UFO Conjectures: UFO occupants are said to be sexless midgets

Sunday, February 23, 2020

UFO occupants are said to be sexless midgets

……wrote our pal Matty in a comment, no longer online here.

That’s where UFO buffs go astray……

We have a phenomenon, Unidentified Flying Objects (or the current sobriquet Unidentified Aerial Phenomena), and then for some we have craft that contains beings or entities often identified as “greys” – little fragile beings that some think have no sexual inclinations as they appear to be missing genitalia of any kind, or so witnesses report.

Should we UFO enthusiasts be investigating the things spotted by Naval pilots or investigating the alleged humanoids said to inhabit the things seen by Naval pilots (and others)?

The flying “things’ seem to have heft, or a reality of some kind, whereas the “beings” reported by some appear to be figments of the neurological/psychological mind gone haywire in some way.

Which study or investigation will bear fruit when push comes to shove in the pursuit of the enigma that haunts some of our days?

This is the problem – the dichotomy of UFO perception – that keeps real researchers on the edge of their investigating chairs.

N.B. UFO "entity" shown above from Microsoft.com and video clip comes from cnn.com.

28 Comments:

Rich,

Perhaps whatever is behind the humanoid phenomenon has lately drawn its aesthetic from "real" UFOs, giving it a disguise for its paranormal antics appropriate to contemporary times. Maybe it doesn't have to draw only from human culture and consciousness, as JAC seems to think.

By Anonymous, at Sunday, February 23, 2020
My dear Matty:

I have a proposition upcoming about the UFO occupants, but I'm afraid it will make you irritated with my contention.

The humanoid insertions into UFO witness accounts have been a psychological projection for me, as you probably know.

But I'm thinking anew, after the Kugel book.

RR

By RRRGroup, at Sunday, February 23, 2020
Rich,

I don't have a problem with psychological hypotheses, as long as they aren't thoughtless and misinformed, and intended only to shut down thinking about UFO phenomena by pushing the bullshit idea that we've already got all the answers.

As I've stressed before, UFO skeptics themselves need better theories, especially of the psychological kind. But they're not interested in that because, I'm convinced, they don't care about making intellectual progress at all, but are rather concerned to control how people think and what they believe (I won't speculate about their reasons for all of that here).

By Anonymous, at Sunday, February 23, 2020
@Matty - think you'll find most UFO 'skeptics' (as opposed to those posessed of a genuinely open-minded scepticism) don't have 'a theory' in the first place, let alone needing a 'better' one.

They're usually just ideologues obsessed with being 'right' who simply assert 'there's nothing to it' and regularly resort to ludicrous multi-layered and improbable 'rational explanations' - often requiring a 'suspension of disbelief' of epic proportions as well as an acceptance of multiple, improbable (and invariably, evidentially baseless) 'coincidences' that test the very boundaries of credulity -

i.e. two separate state-of-the-art radar networks, weapons targetting systems, video & infra-red camera systems all experiencing simultaneous 'glitches' (whilst all the pilots, navigators, radar operatives and ship crews were presumably 'hallucinating') or my personal favourite (from the Berwyn Mountains incident) - a meteor fall together with a significant, yet completely 'unrelated' anomalous earth tremor (never experienced before or since in the area) coupled with that good old 'go-to' favourite 'Venus was very bright that night' and you've got a side-splitting chuckle fest for all the family to enjoy.

Should this routine fail, of course, there's always the usual tirade of insults and desperate 'character assassinations' (again, invariably baseless) to fall back on as a last resort.

Not really much of a 'theory' is it? (Entertaining comedy act tho' - never ceases to produce rip-roaring guffaws in the Dee Homestead!) ;)

By DrDee, at Sunday, February 23, 2020
In other words,

Matty is a psychologist (or dunno who) ready to present to the community his meta-analysis why UFO-Skeptics are wrong when using the existing psycho and sociological theories to potentialy explain and understand the UFO-phenomenon?

He is criticazing "me" offering psychological explanations (for tons of cases), me using the peer-reviewed consensual concepts with vague sentences, his assertions, none demonstration, real arguments in order we have a DISCUSSION". Or ad hominem concerning (for only example, ELizabeth Loftus" (the Queen).

We (UFO-Skeptics) must "shut-down or up" because he said it must be. We dunno really why? Guru technics?

Better theory we need? Excepted compiling cases in your "catalogue à la Prévert" like other collect stamps, you have a theory, Matty? Please, introduce us or present your theory. Not only your obsession to compilate cases, assembling images, photograph in YT videos...

Again, facing the mirror, maybe you have the impression that UFO-Skeptics not making intellectual progress at all, despite, as you said, your mirror reflects, what yourself reveals by its "lapsus "how people think and what they believe"

In essence, TU for its QED!

"I won't speculate about their reasons for all of that here". Normal, you have none argument to offer, present. So you imagine and do in disguise you have no time. Anyway, it would be only "speculations" as you admitted in another one... your lapsus.

Best regards,

Gilles

By Gilles Fernandez, at Monday, February 24, 2020
Matty,

Reason #189 as to why scepticism should be the default position with regards to UFO's: https://ufocon.blogspot.com/2020/02/the-psychology-of-ufo-and.html

Whether its navy footage, news article, a new book, new YouTube footage, or even personal sighting that you are using to fuel your belief; I'm not convinced, sorry. I don't see any of these as "intellectual progress". Humans are liars, charlatans, self-centred, controlled by their hormones/chimp brain (reasons #211-216 to not believe.)

There's a lack of intellectual progress from the believer's side, which is why there's also lack of intellectual progress from the sceptics. Reason #272

Lastly, "Pareidolia" also comes to mind, as discussed on this blog it seems: https://ufocon.blogspot.com/2016/01/perception-and-ufos.html Reason #291.

By Dvelys, at Monday, February 24, 2020
Hello """Dr.""" Fernandez,

With each additional comment to me, you reveal surprising new depths of incompetence. Considering that it's you we're talking about here, that's pretty impressive (or alarming, depending on your perspective).

Taking your points in order (much as I hate wading through your incomprehensibly bad English, which is worse than would be expected of a college freshman at the end of his first foreign language course):

"Matty is a psychologist (or dunno who [sic]) ready to present to the community his meta-analysis why [sic] UFO-Skeptics are wrong when using the existing psycho and sociological theories to potentialy [sic] explain and understand the UFO-phenomenon [sic]?"

How one would even begin to conduct a meta-analysis of the hatchet-job internet "debunkings" of UFO claims with which you're so enamored, I have no idea. Almost never do such "debunkings" transcend the level of mere conjecture. There are no quantitative predictions made and no effect sizes, indeed no formal hypothesis testing of any sort, meaning that there is no basis for a meta-analysis that could be extracted from the dross belched up on your and other "skeptic" blogs.

"He is criticazing [sic] 'me' offering [sic] psychological explanations (for tons of cases), me using [sic] the peer-reviewed consensual concepts with vague sentences, his assertions, none demonstration [sic], real arguments in order we have a DISCUSSION' [sic]. Or ad hominem [sic] concerning (for only example [sic], ELizabeth [sic] Loftus' [sic] (the Queen)."

Generally speaking, an appeal to "consensus" in science is a lazy (and stupid) way to avoid dealing with legitimate criticisms of some scientific view. We know from the history of science that consensuses are not necessarily stable, so let's get to the *reasons* in favor of a view rather than wasting time pretending that what experts tend to think at some particular moment must be the final word simply *because* it's what experts tend to think. (As it happens, it seems that an *older* consensus in psychology on eyewitness memory and reliability is currently favored by the preponderance of relevant *evidence*--read on.) Even setting all of that aside, the appeal that you make is particularly ridiculous given that psychology, especially experimental psychology, is a field in crisis, with a number of foundational findings turning out to be unreplicable (surely if you knew anything about the state of academic psychology, you'd have heard about the "replication crisis" many times by now). Of course, it's profoundly irrational to be wedded to consensuses, merely *because* they're consensuses, in a field where received views are dropping like flies.

By Anonymous, at Monday, February 24, 2020
Among the pertinent claims whose bases are being undercut, claims that UFO skeptics uncritically repeat, are that false memories are easily formed and that memory is highly and inherently unreliable. You might consider the evidence presented in this paper: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0963721419898122.

Here is the paper's "bottom line":

"The claims examined here, repeatedly cited in textbooks
and articles, paint a picture of memory as being
highly prone to error and suggestion to an extent that
the public is unaware of. All three, however, rest on
research with methodological weaknesses that invite
alternative interpretations of the findings. Reanalysis of
this research and the collection of new data suggest
that more modest conclusions are appropriate. One
implication is that research on the 'dark side' of memory
has not yet provided grounds to overturn the long-held
consensus of memory as essentially doing a good
job, despite being limited by its capacity and prone to
manipulation. Memory is clearly malleable but not
unreliable under normal circumstances and in the
absence of contamination or prolonged suggestion by
psychologists, therapists, or anybody else"

On the issue of suggestion, consider the following paper: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/acp.3285.

Here is the key part for the current discussion:

"One factor that has not been brought out clearly is that the experimental
studies involve deliberate deception from trusted and authoritative
family members often accompanied by other specific
and seemingly incontrovertible corroborative evidence. In
our view, deception involving family witnesses and doctored
photos for unremembered events is not a trivial or mild intervention.
It is an integral part of all implantation studies and
goes beyond the therapeutic analogues of strong suggestion
and pressure to remember apparent in all false memory
paradigms. It is unclear to us why it should ever have been
considered as an analogue of what goes on in the therapist’s
office.

"Given the weak effects of suggestion obtained in the other
paradigms where strong deception is not used, we suspect
that it is the powerful combination of deception and
pressured suggestion that is the main driver of false memories
in the laboratory."

(By the way, you need to figure out what an ad hominem actually is--a mere insult is not an ad hominem.)

By Anonymous, at Monday, February 24, 2020
As I've said before and I'll say again, UFO "skeptics" overwhelmingly care not one bit about developments in relevant psychological science, because their use of "science" is a smokescreen to cover their ideological motivations and aims. It's much better for them that they maintain the illusion that the relatively recent (and now vanishing) consensus view of the highly and inherently unreliable eyewitness remain unscathed.

"Better theory we need [sic]? Excepted [sic] compiling cases in your 'catalogue à la Prévert' like other [sic] collect stamps, you have a theory, Matty? Please, introduce us [sic] or present your theory. Not only your obsession to [sic] compilate cases, assembling images, photograph [sic] in YT videos...

"Again, facing the mirror, maybe you have the impression that UFO-Skeptics [sic] not making [sic] intellectual progress at all, despite, as you said, your mirror reflects [sic], what yourself reveals [sic] by its 'lapsus [sic] 'how people think and what they believe'"

The error in your thinking here should be obvious, but I suppose is lost on you. Even if it were true that I had no alternative theory to offer, it wouldn't make one bit of difference to the deficiencies of the "explanations" that skeptics offer. This really shouldn't be difficult to grasp: a theory or hypothesis can be too poor to accept even if there is no superior alternative available. In any case, I've said repeatedly on this blog that there is currently no adequate explanation of UFOs.

"Normal [sic], you have none [sic] argument to offer, present [sic]. So you imagine and do in disguise [sic] you have no time [sic]. Anyway, it would be only 'speculations' as you admitted in another one... your lapsus."

You repeat the error just identified, because you're an idiot.

By Anonymous, at Monday, February 24, 2020
Dvelys,

Please note that at no point did I deny that "scepticism should be the default position with regards to UFO's." I said that if I were to accept that claim (in a discussion such as this), the term skepticism would have to be precisely defined and convey a quite particular meaning. This is necessary because debunker hacks (e.g. Fernandez) have so grossly distorted public understanding of what skepticism ought to be (see the work of Marcello Truzzi on skepticism, Truzzi being one of the few self-identified skeptics who had the intelligence to [eventually] see just what a sorry, dishonest, and incompetent group of a**holes the CSICOP clowns and their imitators really are).

I'm sorry to say that the rest of what you offer is quite irrelevant. The idea that "pareidolia" is going to explain any of the evidentially strong UFO cases (which, in my view, all involve anomalous instrumentation data, e.g. radar returns) is absurd. See also my replies to Fernandez where human memory is addressed, drawing explicitly on recent scientific evidence.

By Anonymous, at Monday, February 24, 2020
For anyone interested in how old UFO cases can be freshly evaluated, take a look at how skeptic Brian Dunning handles the Knowles UFO incident in Australia in the 1980's. This is a very famous case and I think he does a pretty good job of laying out alternative explanations.

https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4715

By solarity, at Monday, February 24, 2020
Matty,

Your comment "Among the pertinent claims whose bases are being undercut, claims that UFO skeptics uncritically repeat, are that false memories are easily formed and that memory is highly and inherently unreliable. You might consider the evidence presented in this paper: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0963721419898122."

The "key parts" from the paper seem logically sound to me. To falsify this hypothesis we would need to see a deliberately faked UFO event with evidence and witnesses forming the narrative. As such a doctored event ever been recorded? Similar with crop circles, at first they appear to be from ET, however as years pass we learn that the circles were man-made and even led to prosections taking place for the destruction of farmers fields.

By Dvelys, at Tuesday, February 25, 2020
Hey Gilles!

The kids "Maddy and Dee" are doing the same old stupid ufologist's trick we've seen for decades: Since they can't produce even one bit of evidence for a real "UFO" of any kind, they attack good scientific skeptics with all manner of false accusations and name-calling.

But scientific skeptics are not responsible for their false beliefs about the world.

Conclusion: They're Irrational believers in the "UFO" myth. No further appeals to reason will cure their illness.

Skeptics doubt extraordinary claims and debunk "UFO" cases in the real world, period! Believers in the "UFO" myth are irrelevant.

Best, my friend!

--zoam

By zoamchomsky, at Wednesday, February 26, 2020
Lol. Poor dimwitted Zoam. No original thoughts to contribute, but he sure can cheerlead mindlessly for his "skeptical" faith.

By Anonymous, at Wednesday, February 26, 2020
The juvenile-minded and obnoxious Maddy simply repeats his failed and stupid trick: fault the skeptics, as if millions of honest scientists are skeptical cheerleaders.

You have one task that may be meaningful here: Falsify the Null hypothesis.

Show that real "unknowns" of some kind have been haunting Earth's atmosphere for over a century: secret Airships; phantom zeppelins; ghost balloons and airplanes; ghost rockets; rocketships; flying saucers; glowing discs and black triangles. Oh, My! What ONE hypothesis does Maddy have that explains ALL the "UFO" varieties?"

Short of doing that you have nothing of interest to contribute. And since irrational believers in the myth will never do that; the Psychosocial hypothesis is the best explanation for why people make "UFO" reports. The PSH is the complete history of the "UFO" delusion and complement to the Null, as has been explained a dozen times.

And Maddy; Do not default to your fatuous appealing to the faults of psychology as a phony excuse to ignore the obvious real-world history of a mass social delusion as described by the PSH. It's already been shown that you're one of the most dishonest posters here so that stupid ufologist's trick is completely worthless to all of us.

By zoamchomsky, at Wednesday, February 26, 2020
Hello Zoam,

"It's already been shown that you're one of the most dishonest posters here"

In the face of such projection, I'm wondering if maybe old Freud deserves another hearing.

When was that shown? The only thing that is made apparent when we have one of our exchanges is that you're vastly less intelligent than I am.

"What ONE hypothesis does Maddy have that explains ALL the 'UFO' varieties?'"

Much like your dumb friend "Dr." Fernandez, you're unable to understand that the lack of a good proponent hypothesis doesn't increase the quality of "skeptical" hyotheses. "Skeptical" hypotheses about UFOs almost never rise above the level of lame-brained conjecture, and are dependent on a hopelessly outmoded model of human psychology, as I've shown repeatedly. None of this makes a difference to your very tiny mind, of course. You're an ideologue (and a stupid one) through and through.

"millions of honest scientists are skeptical cheerleaders"

Lol. The idea that "millions of honest scientists" have devoted anything approaching sufficient attention to UFOs for their views on the matter to have any significance is so idiotic that it defies belief. Overwhelmingly, they simply ignore the subject. Do you have documentation demonstrating that "millions of honest scientists" have carefully evaluated UFO data, developed expert-level knowledge of the UFO topic, and reached a "skeptical" conclusion? You essentially hallucinate whatever observations are needed for your rabid, psychotic debunkerism to seem impressive, and expect others to play along.

By Anonymous, at Wednesday, February 26, 2020
Oh, Look! The juvenile, obnoxious and thoroughly dishonest Maddy couldn't address the plainly obvious issues, like the real-world facts that actually explain the nature of the "UFO" myth. He simply repeats his accusations, misconceptions and phony failed diversionary appeals and completely ignores the very well understood historical "UFO" myth and collective delusion as described by the Null and PSH.

What a Shocker!

How many "Maddys" does it take to screw in a light bulb?

Six or eight, maybe a dozen.

Maybe one day you'll know something about the subject, Maddy. But I Doubt It!

By zoamchomsky, at Wednesday, February 26, 2020
Lol. Poor simpleton Zoam. I know you know you're "losing," to adopt your preferred framing of your online spats, when your replies dwindle to a few lines of spluttering bearing no relation whatsoever to reality.

"very well understood historical 'UFO' myth"

Hahaha! You say stuff like that as if it were a magical incantation. "It's good, authoritative research, and not armchair speculation based on non-replicable garbage science, if I keep saying it is (and keep ignoring all those inconvenient papers Matty keeps adducing)."

By Anonymous, at Wednesday, February 26, 2020
Maddy; You're delusional. Any rational person reading your posts can see that you're just an Internet crank. The mere fact that you must continually declare your mental superiority indicates that it's just another false belief you have about the world.

Millions of scientists and others are not only more intelligent than Maddy, they also understand how the world actually is and works and so the "UFO" myth and delusion. They understand it so very much better because the juvenile-minded Maddy doesn't understand it at all. Millions of people saw COSMOS and read the DHW and so very well understood the origins of the "UFO" myth. But Maddy can't understand what millions of ordinary people do. Maddy's possessed by the myth, a modern delusion. "Too bad."

So all we get from Maddy is "blame the skeptics" for his failure to understand the world as it is, and the abysmal failure of the pseudoscience ufology. And then it's a load of cranky meta-rationales for continued belief in the "UFO" myth. Let's see another of those crackpot "papers," as if referencing "UFO" crackpots is of value.

Now falsify the Null hypothesis for "UFO" reports! Until you do, you've got nothing.

By zoamchomsky, at Thursday, February 27, 2020
Hahahahahah! I'm gonna die from laughter over here!

"Let's see another of those crackpot 'papers,' as if referencing 'UFO' crackpots is of value."

Zoam, you utter tit, I haven't once cited a paper by a "UFO buff" in this exchange! Everything I've cited is from mainstream academic psychologists ffs! This is all the proof anyone needs that you repeat the same BS over and over with no regard for what your interlocutors say, and most of what you repeat doesn't even originate with you (rather you repeat idiot catchphrases from the late moron Phil Klass, e.g. "UFO buff"). You're either a troll or the most pathetic ideologue ever to touch the UFO subject, and for your sake I sincerely hope it's the former!

And your mention of the midwit program COSMOS really had me rolling. Come on, you've got to be a troll taking the piss out of the online "skeptic" community.

By Anonymous, at Thursday, February 27, 2020
Okay, you fellows have to stop this, despite all the fun you're having.

(You both are really off-topic, although one might make a case that you aren't.)

RR

By RRRGroup, at Thursday, February 27, 2020
Quite enjoying getting notifications about this spat in my inbox if I'm honest :-)

It's like Tyson V Wilder! Besides, I'd read this any day over the left-wing BS I read on Twitter.

By Dvelys, at Thursday, February 27, 2020
And did you Pay-for-View, Dvelvys and saw the 7th round stoppage?

RR

By RRRGroup, at Thursday, February 27, 2020
I managed to watch the final round on YouTube the following day. March/April will be a testosterone-filled month with the UFC fights lined up. The psychological strength required from these men should equally be as admired as their physical strength. Now we are off-topic..

*ding ding*

By Dvelys, at Thursday, February 27, 2020
One might be able to twist into an on-topic discussion, but better not to...as Matty and Zoam could get into fisticuffs.

RR

By RRRGroup, at Thursday, February 27, 2020
I'm glad I'm not the only one who finds these disputes entertaining :)

By Anonymous, at Thursday, February 27, 2020
Matty, when you characterise false memory as a skeptical ideology, how does that rehabilitate the many documented examples of UFO "investigators" planting imagery and events in the minds of subjects during amateur hypnosis sessions?

This is an example I have posted many times:

On pages 340 and 353-4 of Close Encounters of the Fourth Kind by CDB Bryan (PB edition), a middle-aged woman has a suspicion but no memory of being raped by her father as a child. Under hypnosis with Budd Hopkins, her rape "memory" comes out. However, Budd immediately tells her it wasn't her father, it was aliens. Because for shysters like Hopkins, everything is aliens.

This is not a skeptical fiction or hearsay. The book's author, Bryan, was present for the session. His father was a member of NICAP.

There are many other examples, if proponenents are willing to look, instead of just deflecting and blaming and making excuses.

By Terry the Censor, at Monday, March 02, 2020
Terry,

Did I, at any point, maintain that *hypnotically* "retrieved" memories are reliable? I can assure you that I've never done that in my whole life, on this blog or elsewhere. The question of the reliability of memories "retrieved" under hypnosis is a separate matter. Let's not fail to make such obvious distinctions.

By Anonymous, at Monday, March 02, 2020

UFO Conjectures

Sunday, February 23, 2020

UFO occupants are said to be sexless midgets

28 Comments:

About

About Me

Previous