apparitions
  
• hypnogogic hallucinations (waking dreams)
  
• seeing hypnogogic hallucinations (ghosts, aliens, etc.)^[8]

Subsequent studies have recorded additional potential features:

• claiming to have been abducted by aliens
  
• believes they can receive sexual satisfaction without any stimulation
  
• believes they have mystical healing and can do great things^[9]

http://en.wikipedia....one_personality

[psyche101]

quillius, on 21 November 2012 - 10:25 AM, said:

Hey Psyche,

I did post the link in a previous post
anyhow here it is again  http://www.enterpris...com/dtran4.html

I think Edgar deals with Hoagland very well throughout and shows that Edgar is not easily fooled in and that he is careful with his words...

Thanks mate. I found it myself, but I like links with your posts as they are always very much worth the read I find.

I agree, I thought Dr Mitchell held his own very well. Much better than the Bill Nye interview IMHO.

quillius, on 21 November 2012 - 10:30 AM, said:

yes I agree, its what I am trying to say. He finishes interview with Kerrang.......then did the producer phone NASA and ask for confirmation? confirmation of what? Edgar doesnt say anything about NASA involvement or cover up so how and why did the producer decide to call NASA?

if he really did that is, but it does make sense as to why NASA made any sort of statement following the interview.

Surely NASA's involvement is due to the large number of assumptions made in error about the Source of Edgar's information. As per the many links MacGuffin left, reporters are more than willing to take that leap and make the link to NASA themselves. We can see ourselves that many posters were under the impression that Edgar implicated NASA when he had not.

quillius, on 21 November 2012 - 10:37 AM, said:

no I dont think Edgar thought that, however I did take his response as if you are correct in what you say then yes it is interesting use of language....however as Jim pointed out, the contextual key parts were removed to create his point...very naughty indeed. And no I dont give him an ounce of credence  but will check most things out before dismissing them....maybe once I am twenty years into the study I may make more 'rash' evaluations on things said by certain people.

As opposed to 20 or more years of UFO chasing, my interest in astronomy negates Hoagland's claims at face value. They make absolutely no sense, and I suspect that 99.9% of astronomers would be able to do little more than chuckle at Hoagland's suggestions.

[mcrom901]

Slave2Fate, on 21 November 2012 - 11:41 PM, said:

I think that most of the people who buy into this obvious nonsense have a fantasy prone personality.

http://en.wikipedia....one_personality

i wonder how precise memory recall (photographic memory) could lead to fantasizing...

[Colonel Rhuairidh]

Slave2Fate, on 21 November 2012 - 11:41 PM, said:

I think that most of the people who buy into this obvious nonsense have a fantasy prone personality.




http://en.wikipedia....one_personality

And what's wrong with any of those, i ask?
Particularly when we come to the supplementary characterististics.:

• claiming to have been abducted by aliens
  
• believes they can receive sexual satisfaction without any stimulation
  
• believes they have mystical healing and can do great things^[9]

[Slave2Fate]

747400, on 22 November 2012 - 08:05 AM, said:

And what's wrong with any of those, i ask?
Particularly when we come to the supplementary characterististics.:

• claiming to have been abducted by aliens
  
• believes they can receive sexual satisfaction without any stimulation
  
• believes they have mystical healing and can do great things^[9]

I never said anything was wrong with any of those characteristics individually. When a person exhibits several of them (6 or more according to the Wilson and Barber study) then it can become a detriment. With the recent invasion of UFOlogy by the new agers who rather vocally promote many of the characteristics listed, it seems that FPP could be a relatively large percentage of UFOlogy. They would be the ones most likely to believe the Sitchins and Hoaglands of the world in my opinion.

Edited by Slave2Fate, 22 November 2012 - 11:12 AM.

[Lilly]

psyche101, on 22 November 2012 - 12:52 AM, said:

....my interest in astronomy negates Hoagland's claims at face value. They make absolutely no sense, and I suspect that 99.9% of astronomers would be able to do little more than chuckle at Hoagland's suggestions.

Oh, I think most astronomers do more than chuckle at Mr. Hoagland. I suspect comments like, "What a load of BS" are fairly common.

[badeskov]

Lilly, on 22 November 2012 - 11:19 AM, said:

Oh, I think most astronomers do more than chuckle at Mr. Hoagland. I suspect comments like, "What a load of BS" are fairly common.

Frankly, I don't even think that "most astronomers" give Mr. Hoagland so much attention as to even bother....

Cheers,
Badeskov

[quillius]

psyche101, on 22 November 2012 - 12:52 AM, said:

Thanks mate. I found it myself, but I like links with your posts as they are always very much worth the read I find.

I agree, I thought Dr Mitchell held his own very well. Much better than the Bill Nye interview IMHO.

Surely NASA's involvement is due to the large number of assumptions made in error about the Source of Edgar's information. As per the many links MacGuffin left, reporters are more than willing to take that leap and make the link to NASA themselves. We can see ourselves that many posters were under the impression that Edgar implicated NASA when he had not.

As opposed to 20 or more years of UFO chasing, my interest in astronomy negates Hoagland's claims at face value. They make absolutely no sense, and I suspect that 99.9% of astronomers would be able to do little more than chuckle at Hoagland's suggestions.

Well yes, NASA seem to have only responded to a question posed by the producer of the Kerrang radio show. I can only see this part that would have him involve NASA:

Margerrison:  DO YOU THINK OTHER PEOPLE WHO WERE INVOLVED WITH THE MOON LANDINGS KNOW ABOUT THIS?
Mitchell:  Some of them do. But again, like other people, if you are interested enough to dig into it and want to know about it, you can know about it.

I can picture the call to NASA now....''we have just interviewed Edgar Mitchell who has claimed that alien contact is real and there has been a cover up''. NASA then put out a statement that they do not agree with Edgars 'opinion on this and have no knowledge about UFO's....

from here the press spiraled out of control and this whole episode now read as Mitchell says ET is real and that NASA and the Government have been covering it up.....NASA denies allegations...

(these reporters are indeed lazy at best dishonest at worst....(reminds me of a reporter called Joe )



of course the bottom line is that he may have meant people from NASA when he mentions moon landings however he quite clearly says this is not the case in the later interviews....

(although I admit to being one of those thinking that he did 'loosly implicate people at NASA.....I was obviously wrong so Boon was right not to accept the compromise offered )

[mcrom901]

STS077-301-1....

Edited by mcrom901, 22 November 2012 - 04:07 PM.

[hammerclaw]

Wow. 2012, and all we still get are blurry blotches and points of light for pictures, and over fertile imaginations to determine what they are. Are they satellites, orbital debris, Marley's Ghost, or Elites flying Covenant scout ships? Since we can only reference our imaginations, they can be anything!

[mcrom901]

hammerclaw, on 22 November 2012 - 04:09 PM, said:

all we still get are blurry blotches and points of light for pictures,

[quillius]

mcrom901, on 22 November 2012 - 04:21 PM, said:

Flares maybe?

[mcrom901]

quillius, on 22 November 2012 - 04:23 PM, said:

Flares maybe?

hiya quillius... i was havin a bit of fun there... are u referring to the sts77 pic i posted above?

i dunno what it is... could be.debris *cough* blackops...



http://www.abovetops...hread470427/pg1

[TheMacGuffin]

hammerclaw, on 22 November 2012 - 04:09 PM, said:

Wow. 2012, and all we still get are blurry blotches and points of light for pictures, and over fertile imaginations to determine what they are. Are they satellites, orbital debris, Marley's Ghost, or Elites flying Covenant scout ships? Since we can only reference our imaginations, they can be anything!

There are a number of reports that are unidentified and in fact cannot be identified as anything, yet they exist just the same.  Jeff Challender found many of them on teh space shuttle missions as well.

[quillius]

mcrom901, on 22 November 2012 - 04:54 PM, said:

hiya quillius... i was havin a bit of fun there... are u referring to the sts77 pic i posted above?

i dunno what it is... could be.debris *cough* blackops...

http://www.abovetops...hread470427/pg1

no I was meaning the Prometheus trailer....just trying to be a little sarcastic and humorous (obviously failing miserably)

as for the sts pics..........ever considered the blackops on ufo type craft being named 'debris' wouldnt that be interesting?

Edited by quillius, 22 November 2012 - 05:06 PM.