Aliens On Earth.com Resources for those who are stranded here Our Bookstore is OPEN Over 5000 new & used titles, competitively priced! Topics: UFOs - Paranormal - Area 51 - Ghosts - Forteana - Conspiracy - History - Biography - Psychology - Religion - Crime - Health - Geography - Maps - Science - Money - Language - Recreation - Technology - Fiction - Other - New Search... for keyword(s)   in Page Titles in Book Title/Author in Contents of Pages ---other searches--- Metacrawler Yahoo FAST Search Google Altavista Dogpile Inference Find Northern Light IWon.com MSN Search Las Vegas Sun Mothership -> UFO -> Updates -> 1996 -> Dec -> Here

From: "Steven J. Powell" <sjpowell@access.digex.net>
Date: Sun, 15 Dec 1996 13:47:18 -0500
Fwd Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 14:35:27 -0500
Subject: Re: 'The Most Authentic Alien Image Ever'

> From: jvif@spacelab.net (John Velez)
> Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: 'The Most Authentic Alien Image Ever'

> John Powell writes,

> >You being a human being isn't a problem <grin>.
> Generous of you.

I'm a very generous kind of guy.

> >simply by the force of your emotional presentation.
> I guess you read into it what you wish.

Perhaps, or what the writer wished.  I don't care for the convenient
approach that absolves the writer of all burden.

> >long before EBK and this List and you ever happenned - I collected
> >that kind of evidence quite a long time ago.
> I'm on my knees in an Islamic bow John.

It really isn't necessary John, but I do appreciate it very much.

Yet, you still missed the point.  The point is that _I_ convinced
_myself_ that things are going on that I want to know more about a long
time ago.  I'm not interested in convincing myself further, I've done
that already.  I also know that many other people have taken a
very similar path and some have convinced themselves and some haven't.
The problem is that some haven't.

Why?  Because the data is mostly _self-referencing_.  Its relatively
easy to convince oneself, its impossible to objectively convince
another.  I'm interested in _objective_ data.  That was the point that
you (again) missed.

> >Are you so important and central to the abduction phenomenon that you
> >have to be a personal part of the research and evidence?
> Duh, I would think that "abductees" [are] central to "abduction"
> research. Again, you choose to bait and insult rather than discuss. I
> could just as easily ask (you) the same question!

I have no personal stories to tell so, _no_, I'm not a part of the
evidence at all.  Don't you find it curious or possibly suggestive that
you keep turning things back on me (or Dennis or whomever), as if you
think things are being directed at you personally, when in fact my point
is to try to turn things away from specific involvement with _any_
specific people?

My point was to attempt to separate the data (the story, etc.) from the
person - to find/create _objective_ evidence.

Duh, John, you are _not_ central to abduction research.  No, that's not
baiting nor is it insulting.  You may very well be a victim of this
phenomenon, you may even be a victim of abduction research to date; but,
no, you are not central to the research.  _Objective_ research that is.

Which is more important to unbiased objective research - the person or
the data they provide?  If the person and the data they provide cannot
be separated then they do not provide objective data - that data is
_subjective_, not objective..  If they can be separated then it becomes
the objective data that is relevant.

Objective data is data that stands _all by itself_.  (Like the example
of the box of data in a parking lot that you didn't get.)  Objective
data is data that is not connected to or related to _anybody_.

That's why you, the human being, are _not_ central to abduction
research.  The data you (may or may not) provide _is_ central to
abduction research _only_ if it can be fully and permanently separated
from you.

Do you really not understand this?

> >You don't _know_, you have a set of personal experiences that
> >are completely real to you.
> Yes! (?)

Why the question mark <grin>.  I'm not trying to question the validity
of your alleged personal experiences, there would be no point to doing
that because I have no _objective_ way to do that.  I also have no
reason to think they aren't completely real (to you).

However, getting back to _objective_ (impersnal, unprejudiced, unbiased)
research you also have the same problemm as I - no way to _objectively_
know if the experiences are real.

> >You seem preoccupied with a quest to cause people to consider it
> >possible that you were abducted by aliens.
> Misinterpretation. Or maybe just the _only_ interpretation that you
> are capable of where (I'm) concerned.

Perhaps I misinterpreted, then what is your preoccupation with so-called
abduction research, the _objective_ kind that is?

My interpretation is that you mostly don't know how to do objective
research.  We had numerous private discussions regarding possibly doing
some verification of alleged abductee physical markings and throughout
those discussins it was clear to me that you didn't understand how to do
objective research, didn't want to take the steps necessary, didn't want
to take the time necessary.

Now, not knowing how to do objective research isn't exactly a big
problem because ordinary folks don't just wake up one morning
automatically knowing how to do that.  You obviously seem capable of
learning how to do objective research, so I ask myself, "Self, John
seems to not know how to do objective research yet he's perfectly
capable of learning how.  So, why isn't he learning how and why isn't he
doing it?"

And I answer myself, "Self, objective research takes too long, its too
hard, and people who are emotionally and personally involved in the work
want answers immediately, they want answers for _themselves_, not
objective answers that stand apart from themselves."

That's my interpretation.  And you are by _far_ not the first such
person, not even the first _thousandth_ such person, to be in similar
conflict because of a personal and emotional involvement with the work
that you'd like to do.  If you _didn't_ have that conflict you'd in fact
be quite rare.

> >No, I don't call it support and I hope you're not here seeking or
> >hoping for any theraputic assistance as this is the wrong group of
> >people and the wrong venue for such.
> I'm not,... and says you.

Are you sticking your tongue out at me!?  Errol!  He's sticking his
tongue out at me!

> > Perhaps you aren't capable of being impartial or impersonal or
> > objective
> R U ?

Yep.

> >I know its difficult to be impartial, impersonal and objective but
> >you could at least try to fake it for the benefit of others here.
> >Maybe you could just pretend you understand.
> Pure arrogance and condescension.

Maybe you misinterpreted?

Maybe you could _try_ to be objective, and after a while, with some
effort and practice, it might come naturally to you.

> >Instead, we have (yet again) your assumption-based out-of-control
> >emotional tantrums that only serve to embarass you.
> I like the "we" touch. It's cute. And safe!
> What's the use in talking John? It'd be a [complete] waste of time.
> Trying to talk to you is like throwing crap into a fan. It just ALWAYS
> seems to get messy. Good luck in your efforts.

I don't expect to have good luck in my efforts, but thanks for the
sentiment.

--

Thanks, take care.
John.

([]][][][][][][][][][][][][][])
[                             ]
[  sjpowell@access.digex.net  ]
[                             ]
([]][][][][][][][][][][][][][])