"Abductions" DO NOT exist :scientists should fight this crap,like Carl Sagan did
etherman at mdc.net
Sun Apr 26 12:58:50 EST 1998
twitchb at worldnet.att.net wrote in message
<6hqtfm$j3c at bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>...
>"Etherman" <etherman at mdc.net> wrote:
>>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> wrote:
>>>>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 have
>>>been seeing little faces in dream-like states for quite a few years now.
>>>Check your copy of the Malleus Maleficarum for a rough overview of things
>>>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.
>Would you please post some evidence for this statement?
I suupose that if you believe that all sensory input is illusory
then there is no evidence that will convince you otherwise.
However I assume that you believe you're own eyes.
>>>Now, if you're interested in the root cause of 'abductions' start taking
>>>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 fact that all of the abductee's stories don't agree like
>we are normally told that they do is one good piece of
>evidence that they aren't real.
Bull. As you know people who see the same thing don't always
agree on every detail. Contradiction occur even when people
are seeing real events.
>>>>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 at
>>>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
>Depends on whom you ask.
Exactly. Saying that abductions are the same as succubi is no explanation
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