"Abductions" DO NOT exist :scientists should fight this crap,like Carl Sagan did
Tomeleven at aol.com
Wed Apr 29 15:41:42 EST 1998
Love Lies Squealing <Love@[nospam]corrode.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
<355b1836.4842097 at news.demon.co.uk>...
> On 23 Apr 1998 19:22:25 GMT, "Tom Ray" <Tomeleven at aol.com> wrote:
> >The "Communion model" along with the "close encounters" model were based
> >upon reports by alleged "abductees" BEFORE the book or the movie came
> Jaques Vallee was the advisor on CE3K, and based the aliens on a couple
> encounters that he liked. The Communion alien cover was produced based
> CE3K, and not the contents of the novel.
> I'm not playing with the timeline, and referring to the third person is
> slightly more rude that calling me names.
I have been reading of such accounts since the 1960's, and these same
beings have been reported since way back then.
I use third person, because I do not want to "attack" any one particular
person, but only those who suggest that reports from the sixties and early
seventies were inspired by images from the late seventies.--- This suggests
that an underlying "hysteria" on the part of those who cant handle the IDEA
of ET's tends to adversly affect the "logic" they use to "deny" the
I will, however, admit that many reports( but not necessarily all) AFTER
"CE3" (1977), and "Communion" may have been inspired by the movie and the
book, but we still have a problem with the pre-CE3 reports which are quite
numerous and consistent. CE3 also did not include the "physical exams".
Besides, In my previous posts, I suggest that there are MORE plausible
prosaic "explainations" (other than space aliens) that could better account
for MORE aspects of the reports than the standard "Pusedo Skeptic" put
downs, of "dreams" and the " influence of the popular media".
With "dreams" there is an unstated suggestion of the necessity of some
sort of "paranormal" mind link so that the reports match to the sufficient
With the "media Image" we have to accept that many of the "victims"
were influenced by something that wasnt widley publicised untill AFTER the
I suspose that an emotionally driven person despirate for a quick
"explainition" to "sweep the problem under the rug" could "buy" the
explainations and ignore the logical inconsistancies, but "it wont fly" for
any one who is genuinely interested in what may be really going on.
I can accept the idea of real "space aliens" should the need arise, but
there is no need to do so when a prosaic explaination will account for the
aspects of the reports. "Hoaxes" and "secret(and unethical) government
experiments", for example make more sense than hundreds of unrelated people
simply "imagining" or "dreaming" the SAME things.-----My point is , IF you
are going to be skeptical, at least come up with plausible alternitive
More information about the Neur-sci