F. Frank LeFever flefever at ix.netcom.com
Thu Apr 30 22:15:15 EST 1998


In <354cf13c.17233523 at news.demon.co.uk>
Love@[nospam]corrode.demon.co.uk (Love Lies Squealing) writes: 
>
>On 29 Apr 1998 20:41:42 GMT, "Tom Ray" <Tomeleven at aol.com> wrote: 
>
>[sci.psychology.psychotherapy snipped from the distrib on request]
>
>
>>I have been reading of such accounts since the 1960's, and these same
>>beings have been reported since way back then.
>
>Before the publication of John G Fuller's book?
>
>>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
>>reports.
>
>Oh, I'll give you implicit permission to call me names.  If I know
they're
>coming then they become my problem, so if you feel the need.  This
isn't a
>debating trick, just a small amount of honesty.
>
>>  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".
>
>Given, although my primary point of reference for this one is the John
G
>Fuller book.  Point me towards a physical exam report before this date
if
>you can.
>
>>  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".
>
>The only reason that these become pat answers is that there are huge
>numbers of people that turn-off when you mention 'psychology',
thinking
>there's a bit of a stigma attached in ways that provoke the response,
'I'm
>not mad'.
>
>After that point, the conversation doesn't get much farther. 
Personally
>speaking, I received a handy viewpoint of a Hypnogogic hallucination
when
>a series of sleeping bags on top of my wardrobe became a rather large
and
>utterly convincing dragon.
>
>I sh*t ye not.
>
>I felt the things breath as it gently morphed back into sleeping bags.
>Now classifying this as a 'dream' tends to simplify things to the
point
>where you can call a state of wakefulness a 'dream'.
>
>>   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
>>degree.
>>    With the "media Image" we have to accept that many of the
"victims"
>>were influenced by something that wasnt widley publicised untill
AFTER the
>>event.
>
>I disagree in terms that I haven't seen decent correlations of things
seen
>before CE3K, but this could be due to gaps in my knowledge.  I plead
>fallibility for the moment.
>
>>   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.
>
>Personally, I tend to rail against the organised research undertaken
so
>far as it doesn't really go any farther than justifying the
investigator's
>viewpoint, which is the biggest problem that people facing this thing
come
>up against.  I'm genuinely interested, but some people don't want to
>accept that other people will lie, cheat and steal even if the prisons
are
>full.
>
>>   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
>>explainations.
>
>Oh, there are lots, but this depend on individual cases rather than
>lumping the phenomenon as a whole, which is the frequent argument set
up
>by those that like the idea of promotion.  I agree that something is
going
>on, but I think that Space Aliens is pushing it when you factor in the
>multivarious vagaries of the human mind and it's perceptions of the
world.
>I don't dismiss the idea out of hand, but I wouldn't put money on it.
>
>In fact, the last sentance there is probably indicative of my entire
>standpoint in that I've talked to 'abductees' reasonably and I can't
>dismiss what they think, but often even they aren't completely sure
what
>happened.  If the human that had the experience isn't sure, then I'm
not
>going to assume that they underwent something that I implicitly
>understand.
>
>
>
>L O V E   L I E S   S Q U E A L I N G
>
>Oh children don't you weep and moan, 
>Children save your breath, You'll 
>draw a pretty pension, when your daddy
>meets his death. - Trad. Ballad.




More information about the Neur-sci mailing list