UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Resume]

I also had more of the same types of OOBEs than I recall ever having had the coccasion to recall the exact address of my house. So by your theory, my memory of the OOBEs should be as accurate or better than remembering my house address.

Yes, you would have dreams most nights. Of course your memory of those dreams, and whether they recurred, or you just imagine they recurred has to be taken into account. You display an incredible recalcitrance in regards to the fallibility of memory and perception even though such had been demonstrated to you on countless occasions. Similarly, you discount sleep phenomenon like hynagogia and hypnopompic hallucination even those these are also common. The more you make excuses for your pet paranormal fetishes, the more you will be called on those excuses.

 

[carlitos]

The difference between memories of your street, pet or sibling is they take their places in multiple memories of past events among which coherence is likely to play an important role in their being reliably maintained. Your memories under discussion however are of independent events, changes to which would likely lead to no such coherency problems.

Great points. I remember the house number and phone number for my childhood home. The same home where I distinctly remember being blown across the room by ball lightning, or some kind of fiery orange orb. I think we can all agree that ball lightning can't have blown me across the room without damaging the closed windows through which I remember viewing it.

 

[Spektator]

I remember my childhood home address and our phone number--back in the day when phone numbers began with letters, like PEnnsylvania 6-5000. I also remember childhood dreams in which I could not exactly fly, but levitate a few inches above the ground and glide around. However, they were definitely dreams, not reality.

 

[Krikkiter]

"I can remember the number of the house I used to live in, therefore aliens." Got to admit, I haven't seen this one before.

Alternatively, "I can't remember the number of the house I used to live in, therefore aliens."

 

[Sledge]

So to sum up: "Houses have numbers, therefore aliens." You can't argue with logic like that.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Isn't it more like, "Nobody ever told me my house number, therefore aliens."? Parents would never want their children to memorize their own address or phone number.

 

[ufology]

Mate, you might have noticed that I did not mention your memory of your address details. In fact it seems like the kind of thing that could be corrupted. My mentioning of your street refers to the claim that it may go from an avenue to a cul-de-sac in your memory so easily. I do reckon that coherency plays an important role in sisters not becoming brothers in our memories, given the well demonstrated fragility of human memory.

Did you watch the five minute version of the Loftus lecture? It seems to me you are unwilling to recognize your own human fallibility as doing so would dispose of cherished childhood myths.

Again I don't claim human memory is perfect. I only claim it's not as bad as the skeptics here constantly promote. Human memory is so good in fact that there are things we'd sometimes like to forget ( like that bad song that won't get out of your head ) but can't even if we want to. Any normal person has many perfectly accurate memories that extend all the way back to childhood and will last a lifetime ... and important or traumatic events ( including strange recurring experiences ) are more likely to last. Simply because memory is fallible doesn't mean all memories are inaccurate, and our normal memories are more often accurate than not, otherwise we'd never have survived as a species.

 

[RoboTimbo]

The above poster has forgotten everything said in this thread about memory.

 

[carlitos]

Again I don't claim human memory is perfect. I only claim it's not as bad as the skeptics here constantly promote. Human memory is so good in fact that there are things we'd sometimes like to forget ( like that bad song that won't get out of your head ) but can't even if we want to. Any normal person has many perfectly accurate memories that extend all the way back to childhood and will last a lifetime ... and important or traumatic events ( including strange recurring experiences ) are more likely to last. Simply because memory is fallible doesn't mean all memories are inaccurate, and our normal memories are more often accurate than not, otherwise we'd never have survived as a species.

There are only two possible answers to the question "Did you watch the 5 minute version of the Loftus lecture?" Would you like to try again?

 

[RoboTimbo]

Again I don't claim human memory is perfect. I only claim it's not as bad as the skeptics here constantly promote. Human memory is so good in fact that there are things we'd sometimes like to forget ( like that bad song that won't get out of your head ) but can't even if we want to. Any normal person has many perfectly accurate memories that extend all the way back to childhood and will last a lifetime ... and important or traumatic events ( including strange recurring experiences ) are more likely to last. Simply because memory is fallible doesn't mean all memories are inaccurate, and our normal memories are more often accurate than not, otherwise we'd never have survived as a species.

uf, have you uncovered any evidence that would falsify the J Randall Murphy Null Hypothesis you created which is:

"All UFOs are of mundane origin"?​

 

[Krikkiter]

So to sum up: "Houses have numbers, therefore aliens." You can't argue with logic like that.

 

[Krikkiter]

Again I don't claim human memory is perfect. I only claim it's not as bad as the skeptics here constantly promote. Human memory is so good in fact that there are things we'd sometimes like to forget ( like that bad song that won't get out of your head ) but can't even if we want to. Any normal person has many perfectly accurate memories that extend all the way back to childhood and will last a lifetime ... and important or traumatic events ( including strange recurring experiences ) are more likely to last. Simply because memory is fallible doesn't mean all memories are inaccurate, and our normal memories are more often accurate than not, otherwise we'd never have survived as a species.

See bolded text.

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Memory_and_trauma#Psychological_trauma

 

[AdMan]

The above poster has forgotten everything said in this thread about memory.

 

[Stray Cat]

Again I don't claim human memory is perfect. I only claim it's not as bad as the skeptics here constantly promote.

Our point isn't that it's bad or not as bad as some think it is, or that it's worse than a goldfish. Our point is that and I'll bold this myself Without some form of verification, there is no way to tell when it is being bad and when it is being good.
So a critical thinker will take a memory and try and verify it with other stuff.
Eg 1: Remember walking to the river and meeting Joe.
Could have happened because there is a verifiable river there and you did have a verifiable friend called Joe.
Eg 2; Remember meeting that giant talking rabbit when you were on your own.
Well rabbits don't talk and so we can safely assume it didn't happen.

Human memory is so good in fact that there are things we'd sometimes like to forget ( like that bad song that won't get out of your head ) but can't even if we want to.

Or even some songs that we'd love to remember and yet don't... Like for instance; a classic Led Zep song that you were listening to as a life changing experience happened to you.

Any normal person has many perfectly accurate memories that extend all the way back to childhood and will last a lifetime ... and important or traumatic events ( including strange recurring experiences ) are more likely to last. Simply because memory is fallible doesn't mean all memories are inaccurate, and our normal memories are more often accurate than not, otherwise we'd never have survived as a species.

NO one is saying any of that.

Again; Without verification, there is no way to tell if a memory is accurate or not. The more it veers away from normality, the less likely it is to be accurate.

 

[Robrob]

Again; Without verification, there is no way to tell if a memory is accurate or not. The more it veers away from normality, the less likely it is to be accurate.

And likewise, the more often you tell the story, the less factually accurate it will be. Not even intentionally, tales tend to become "polished" with time.

 

[carlitos]

I caught myself embellishing a story just this weekend. It made me wonder how often the embellishments became part of my memory. Then again, I'm just a flawed human. I can't even talk to rabbits.

 

[Stray Cat]

I caught myself embellishing a story just this weekend. It made me wonder how often the embellishments became part of my memory. Then again, I'm just a flawed human. I can't even talk to rabbits.

Oddly enough, the other weekend I was round at Paul McCartney's mansion with all my millionaire friends having a bit of a banquette with Macca and his new wife, and as the 15 topless waitresses brought round the after dinner Reniors for us to take home, we started talking about the very same thing.

We eventually agreed that talking to rabbits was easy.

Getting them to talk back was the unbelievable part.

 

[ufology]

Our point isn't that it's bad or not as bad as some think it is, or that it's worse than a goldfish. Our point is that and I'll bold this myself Without some form of verification, there is no way to tell when it is being bad and when it is being good.

So you've been appointed as the gang's spokesperson now. This should be refreshing. Where's the cute graphic?

So a critical thinker will take a memory and try and verify it with other stuff.
Eg 1: Remember walking to the river and meeting Joe.
Could have happened because there is a verifiable river there and you did have a verifiable friend called Joe.
Eg 2; Remember meeting that giant talking rabbit when you were on your own.
Well rabbits don't talk and so we can safely assume it didn't happen.

Sorry to spoil your concept of critical thinking but a real critical thinker wouldn't make the mistake of assuming the rabbit was "giant". The rabbit, if that's what it even really was, was about as tall as me, and since I was only about as tall as the tall grass in the field, we must have both been pretty short. The other thing is that critical thinking doesn't endorse the concept of making the kind of assumptions you do. Lack of proof positive is not proof of the negative. So lack of proof positive doesn't grant you the right to "assume" your opinions are true.

Or even some songs that we'd love to remember and yet don't... Like for instance; a classic Led Zep song that you were listening to as a life changing experience happened to you.

Now I'm beginning to see your point. You've just demonstrated how you failed to properly remember the actual details of something we have previouisly discussed.

NO one is saying any of that.

You sound so sure? Have you taken a poll?

Again; Without verification, there is no way to tell if a memory is accurate or not. The more it veers away from normality, the less likely it is to be accurate.

OK so let's consider your normality barometer in the context of childhood experiences. Since many children have unusual experiences, strange childhood experiences are actually fairly normal.

As for my personal experience with the rabbit. Rabbits are known to live in grassy fields. In fact rabbits still live in that same area where I had the strange childhood experience. So since neither strange childhood experiences or rabbits in grassy fields are abnormal, it's not unreasonable to believe a child who says they had an unusual experience involving a rabbit.

How do we explain it? I don't know. But simply because we have no scientific explanation doesn't mean it didn't happen. It's more reasonable to invoke the "kids have wild imaginations" theory. But I'm not convinced all such experiences are the result of wild imaginations.

 

[RoboTimbo]

OK so let's consider your normality barometer in the context of childhood experiences. Since many children have unusual experiences, strange childhood experiences are actually fairly normal.

Do you have examples where it has been confirmed that giant rabbits have spoken to children? Your null hypothesis is: "No giant rabbits have talked to children". Do you have evidence that would falsify your null hypothesis about giant rabbits?

As for my personal experience with the rabbit. Rabbits are known to live in grassy fields. In fact rabbits still live in that same area where I had the strange childhood experience. So since neither strange childhood experiences or rabbits in grassy fields are abnormal, it's not unreasonable to believe a child who says they had an unusual experience involving a rabbit.

No, rabbits are not known for being as large as children nor for talking to children. It is unreasonable to believe either. You are conflating here.

How do we explain it? I don't know. But simply because we have no scientific explanation doesn't mean it didn't happen. It's more reasonable to invoke the "kids have wild imaginations" theory. But I'm not convinced all such experiences are the result of wild imaginations.

Why do you think there is no rational explanation such as "kids have wild imaginations"? Do you think kids never have wild imaginations?

 

[ufology]

And likewise, the more often you tell the story, the less factually accurate it will be. Not even intentionally, tales tend to become "polished" with time.

Robrob,

You are contradicting the people here who say that repetition reinforces memory. You're also wrong. In fact, it's more likely that you'll lose accuracy by not telling a story very often than by regular repetition. Any actor or musician will assure you that repetition reinforces accuracy of memory. The polish just makes the recall and delivery more precise. By contrast, parts that are not played in a long time often require review. You really should spend more time thinking through your assertions.