Sure, but it will be:
Posted on 06/24/2006 9:27:30 AM PDT by BenLurkin
Many have been interviewed immediately.
Many others have written their own journal narratives immediately upon the conclusion of their experiences--and WITHOUT hypnonsis.
Things are not yet as predictable as that.
And, I suspect that when these things become common-place, well known, I'll be . . . unavailable . . . occupied intensely or off planet in one way or another.
But by then, you won't need me along for any reason anyway. Such things will be commonly in the skies and the news.
I just don't know when.
And, it's fascinating that government sources in the last year have begun to say they don't believe that it will ever be DISCLOSED--some say at all--some say fully.
I think they are wrong. We shall see.
Okie dokie, then.
If something is there, I want to hit it with a hammer, look at it under a microscope, weigh it, and determine what it is.
If I can't do that, it's indistinguishable from an overactive imagination.
- - - - -
Ahhh, I think this is a major difference.
Dimmer switches are fine for me. I don't have to have the light 100% on or 100% off to tell the difference between no light and some light.
And, I think such an insistance on all or nothing in such matters of discrimminating between realities, evidence facts and factors . . . .
to be very unscientific, illogical and unwise.
But, it's a common Evangelical Fundamentalist stance. So, am pretty familiar with such a stance. Used to be overwhelmingly that way on a number of issues myself.
If there were really UFOs out there, they would have conquered us and either enslaved us or eaten us.
You don't let the competition develop to a position where they can threaten you.
That's why we're so concerned about Iran.
And you take even less chances with some alien species.
- - - - -
Sounds like that all or nothing thinking again, to me.
Or perhaps unimaginative. There are a number of logical possibilities otherwise.
We all go through life doing what seems right to us. Everyone's mileage varies.
I want firm answers before I declare I believe in something. Others don't require that.
It's a personality issue, and possibly a faith issue. Doesn't make you wrong or right. Just makes you different from me.
We all go through life doing what seems right to us. Everyone's mileage varies.
I want firm answers before I declare I believe in something. Others don't require that.
It's a personality issue, and possibly a faith issue. Doesn't make you wrong or right. Just makes you different from me.
- - - - - -
VERY WELL SAID. Thanks.
BTW, I rather enjoy/like you, too.
OK.
I'll bite.
What is a TYPE II error?
I think another name for it is sanity.
I suspect one can't see something if they don't expect it to be there.
It's like love.
I can't prove it exists, but I know it does.
Person B, not expecting a flying saucer, is much less likely to see a saucer when faced with an unknown or ambiguous visual stimulus.
Absolutely yuck!
I'm just glad I haven't met one.
;-)
Agreed. Yuck.
Did you find the def of TYPE II ERROR yet?
Post # . . . 114
TYPE II ERROR = BELIEF THAT NOTHING IS THERE, WHEN, IN FACT, SOMETHING !IS! THERE.
TYPE I = belief that something is there WHEN, IN FACT, NOTHING is there.
It can get tricky with the null hypothesis putting it into English and keeping it straight.
js1138--are you always so sweet, kind and lauditory regarding those who have a different construction on reality than yours?
We all have our limits. My limit is about one of your threads per year.
What type of error is it to build an entire, detailed mythology around the miscellaneous observations of unidentified phenomena?
No, Ben, I don't think so.
Many people are out for afternoons or evenings driving or having a picnic or doing other recreational things where they expect absolutely nothing out of the ordinary. Most people seeing UFO's--especially up close and personal--expected nothing of the kind--actually--nothing at all.
They weren't star gazing. They weren't looking for airplanes in the sky. They weren't bird watching. They weren't looking at clouds and labeling them. They weren't looking for contrails. They weren't really paying much attention to the sky at all--until more or less forced to--by the shadow or huge image or what have you of the UFO looming into their field of vision.
WHEN SOMETHING TAKES OUT 40-70% OF THE VISUAL FIELD, IT'S A BIT HARD TO IGNORE. All the more so when such a huge something is SILENT and LESS than 300-500 feet away.
Sometimes, in quite a number of cases, the distance to the underside of the craft directly overhead of the viewer is less than 100 feet. I believe there are some cases of teens throwing rocks at such a close overhead craft and either hitting the craft or hitting some kind of force field close to the craft.
You can call that swamp gas if you wish. I wouldn't dare insult them so.
When a large craft like that is close enough to see small details of the underside . . . mentally filling in fuzzy distant images with a wild imagination just doesn't cut it as an explanation.
And to assert that it does is a very different kind of hubris than I want anything to do with.
And, reportedly in some to most flight modes, the propulsion physics have such a light bending effect that sharp photographs are highly problematic at best.
We all have our limits. My limit is about one of your threads per year.
What type of error is it to build an entire, detailed mythology around the miscellaneous observations of unidentified phenomena?
- - - -
1. I don't recall showing up at your doorstep--via UFO or otherwise--and holding a gun to your head to read one of "my" threads.
2. The Scroll buttons and page down buttons on most functioning computers work well. I don't recall cutting your hands off so short you couldn't use yours.
3. "What type of error is it to build an entire, detailed mythology"
Evidently You are 1,000% convinced that your construction on reality has 0.000000% mythology involved in it.
I'm of a very different opinion regarding your construction on reality.
We all see through a glass darkly. None of us have it 100% correct.
From what I've seen, I'll stack my interpretation of complex, mysterious, puzzling, confusing, paradoxical, black ops etc. phenomena up against yours most any day. Time will tell who has predicted most accurately about "objective" reality--as though there were such.
4. "around the miscellaneous observations"
I suppose it depends on one's definition of "miscellaneous."
The phenomena no longer fit that definition, to me. There are pretty rigorous lists of criteria at various organizations for classifying all kind of UFO type phenomena. And, there's a growing movement afoot to collect forensics type evidence from sites, including abductions.
You use "miscellaneous" dismissively. Doesn't fit the phenomena to use it as you do. I realize that you don't seem all that concerned with fitting your words or notions to the objective facts of the phenomena but one can hope--however vainly.
5 "of unidentified phenomena?"
Even "unidentified" is becoming and interesting word in terms of the phenomena. Craft are being categorized and labeled with improving precision. ET body types are being categorized and labeled with improving precision. Smells and other features of the interiors of large craft are being categorized and labeled with improving precision.
There's an increasing effort to learn distinctions, if there are and most experts think there are, between USA built and operated craft vs bona fide ET similar type craft. And, folks are trying to start pinning down black ops disinformation human abductions of people pretending to be ET's abducting people vs ET's really abducting people.
But, hey, enjoy your construction on reality. I'm sure it helps you sleep better at nights than some abductees do.
I do encourage you to broaden your horizons; expand your perceptive skills and discrimmination skills and maximize your capacity to handle ambiguity and complexity. Increasingly in this era, such expansions of one's conscioiusness and personhood may be critical to living sanely in anything remotely close to balance . . . and may even end up being crucial in determining the difference between issues, facts, factors in various situations such that one can continue living vs being wiped out needlessly in such convoluted complexities.
And, all-in-all, I'd much rather you live as long as possible.
Sure, but it will be:
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.