"Abductions" DO NOT exist :scientists should, like Carl Sagan did
F. Frank LeFever
flefever at ix.netcom.com
Thu Apr 23 22:26:04 EST 1998
Waiting for a critical review of the exchange below:
In <353fb853.0 at news.netway.com> "Etherman" <etherman at mdc.net> writes:
>Love Lies Squealing wrote in message
<35412108.15460428 at news.demon.co.uk>...
>>On Mon, 20 Apr 1998 19:53:21 -0400, "Etherman" <etherman at mdc.net>
>>>Again, Mr. Pongpa, please provide evidence that the "abduction"
>>>phenomena is purely psychological. How long will my requests
>>>to pseudoskeptics be ignored?
>>For as long as it takes for the rosy dawn of realisation that people
>>been seeing little faces in dream-like states for quite a few years
>>Check your copy of the Malleus Maleficarum for a rough overview of
>>a mere five centuries ago (300 years before McDonalds!)
>Sure, people have been seeing lots of things for different reasons.
>it's because what they see is really there.
>>Now, if you're interested in the root cause of 'abductions' start
>>really good look at what is peddled out there as truth. Start with
>>foot-doctors and Ceto.
>What evidence do you have that the root cause of abductions is related
>to media representations of abductions?
>>>The problem is that Sagan himself didn't have any reasonable theory
>>>about abductions. It's difficult to educate the public when you're
>>>as in the dark as they are.
>>Actually he came up with one single interesting item that should be
>>forefront of anyones investigations into these things;
>>Succubi and Incubi.
>That's not a theory. I completely agree that similarities exist. Not
>just with succubi and incubi, but with faeries, angels, demons, etc.
>Instead we have the obvious question. What are succubi and incubi
>The Internet's sole purpose is to get porn and
>bomb making plans into the hands of children.
>etherman at mdc.net
More information about the Neur-sci