posted by RRRGroup at
Sunday, July 06, 2014
I have worked during the last two years in north of Chile, a zone full with coper mines, in the Atacama Desert.I was happy to watch and hear about this UFO case in the news and in the radio. However, nothing like a mass histeric reaction or mass delusion has happened.Every facet of this case goes against the notion of the "mass delusion" theory that the skeptic wackos here are trying to propose. "Psychosocial theory" is useless. It does not predict anything, as this case shows: people nowadays almost never react histerically regarding UFOs; there are official institutions researching UFOs in the world; UFOs are material entities capable of getting photographed, etc. Consequently, proponents of "psychosocial theory" are complete charlatans.
By Don Maor, at Sunday, July 06, 2014
Let's see if we can have a reasonable discussion of this case. We have some evidence (photo evidence) of something fairly strange in the day-time sky. Most of us who have been into this subject for decades have seen many such photos with very similar images; silvery and disk-like with no structural details that would provide identification. No one is claiming that this series of photos shows a space ship; could be a drone or some strange cloud..and yet those explanations given the context of the sightings seem a bit strained. It's an UAP at this point until and unless one of our believers or skeptics can clear up the mystery for us. O.K., guys, what the heck is it and why do you think so?
By Dominick, at Sunday, July 06, 2014
This case is being promoted by the same gang that attempted to promote videos of flying bugs as UFO's. That episode and Leslie Kean's participation in it would have been scandal enough to end the careers of those who were part of it, if the UFO business was even slightly legitimate.The photos in this case, with no provenance should carry exactly zero weight but among UFO believers it gets the star treatment because UFO belief is religion. I notice that nitwit (It's a UFO!) Bruce Maccabee has piped up with his opinion that, "could be real, could be a hoax" . Despite admitting that he knows nothing about the photos he opines that he doesn't think they are a hoax. Why? Because UFOs are religion.Lance
By Lance, at Monday, July 07, 2014
@ Don,Do you have some scientific articles, papers, etc, Don, to offer and to corroborate your call(s) about Sociologists defending "Mass delusion", to be "complete charlatans". Or?This about Robert E. Bartholomew and Erich Goode, (only for examples).As agnostic, I'm curious if you was again over-reacting or if you have something to offer to call the defenders of mass delusions as "complete charlatans".Merci de tes sources !Gilles
By Gilles Fernandez, at Monday, July 07, 2014
Don,You, Don (and the Pro ETH) as imagining that E.T. is visiting us by crafts and crashing, is super-anthropomorphism/t! Power 20! Please, continue to make me laugh by your lack of... creativity, and your dunno what about E-T Intelligence!Regards,A charlatan.
Sorry Lance, but I think you are missing the point here, severely.My point is against the "psicho social" pseudo theory that simply does not apply here. No histeric masses here, the conclusión is from an oficial organization, not by fanatics. The second photography, the close-up, is very good. Notice that you are not the one that gospels the psicosocial pseudo-theory here, so you should not be as ofended as Gilles should be.I heard about this case before any "promotion" by the USA researchers you seem to hate so much. This happened in other country, other people analized it. So your quarrel against Maccabee or Keane are pure child crying on your part.
By Don Maor, at Monday, July 07, 2014
Hi Gilles:Yes, the UFO psychosocial theory is garbage. The facts. First: psychosocial pseudo-theory predicts nothing. We still don't know if the UFO mythology will disappear or not. Second, the psychosocial theory is completely useless. It tells us that the UFO phenomenon is a myth that grows and expands by means of media contamination, etc. But it does not tell us if the myth is originated or maintained by a real phenomenon or not. It is useless! Third: You don't have to be specialist in psychology or sociology to postulate and understand why the UFO myth is created. In fact, it is pretty easy and early debunker D. Menzel, while not being a psychologist or sociologist, easily used the psychosocial pseudo theory to debunk UFOs.Psychosocial theorists always will come up with ad-hoc explanations to some events. I once read a skeptic's book in which discarded a close encounter case because it was excessively logic and predictable, and then four pages later he discarded another close encounter case because it was too absurd (!)Most of the explanations of psychosocial charlatans will be impossible to demonstrate.Going further, psychology and sociology are the floppiest of all sciences. In consequence, we cannot expect the psychosocial proponents to be something serious. They are flippant.Moreover, I have become increasingly disenchanted with the science of psychology and have serious doubts about the capability of professional psychologists to: establish healthy families, heal mental disorders of their patients, and, predict behaviors of people in a way notably better than would be predicted by a relatively intelligent lay-person. Look at Gilles himself: He claims to be a psychologist, but he has not mercy when it comes to denigrate poor UFO enthusiasts (like me), we who supposedly have mental disorders which make us to believe in weird things like UFOs, should have a better treatment from professional psychologists like Gilles. We don’t.Additionally, psychologists in the world still apply highly dubious tools such as the Rorschach test, and many of them sell themselves to the marketing industry to create necessities mainly on women and children.I rest my case.
By RRRGroup, at Monday, July 07, 2014
Don: "Look at Gilles himself: He claims to be a psychologist, but he has not mercy when it comes to denigrate poor UFO enthusiasts (like me), we who supposedly have mental disorders which make us to believe in weird things like UFOs, should have a better treatment from professional psychologists like Gilles. We don’t."Gilles isn't a clinical psychologist. Many psychologists perform experiements and run the numbers, rather than concern themselves with people.Regards,Don
By Don, at Monday, July 07, 2014
Gilles is said to be a cognitive psychologist.My discipline was psychometric methods...running the numbers as you put it, Don.RR
"UFOs are material entities capable of getting photographed, etc."Don M rails against the PSH--that he clearly doesn't understand--while being an excellent example of the "UFO" delusion in action.Brilliant!
By zoamchomsky, at Tuesday, July 08, 2014
Don said:"Gilles isn't a clinical psychologist. Many psychologists perform experiements and run the numbers, rather than concern themselves with people."Hello Don:That would be an unacceptable argument for excusing a troll which has been trained in psychology. Psychology should be a discipline to benefit humanity and its members. Every practitioner of psychology works with people; be it subjects of study or patients; directly or indirectly; whatever activity he develops, he should be committed with that ultimate goal of societal benefit and individuals. If that does not happen, we simply cannot trust in such discipline and we should probably banish it. If psychologists are not here to protect us, why they study us? Could we trust psychology then?
By Don Maor, at Tuesday, July 08, 2014
Now zoamchomsky refugees with his cherished pseudo-scientific "psycho-social" theory behind the clouds of its own complexity. The theory is still useless, it is still a very simple theory that everyone understands, but they try to disguise it as elaborated. Some of them even call it a scientific “model”. Haha.
Don M: "That would be an unacceptable argument for excusing a troll which has been trained in psychology."You are assuming one meaning for "psychology". Some psychologists personal relations are with white rats and lab assistants. They are unlikely to function well as grief counselors, for example.We may be rats in his experiment, after all.Your understanding of 'psychologist' may have a psychosocial explanation. It appears to be based on the movies of the 1940s and 1950s during which period there was a popular interest in psychoanalysis and representations of psychiatrists and psychoanalysts were fairly common. This may have resulted in the term 'psychologist' and "psycho-therapist" becoming merged in a meaningful way in the culture.The problematics of the presented PSH are not due to Gilles' acumen as a psychologist.Regards,Don
By Don, at Thursday, July 10, 2014
Don M;On what basis did you determine that the Chilean photo contains a "flying saucer?"How do you know anything about "flying saucers" at all?Hmmm?
By zoamchomsky, at Thursday, July 10, 2014
Zoam...I did not even mention the wording flying saucer.All i am saying here is that the PSH does not have merits to this case. Forget about the ETH... it is not being analized here.The point here is the PSH is worthless.
By Don Maor, at Sunday, July 13, 2014
I don't know what is your point Don but nowadays even animals being studied in labs are treated under ethics standards .Therefore... Gilles should have some respect regarding those animals in his lab, which he sometimes calls ufoologists.
Okay, Don M, if not "flying saucers" then your words, "UFOs are material entities."On what basis did you determine that the Chilean photo contains a "material entity?"How do you know anything about "UFOs" at all?Hmmm? Think about it.
By zoamchomsky, at Sunday, July 13, 2014
Basic physics zoamy...Material means made of matter.Matter reflects or refracts light...cameras register reflected or refracted light... witnesses' eyes also register reflected or refracted light...Oh... i forgot...PSH means psychosocial hokum
By Don Maor, at Monday, July 14, 2014
On what basis did you determine that the Chilean photo contains a "material entity?""cameras... witnesses' eyes"So gullibly believing that the photo is of a real "UFO" and that the story is true is your answer?I suppose you believed Kean's Chilean flies were "flying saucers" too?
By zoamchomsky, at Thursday, July 17, 2014
Don't suppose things Zoam. A hardcore and super rational skeptic as you is not allowed to suppose things.Forget about Keane. I already said that I watched this case on the local news.There is a big difference between a photo of an insect caught on camera and the actual case. Insects caught in camera are never reported by the photographer until he watchs the revealed photographies. The actual case is different. Witnesses saw the object in the sky and then took a picture of it. Zoam's failure to observe such difference and presenting it as a valid argument, makes him look like a very weak thinker.
By Don Maor, at Saturday, July 19, 2014
I forgot to add:Of course, the last resource of the debunker will be to distrust the report of the witness seeing the object. I can't do nothing about it. The paranoic fear of debunkers of being deceived is another evidence of their pathological state: "arrrgg!! they want to deceive me!!!".
Don M...I think we've all moved on. This topic is as stale as day-old bread.RR
By RRRGroup, at Saturday, July 19, 2014
Post a Comment
A group of media guys
View my complete profile