Close encounter of the 5th kind in Monterrey Mexico

Interesting sidenote to these two leading CSETI researchers:

http://www.zetatalk.com/theword/tword05a.htm

Maybe exposing oneself to these radiant ethereal beings and their spaceships has fatal effects on the body. Too bad they couldn't heal them.

Or maybe it was some sinister cabal of dark ops ufo disinformers using microwave guns:

http://www.ufo-disclosure.net/blog/are-u...ve-weapons

(Nov 2, 2016 09:03 PM)Magical Realist Wrote: LOL! You seem so confused. You already confirmed from a schizophrenic himself that "alien" thoughts occur as their own thoughts. Why are you contradicting yourself? And no..normal functioning people are not schizophrenics just because you say so. You need to back up that claim with some evidence if we are to take it seriously.

You really don't seem able to parse simple English. John Nash said that events he actually believed happened were no different, in his thoughts, to real events. Nothing contradictory, since delusion and false memory could just as easily account for a reported experience of telepathy as auditory hallucination. But since you were too obtuse to make that simple connection, I provided you with info you could have readily found, if not for your overwhelming confirmation bias.

These "witnesses" are the ones who need to provide proof. I don't have to provide evidence against claims unsupported by any evidence themselves. That is called shifting the burden of proof. You are making the assertion that these events happened, so the burden is on you (or the supposed "witnesses"). I am merely forwarding skeptical arguments in lieu of no evidence whatsoever. That's how science and reasoning work.

(Nov 3, 2016 01:03 AM)Syne Wrote:

(Nov 2, 2016 09:03 PM)Magical Realist Wrote: LOL! You seem so confused. You already confirmed from a schizophrenic himself that "alien" thoughts occur as their own thoughts. Why are you contradicting yourself? And no..normal functioning people are not schizophrenics just because you say so. You need to back up that claim with some evidence if we are to take it seriously.

You really don't seem able to parse simple English. John Nash said that events he actually believed happened were no different, in his thoughts, to real events. Nothing contradictory, since delusion and false memory could just as easily account for a reported experience of telepathy as auditory hallucination. But since you were too obtuse to make that simple connection, I provided you with info you could have readily found, if not for your overwhelming confirmation bias.

These "witnesses" are the ones who need to provide proof. I don't have to provide evidence against claims unsupported by any evidence themselves. That is called shifting the burden of proof. You are making the assertion that these events happened, so the burden is on you (or the supposed "witnesses"). I am merely forwarding skeptical arguments in lieu of no evidence whatsoever. That's how science and reasoning work.

LOL! I didn't make any such assertion. She simply described her own experience. And that's what I posted. So I take it you are backing down on the claim they were schizophrenics then because you can't support that claim. Just as I thought..In the future, don't make up baseless shit about people you don't even know. It just makes you look like a pathetic douchbag.

The problem is that there is zero support for the claims made in this article, so there isn't even the need to provide any countering evidence. We do have ample evidence for the symptoms of schizophrenia, and barring any countering evidence, these fit the claims made in that article. So skepticism and parsimony dictate that the simplest answer is most likely, here being the phenomena we have ample evidence for over an account we have absolutely no evidence for.

If you're not trying to claim this account is true, then it's really baffling why you'd defend it so vehemently. I get that you're insecure enough to resort to name calling. Hell, I would be insecure too if I were as gullible.

(Nov 3, 2016 01:36 AM)Syne Wrote: The problem is that there is zero support for the claims made in this article, so there isn't even the need to provide any countering evidence. We do have ample evidence for the symptoms of schizophrenia, and barring any countering evidence, these fit the claims made in that article. So skepticism and parsimony dictate that the simplest answer is most likely, here being the phenomena we have ample evidence for over an account we have absolutely no evidence for.

If you're not trying to claim this account is true, then it's really baffling why you'd defend it so vehemently. I get that you're insecure enough to resort to name calling. Hell, I would be insecure too if I were as gullible.

What? Still no proof for their schizophrenia? lol! Give it up Syne. You lost this one posts ago.

(Nov 3, 2016 01:50 AM)Magical Realist Wrote:

(Nov 3, 2016 01:36 AM)Syne Wrote: The problem is that there is zero support for the claims made in this article, so there isn't even the need to provide any countering evidence. We do have ample evidence for the symptoms of schizophrenia, and barring any countering evidence, these fit the claims made in that article. So skepticism and parsimony dictate that the simplest answer is most likely, here being the phenomena we have ample evidence for over an account we have absolutely no evidence for.

If you're not trying to claim this account is true, then it's really baffling why you'd defend it so vehemently. I get that you're insecure enough to resort to name calling. Hell, I would be insecure too if I were as gullible.

What? Still no proof for their schizophrenia? lol! Give it up Syne. You lost this one posts ago.

In this discussion you would only claim someone lost if you are, indeed, asserting a truth claim of this article. Since we have every indication that that is what you are doing, the burden is on you to support that claim. Otherwise, my skepticism doesn't imply anyone has lost. It's only a statement that there is no compelling evidence. See, it doesn't take proof to refute something that itself has no proof. It only takes a reasonable alternative, which I've already provided.

You premature claim of victory is just another sad indication of your lack of intellectual rigor and honesty. But by all means....keep trying to convince yourself otherwise. It's fun to watch.

(Nov 3, 2016 01:57 AM)Syne Wrote:

(Nov 3, 2016 01:50 AM)Magical Realist Wrote:

(Nov 3, 2016 01:36 AM)Syne Wrote: The problem is that there is zero support for the claims made in this article, so there isn't even the need to provide any countering evidence. We do have ample evidence for the symptoms of schizophrenia, and barring any countering evidence, these fit the claims made in that article. So skepticism and parsimony dictate that the simplest answer is most likely, here being the phenomena we have ample evidence for over an account we have absolutely no evidence for.

If you're not trying to claim this account is true, then it's really baffling why you'd defend it so vehemently. I get that you're insecure enough to resort to name calling. Hell, I would be insecure too if I were as gullible.

What? Still no proof for their schizophrenia? lol! Give it up Syne. You lost this one posts ago.

In this discussion you would only claim someone lost if you are, indeed, asserting a truth claim of this article. Since we have every indication that that is what you are doing, the burden is on you to support that claim. Otherwise, my skepticism doesn't imply anyone has lost. It's only a statement that there is no compelling evidence. See, it doesn't take proof to refute something that itself has no proof. It only takes a reasonable alternative, which I've already provided.

You premature claim of victory is just another sad indication of your lack of intellectual rigor and honesty. But by all means....keep trying to convince yourself otherwise. It's fun to watch.

LOL! You're the one making the claim of schizophrenia. A claim you can't even support. That's losing the argument in my book. You make this so easy for me! I didn't have to claim anything!

(Nov 3, 2016 02:06 AM)Magical Realist Wrote: LOL! You're the one making the claim of schizophrenia. A claim you can't even support. That's losing the argument in my book. You make this so easy for me! I didn't have to claim anything!

Try again. I'm simply positing a reasonable alternative based on well-known evidence...against a story completely devoid of evidence. Look, there's no reason to be defensive unless you're asserting this alien encounter story is MORE LIKELY to be true than any alternative. But you can't admit that without taking on the burden of proof yourself, so you'll never have the stones to do so.

See, you've had to fall back to claiming I've made some factual assertion because you FINALLY managed to understand that symptoms of schizophrenia could account for such stories. So whether or not you have the intellectual honesty to admit it, you've already tacitly agreed that my alternative is reasonable. And since that's all I've claimed...WE AGREE.

If you had been clever enough to keep doggedly misunderstanding schizophrenia symptoms, you could have continued this charade that they weren't an alternative explanation. But now that you're arguing them as a factual claim, you've only validated the alternative I posited. Thanks. Keep up the good work.

Now you can only sadly continue this strawman that I've made any factual claim...and no doubt you will. But remember, insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting different results.

(Nov 3, 2016 03:42 AM)Syne Wrote:

(Nov 3, 2016 02:06 AM)Magical Realist Wrote: LOL! You're the one making the claim of schizophrenia. A claim you can't even support. That's losing the argument in my book. You make this so easy for me! I didn't have to claim anything!

Try again. I'm simply positing a reasonable alternative based on well-known evidence...against a story completely devoid of evidence. Look, there's no reason to be defensive unless you're asserting this alien encounter story is MORE LIKELY to be true than any alternative. But you can't admit that without taking on the burden of proof yourself, so you'll never have the stones to do so.

See, you've had to fall back to claiming I've made some factual assertion because you FINALLY managed to understand that symptoms of schizophrenia could account for such stories. So
whether or not you have the intellectual honesty to admit it, you've already tacitly agreed that my alternative is reasonable. And since that's all I've claimed...WE AGREE.

If you had been clever enough to keep doggedly misunderstanding schizophrenia symptoms, you could have continued this charade that they weren't an alternative explanation. But now that you're arguing them as a factual claim, you've only validated the alternative I posited. Thanks. Keep up the good work.

Now you can only sadly continue this strawman that I've made any factual claim...and no doubt you will. But remember, insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting different results.

I never agreed that schizophrenia accounts for anything. I haven't claimed anything at all.
And you still haven't provided proof the two witnesses involved were schizophrenic. Are you now saying they weren't schizophrenic? Make up your mind Syne while I sit here with popcorn and watch the show. lol!

(Nov 3, 2016 04:25 AM)Magical Realist Wrote:

(Nov 3, 2016 03:42 AM)Syne Wrote: Now you can only sadly continue this strawman that I've made any factual claim...and no doubt you will. But remember, insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting different results.

I never agreed that schizophrenia accounts for anything. I haven't claimed anything at all.
And you still haven't provided proof the two witnesses involved were schizophrenic. Are you now saying they weren't schizophrenic? Make up your mind Syne while I sit here with popcorn and watch the show. lol!

Thank you for immediately repeating the exact strawman I JUST said you would. So predictable. Can you quote where I made this claim you're imagining (or are you suffering from delusion/false memories)? If you can't (and we all know you can't) then you'll either just have to keep repeating it without evidence or revert to denying schizophrenia symptoms again. Take your pick. Neither lends you any credibility.

Honestly, you act as if you know these people personally. Do you?