I don’t know that I can lift this out of the ‘naysayer’ level of disagreement. I don’t care to devote that amount of time to Mr Carlson’s objections.
1. I disagree with Mr Carlson’s analysis of the technological capacities. THEY ABSOLUTELY CAN SELECTIVELY WITH GREAT PRECISION AND FINE TUNED SPECIFICITY TURN OFF OR ALTER OR FREEZE VARIOUS ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS—WHETHER PART OF A FIGHTER’S ELECTRONICS OR ONE SPECIFIC ELECTRICAL SUBSYSTEM OF A MISSILE’S PROGRAMMING. They are evidently able to change the specific bits and zero’s within a computer chip from a great distance—at least in feet or yards.
2. The business about mental illness and experiencers has been totally well refuted with quality scientific studies. Such experiencers are slightly significantly MORE healthy than the average of the population. IIRC, THEY ARE, AS AN AVERAGED AGGREGATE also slightly significantly smarter than the average of the general population. They do, after their experiences, quite plausibly show some evidence of PTSD! OF COURSE! DOH!
3. I don’t think a great deal of Salas. He may be a brazen opportunist. He may be a new age cultist. He says some things about the phenomena which are true.
4. The testimonials . . . comparing the testimonials with the world population? Based on what logic? Wouldn’t it be more logical to compare their testimonies with testimonines of murder witnesses? Testimonies of sightings of the Loch Ness monster? of Big foot? Of ghosts?
5. Based on THOSE kinds of more rational comparisons, the testimonies of solid reasonably vetted experiencers are head and shoulders above most of the above and quite favorably consistent with the integrity and accuracy of the better witnesses of murders.
6. AT this point, I’m not referring to an amalgamized distillation of a few hundred cases—but of many thousands over my 45 years of study. Themes appear that are quite consistent from experiencers all around the globe from Australia to Timbuktu to Iceland to Norway to Argentina to wherever. Even the secret types of marks on their bodies which most researchers have kept secret as a way to verify authenticity of the experiencel—those are consistent around the world.
I think Mr Carlson’s stuff has a veneer of objectivity without a shred of substantive objectivity. Just my bias from all my study.
Ok thanks! I guess we will have to agree to disagree for now. I would be curious to see any supporting documentation you may have for your point 1, if you have the time and are so inclined. Specifically, who is “they” and (this is the more important part of the question) how do you know that “they” can do the things you claim? Again, if you are so inclined, supporting documentation is requested here, not merely a reiteration of past claims.
A word if I may about points 2-6. Even without supporting documentation, I believe they show a flaw in your reasoning, with all due respect. That is, even if they are true, it is of little consequence, because it is entirely possible that people with extensive credentials and/or social notoriety may suffer from either mental defect, or human error that leads to false conclusion. In other words, no matter how educated the man, it is entirely possible that he can be wrong about something, even something he claims happened to him. This is also true of anyone who is “slightly significantly more healthy than the general population” and/or “...as an averaged aggregate also slightly significantly smarter than the average of the general population”. Physical fitness and/or intelligence do not necessarily prohibit the possibility of mental illness and/or perceptive error (human error). Indeed, I believe many studies have shown conclusively that many who suffer from mental defects of a wide variety usually test above average intelligence.
Thus, my comparison of the subset of the world population that claims extraterrestrial encounters to the world population as a whole is valid. It is valid because the socioeconomic/educational/intelligence/physical fitness status of a witness is not relevant in determining veracity, even for murder witnesses. What is relevant is corroborating evidence, and such corroborating evidence can only come from two sources (IMO): One, clear, irrefutable scientific evidence that can take many forms including but not limited to, photographic, chemical, or biological evidence that no reasonable person could refute. Or, two, personal experience (as I have pointed out before on unrelated topics). I do not believe you personally are claiming to have had an extraterrestrial/UFO encounter, thus you can only corroborate, not only to convince others, but also yourself (again IMO), the many hundreds (thousands, 10’s of thousands, however many you have) of witness accounts you have collected in 45 years with clear, irrefutable scientific evidence as described above.
In other words, if you wish to claim you are being reasonable, not only to people you are trying to convince with your posts (which is why you are posting in the first place, I can only assume), but also yourself, you must have either had a personal experience of your own to corroborate the witness testimonies you have found in 45 years, or, you must have independent scientific evidence, and apparently you have neither.
This is the only reasonable approach to this issue, again, IMO. It seems to me it is not your definition of reasonableness, which is both your and my right, which is why I said we should at this point agree to disagree. I do not see how this will ever be resolved, given the circumstances reality dictates to us as previously described.