Pentagon releases UFO videos

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

Physical evidence on persons. Scars, bruising, and unexplainable substances in people's bodies. Subdermal marks on bodies, similar to finger prints, left by abductors. Changes in blood chemistry consistent with that of being in zero gravity. Electronic component failure consistent with being in or passing through a high energy field. Dermal burns and radiation exposure.

Physical evidence left behind by UAPs. Radiation signatures, burn marks, impressions, disturbances in grasses and foliage. Photographic and videographic evidence. Radar tracking data, including triangulated radar tracking data.

But I'm sure this will all be explained away or ignored. Millions of accounts. Physical evidence. Videographic, photographic, and radiographic evidence. But not enough, right? We need a body and we need it to be hung in the town square. Even then the same people would scoff at it and try to explain it away.

Are there any peer reviewed articles referencing these? And I mean the physical effects on people, not any of the sensor data.

[FormerPresJamesTaylor]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

Physical evidence on persons. Scars, bruising, and unexplainable substances in people's bodies. Subdermal marks on bodies, similar to finger prints, left by abductors. Changes in blood chemistry consistent with that of being in zero gravity. Electronic component failure consistent with being in or passing through a high energy field. Dermal burns and radiation exposure..

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Are there any peer reviewed articles referencing these? And I mean the physical effects on people, not any of the sensor data.

Yes, there are.

[handgroen]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

Physical evidence on persons. Scars, bruising, and unexplainable substances in people's bodies. Subdermal marks on bodies, similar to finger prints, left by abductors. Changes in blood chemistry consistent with that of being in zero gravity. Electronic component failure consistent with being in or passing through a high energy field. Dermal burns and radiation exposure.

Physical evidence left behind by UAPs. Radiation signatures, burn marks, impressions, disturbances in grasses and foliage. Photographic and videographic evidence. Radar tracking data, including triangulated radar tracking data.

But I'm sure this will all be explained away or ignored. Millions of accounts. Physical evidence. Videographic, photographic, and radiographic evidence. But not enough, right? We need a body and we need it to be hung in the town square. Even then the same people would scoff at it and try to explain it away. Just like you did here.



That narrative was from someone who saw and handled the physical evidence. Just because we no longer have access to that physical evidence does not mean it does not exist or did not exist. It just means it was confiscated and no longer available for examination.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, you sorta just claimed there’s a bunch of proof out there. That’s different than proving it beyond a reasonable doubt. The thing I never understand is why someone on a message board would devote so much time and energy to a cause that is surely not a direct part of your actual day to day life. Or am I being ignorant and you’re a real life ufo survivor.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

Yes, there are.

Can you share an example of one you find provides very compelling evidence?

[Snuffleupagus]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Can you share an example of one you find provides very compelling evidence?

Since he ignored your request I'll answer for him.

NO, there isn't any

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

That's not physical evidence, that's just a person saying stuff. Lanny said we have physical evidence. I'm curious what it is.

Jesse Marcel saw and handled the physical evidence. The ongoing debate is what did he handle and weather it was not of this earth.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Snuffleupagus

Since he ignored your request I'll answer for him.

NO, there isn't any

Do you always answer other people's questions? Or are you being a ........

[Snuffleupagus]

Originally Posted by Dion

Jesse Marcel saw and handled the physical evidence. The ongoing debate is what did he handle and weather it was not of this earth.

The same Jesse Marcel who when interviewed in Roswell said they were looking for any more parts of the weather device and found a few more patches of tinfoil and rubber the next day, 30 years later he claimed he thought the debris he retrieved was extraterrestrial, coincidentally it was at the same time his son Jesse A. Marcel Jr started making money appearing on TV, radio and documentaries on Roswell.

[Snuffleupagus]

Originally Posted by Dion

Do you always answer other people's questions? Or are you being a ........

Yup

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Snuffleupagus

Yup

That's what I thought. Enjoy talking to yourself

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by handgroen

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, you sorta just claimed there’s a bunch of proof out there. That’s different than proving it beyond a reasonable doubt. The thing I never understand is why someone on a message board would devote so much time and energy to a cause that is surely not a direct part of your actual day to day life. Or am I being ignorant and you’re a real life ufo survivor.

It's a subject matter I find interesting, for a number of reasons? I'm a psychologist who went down this rabbit hole while looking at literature related to the effects of emotional trauma (I worked in law enforcement and this is prevalent in that line of work). There are some similarities in the behaviors of people who have gone through such traumatic events, so while reading the literature it exposed me to the subject matter and the study of the phenomena. The plight of these people were unique and credible, but largely ignored. The problem was the DSM-IV/V never provided the guidance to tackle the issue facing these people, which made it just that more compelling to me. These people are normal is almost every aspect of their lives and their psychological makeup, they have just experienced something so traumatic that it has altered their reality, and the difficult part of this, it is a shared experience globally. That is hard to ignore as a psychologist, even if a large portion of the community continues to do so because they don't want to face ridicule or have their work questioned. This is a large problem in the academic community and why certain topics are considered taboo.

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Can you share an example of one you find provides very compelling evidence?

I would recommend starting with the work of Dr. Roger Leir, Dr. David Jacobs (Temple), and Dr. John Mack (Harvard). You can continue into research by Budd Hopkins. A lot of compelling and interesting work by all of these individuals and will begin you down the rabbit hole.

The problem I have with this subject matter (going both ways) is that people are already entrenched in their position long before they even talk to someone who has gone through the experience in question. We're supposed to be blank slates as we listen and interpret. The problem is not many people wipe the slate clean before hearing someone's story and examining their personal state of mind. Judgements are predetermined by the acceptability of the subject rather than the examination of the patient. It greatly impacts the subject matter, greatly impacts the interviews, and casts these people in a bad light (not the role of the professional).

[Fuzz]

I was curious of what the physical evidence is. Surely if you have seen something convincing, you can link me to that specific thing, no? Just throwing some names out to send me "down the rabbit hole" isn't answering what should be a fairly quick simple thing for you to do. I asked what example YOU find provides compelling evidence. Can you share?

[Fuzz]

And the real problem with this subject matter is there is so much BS and made up stories that if there is actual evidence, of course people will be extremely skeptical. When I was younger, I used to watch all the documentaries and seek out everything I could find on it. Eventually you start to realize so much of it is just people trying to make a buck, or it's people confusing real things for aliens. Not their fault, they are convinced, but the evidence doesn't really back up their story. I stopped paying attention to it because I may as well have been looking into Flat Earth theory. I have yet to be convinced any of that has changed with any new sighting.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

It's a subject matter I find interesting, for a number of reasons? I'm a psychologist who went down this rabbit hole while looking at literature related to the effects of emotional trauma (I worked in law enforcement and this is prevalent in that line of work). There are some similarities in the behaviors of people who have gone through such traumatic events, so while reading the literature it exposed me to the subject matter and the study of the phenomena. The plight of these people were unique and credible, but largely ignored. The problem was the DSM-IV/V never provided the guidance to tackle the issue facing these people, which made it just that more compelling to me. These people are normal is almost every aspect of their lives and their psychological makeup, they have just experienced something so traumatic that it has altered their reality, and the difficult part of this, it is a shared experience globally. That is hard to ignore as a psychologist, even if a large portion of the community continues to do so because they don't want to face ridicule or have their work questioned. This is a large problem in the academic community and why certain topics are considered taboo.



I would recommend starting with the work of Dr. Roger Leir, Dr. David Jacobs (Temple), and Dr. John Mack (Harvard). You can continue into research by Budd Hopkins. A lot of compelling and interesting work by all of these individuals and will begin you down the rabbit hole.

The problem I have with this subject matter (going both ways) is that people are already entrenched in their position long before they even talk to someone who has gone through the experience in question. We're supposed to be blank slates as we listen and interpret. The problem is not many people wipe the slate clean before hearing someone's story and examining their personal state of mind. Judgements are predetermined by the acceptability of the subject rather than the examination of the patient. It greatly impacts the subject matter, greatly impacts the interviews, and casts these people in a bad light (not the role of the professional).

You understand you just “Do you own research” him. A common technique to create and distribute misinformation. Rather than point to specific evidence as requested you say well if you read this guy and this guy and this guy you will get a sense of the general state of information.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by GGG

You understand you just “Do you own research” him. A common technique to create and distribute misinformation. Rather than point to specific evidence as requested you say well if you read this guy and this guy and this guy you will get a sense of the general state of information.

Hmmm, yeah. I'm the guy proposing people do their own research in this thread? I've provided dozens of links, all of which have been ignored. I mean, completely ignored as people post mindless bull#### responses. But this one instance, where I actually point to a complete body of work from multiple sources who are arguably the SMEs on the topic, rather than few general links, and I'm distributing misinformation? #### off. I really mean that. ####. Off. That's one thing about the skeptic community that has always pissed me off. They play by a different set of rules. They never have to provide a lick of support to their claims. But anyone else? Multiples sources, fully cited and referenced, and with court notarized documentation of providence.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

Hmmm, yeah. I'm the guy proposing people do their own research in this thread? I've provided dozens of links, all of which have been ignored. I mean, completely ignored as people post mindless bull#### responses. But this one instance, where I actually point to a complete body of work from multiple sources who are arguably the SMEs on the topic, rather than few general links, and I'm distributing misinformation? #### off. I really mean that. ####. Off. That's one thing about the skeptic community that has always pissed me off. They play by a different set of rules. They never have to provide a lick of support to their claims. But anyone else? Multiples sources, fully cited and referenced, and with court notarized documentation of providence.

I didn’t say you were spreading misinformation. I said you were using the same technique. Fuzz asks for one specific piece of physical evidence that you find credible. Instead of providing the one piece you find credible and open yourself up for debate and challenge around the presented evidence you say hey go read about this and draw your own conclusions.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by GGG

I didn’t say you were spreading misinformation. I said you were using the same technique. Fuzz asks for one specific piece of physical evidence that you find credible. Instead of providing the one piece you find credible and open yourself up for debate and challenge around the presented evidence you say hey go read about this and draw your own conclusions.

He's right on one point. I have my doubts that anyone will read up on what he has suggested. Minds are already made up in this forum.

[Snuffleupagus]

Originally Posted by Dion

He's right on one point. I have my doubts that anyone will read up on what he has suggested. Minds are already made up in this forum.

Sceptics like myself have heard of these suggested people long ago.

David Jacobs - his alien human hybrid ideas were so crazy even the great Carl Sagan criticized him.

John Mack - another abductionist, Harvard actually censured him for 3 years for being professionally irresponsible.

Roger Leir - claimed to have removed a dozen alien implants from people's bodies that emit radio signals, of course other doctors said they were simply a collection of fat cells, shards of glass and in one case a small piece of metal shrapnel from a retired soldier. Leir was put on 3 years of probation in California for his bu!l$h!t, did I mention he was just a ####ing foot doctor?

They all have the same thing in common, they wrote books on aliens hoping to take advantage of the UFO crowd to make money off the mentally weak.

Fuzz asked for something concrete, not story's from kooks

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by GGG

I didn’t say you were spreading misinformation. I said you were using the same technique. Fuzz asks for one specific piece of physical evidence that you find credible. Instead of providing the one piece you find credible and open yourself up for debate and challenge around the presented evidence you say hey go read about this and draw your own conclusions.

Presenting experts and suggesting you review their body of work is NOT a misinformation or disinformation campaign technique. It is just the opposite. Misinformation/disinformation requires developing a false narrative and building a body of supporting information meant to deceive, discredit, or cast aspersions against an individual or group. If you want to see classic misinformation or disinformation at work, look at the following link for proof.

Originally Posted by Snuffleupagus

Sceptics like myself have heard of these suggested people long ago.

David Jacobs - his alien human hybrid ideas were so crazy even the great Carl Sagan criticized him.

John Mack - another abductionist, Harvard actually censured him for 3 years for being professionally irresponsible.

Roger Leir - claimed to have removed a dozen alien implants from people's bodies that emit radio signals, of course other doctors said they were simply a collection of fat cells, shards of glass and in one case a small piece of metal shrapnel from a retired soldier. Leir was put on 3 years of probation in California for his bu!l$h!t, did I mention he was just a ####ing foot doctor?

They all have the same thing in common, they wrote books on aliens hoping to take advantage of the UFO crowd to make money off the mentally weak.

Fuzz asked for something concrete, not story's from kooks

This is TOTAL disinformation, and done so with the intent to only discredit the SMEs and their research, NOT to forward discourse, engage in discussion, or present information that may provide a common base of knowledge for people to work from. First they start out by trying to assume the high ground by claiming themself to be a skeptic and lumping themself in with actual skeptics, even though the displayed behaviors are nothing like a skeptic. Skeptics actually build arguments and present evidence that counters positions.

So how does this "great skeptic" take on the body of work of each of these individuals? He attempts to only discredit them smearing their work history, and then refers to them as "kooks".

Yeah, David Jacobs has some different ideas and as a result has a lot of critics, one of which was John Mack, but that does not discount the work and research he did in the field. The fact that he published his work and left himself open to the scrutiny of his peers is exactly what Fuzz demanded, and what he got. The reason behind presenting both Jacobs and Mack was to show there was no "conspiracy" within the community to build a narrative, that these people followed academic rigor and subjected themselves to the crucible of peer review. This is how scientific inquiry is supposed to work.

Next is a very negative interpretation of what happened to Mack at Harvard and a massive lie about the outcomes. Harvard was not happy about Mack's involvement in working with abductees and what was considered fringe subject matter. For the first time in the schools history they secretly investigated his work, and did so without informing him (a big no-no in academia). The investigation found no formal wrong doing but did publish two short statements, "Harvard Medical School cautioned him “not, in any way, to violate the high standards for the conduct of clinical practice and clinical investigation that have been the hallmarks of this Faculty.” This is the "censure" that was mentioned (more on this shortly). But Harvard also stated they “reaffirmed Dr. Mack’s academic freedom to study what he wishes and to state his opinions without impediment. Dr. Mack remains a member in good standing of the Harvard Faculty of Medicine.”

Harvard never censured Mack for three years. Censure does not come with a time limit. Censure is a statement of criticism and it is then up to the school to enforce penalties. The censure came in the form of the secret investigation and later the report. But no action was taken against Mack and the censure was ignored by Dean of the Harvard School of Medicine, of which Mack was the past Head of the Department of Psychiatry. This fabrication is classic disinformation, taking a tiny loose thread and building a cloak of invisibility to hide the truth.

The same tactic is used to try and discredit Dr. Leir, going so far as to just claim he was "only a foot doctor'. Yeah, and Einstein was only a Patent Clerk. This information is pulled directly from RationalWiki, including the claims of the types of implants removed, minimizing findings and suggesting they were just fat bodies. This is of course not accurate and just another smear attempt. Leir was a surgeon and had done thousands of surgeries during his career.

Leir had actually created a separate covered entity - A&S Research - where these surgeries were conducted and findings catalogued. A&S Research involved multiple practitioners including radiologists and surgeons, so this was not a lone individual taking these tasks on. A&S also worked with top laboratories to complete the analysis of the removed objects, including Los Alamos National Labs, New Mexico Tech, University of Toronto, York University, Southwest Laboratories, and Seal Laboratories. Each implant was studied by multiple labs.

Leir was indeed put on probation by the California Board of Podiatric Medicine, from 2001 through 2002, for what Leir explained as improper disclosures made in a published book from 2000. This did not negatively impacted his license or his practice. The probation is consistent with penalties imposed by the Board.

I expect skeptics to do more than cursory examination of subject matter and actually review the research of those who have conducted research and submitted work for review. That is what peer review is actually all about. Science is skeptical in nature, and peer review is that opportunity to review the work of others and ask questions. If you believe the work is faulty it is then on you show otherwise my identifying methodological errors, data collection errors, or data interpretation errors. That is not is what is happening here.