Subject: Re: Buddens earthlight /paranormal beliefs analysed
From: "trojanhorse20022000" <trojanhorse20022000@...>
Date: 11 Jun 2002 12:36
Ouch.!!!! Funniest post/book review I have ever read. I thinks that the end of Albert`s ideas for a long time. Looks like I wont have to buy the book now. dodgy dodgy sounding "data" why didnt anyone review the thing for so long. Roger --- In mysterylights@y..., "ozestrange" <ozestrange@h...> wrote: > Dear Mr Budden > > My apologies to the earthlight group for the following topics/ideas > sometimes straying from earthlight topics. > Sometimes one set of reports, sort of mingles with other reports of > other paranormal/odd phenomena. > > I dont "have a lot of rethinking" to do.From the limited > quotes/limited research/selective data etc you seem to have > done I think you must be kidding me.The "new" information about > Collum/Hutcheson is pretty old hat,but interesting. > A lot of people with a limited understanding of aerial light > phenomena seem to confuse known methods of producing > light forms,and truly odd aerial light phenomena. > If you think you have it all wrapped up, then please contact the > following field researchers,who specialise in this > field and also,unlike yourself, have scientific qualifications. > They dont have the subject wrapped up at all. > http://hessdalen.hiof.no/location/ > http://earthfiles.com/earth301.htm > Regarding "earth lights",it seems you take seriously, any > phenomena,no matter how bizarre, if you believe you can > somehow stretch it into your belief system. > The following is a classic example. > Budden Book:page 80 Eletric Ufo`s :"..a particularly 'high > strangeness'case in which the witness had come extremely > close to three earth lights as luminous spheres.She had reported that > pencil-thin beams of light came from them and > focussed upon a spot on her forehead...it had not escaped my > attention that a continuation of the line that these > beams made was directly on target for the pineal gland." > There are no "conventional" earth light researchers/scientists in the > world that would believe EL could send beams out,aimed at a persons > head. > Thanks for the two letters I requested.Both authors are impressed > with some aspects of your GUT ideals. > But... > Mr Ring said regarding your GUT "I dont know if you can be said to > have given a complete explanation for these experiences.." > And Vallee says "However I continue to be impressed by the numerous > cases where there is physical evidence of a > disc shaped device that has caused physical damage in the enviroment." > The interesting thing about your grand unifying theories is the > following. > One, they are not supported in your data.The are contradicted by > other data,and most importantly,there is no GUT > theory in any field of science. > A GUT theory is basically a philosophical belief/desire. > And the two letters you sent me stated quite clearly that they didnt > believe your ideas explained everything at all,as you implied. > So out of about a thousand + researchers ,world wide, you have about > 20,but wait theres more.. > There are far more researchers/scientists etc supporting > Scientology/Om cult etc,but numbers dont mean truth . > > Budden 1, What was the methodology you used for your field surveys? > > Lets reverse this whole concept first. > Since it is you claiming the terms dossimetric/field surveys etc lets > peruse "electric ufo`s" and list your > "dosimetric Field surveys". > Case 1/measure Ians body and room,Case 2/detection of power surges in > the street, Case 3/Zero Field study,Map examined > Case 4/zero field study, Case 5/zero field study,Case 6/Zero field > study,case 7/2 field studies ,Case 8/Zero field study > > Four "dosimetric studies",all described in a total of about 10 > lines.You can throw around "scientific terms" as much > as you like,but it still isnt science, once it examined properly. > I used the tri-field meter to measure unusual magnetic fields/unusual > magnetic field changes. > I do this because I was also trying to find a "clear" causative link > between field changes/elevations etc and video > /photographic anomalies.I do not care that you think that > this "ideal" is to "fulfil a quasi-religious need for him". > I am not the one using my ignorance of certain classes of phenomena > to glide around around them. > I have no psychological make-up/vested interests etc in sticking to a > rigid/mechanistic/selective ideal. > For further criticsim of your "dosimetric studies"/claims etc try > http://www.truthseekers.freeserve.co.uk/truth/tr18albertbudden.html > > Budden:"You grossly underestimated my following," > The statement above is religious/cult terminology. > My belief is that some "paranormal" phenomena may be either > creating/or being aided by the magnetic fields in question. > You quote Reiter`s work extensively,but fail to point out that ALL > his conclusions about his own research are the > complete opposite of your conclusions about his own work. > http://www.alliancelink.com/users/avalon/m1photo.htm > > I notice that you mis-understood Rings work/conclusions as well. > Budden:page 203-"...whereby they are able to shut out unpleasant > realities by the construction of a powerful and stable > inner fantasy life." > Ring:"...they also come to develop an extended range of human > perception beyond normally recognised limits"" > Ring"..But they are apparently already sensitive to nonordinary > realities". > Ring uses the term "imaginal",page 219.Ring:"not as something > unreal,but as something objective self existent" > Ring:"I must emphasise that we are not talking about the stuff of > fantasy or imagination as these terms are generally > used today". > Ring is clearly talking about something other than mere "inner > fantasy life". > > Budden2 If you do not accept my discoveries about the CE4 > experience, what do you think is their explanation? > > First lets reverse this,<again>Your reasons for the figures are > Budden book/"..if the body is irradiated for an extremely prolonged > period with an artifically produced field..it will > be registered by the body as being not of this earth, and the literal > translation of this would surely be > 'extraterrestial'. > And > Budden book:"however,it must be stated that the precise trigger for > aliens abduction experiences per se,as opposed > to any other depiction of formed figures is unclear" > Thats it? > My "explanation".I have no "explanation" for them.I have ideas,like > you,but I dont confuse vague ideas/mixed with a > selective bias/slim understanding of the phenomena =3D > Buddens "knowledge". > My ideas about the figures are based around the work/books of > Harpurs'Daimonic Reality",which deals with the > historical similarities between todays "aliens" and yesterdays > demons/angels etc. > The books of Little"The Archetype experience"+People of the > web"+Grand Illusions". > Basically, I believe that most of the "real" CE4 experiences > are "leakages" of archetypes from ?, into our reality. > Now before you get excited,look up the original papers by Jung on > archetypes. > Then there are other CE4 cases that are more difficult to > explain.Cahill case in Victoria with multiple cars/witnesses > etc > http://hometown.aol.com/praoz/zcahill/kellyhome.htm > And the Koury case with bizarre dna sample left over. > http://www.theozfiles.com/anomaly_investigation_group.html > Also,the Nobel prize winner in chemistry Kary Mullins on page > 131 ,"Dancing Naked in the Mind field" recounts a CE4 > experience.Also the book by Elkin "aboriginal men of high degree" > 1945,has numerous reports of figures encountered > by aboriginals with the figures placing crystals inside their > bodies.Sort of reminds me of "aliens inserting probes" > but anyway.. > Also try reading "Black Elk",William Lyon.This deals with American > Indian encounters with "figures". > I didnt even bother asking about the tens of thousands of reports > of 'figures" that preceded emf pollution. > Also try the works of DMT researchers/scientists McKenna/Rick > strassman. > > 3. What is it exactly about the TriField meter that it does not do > that you think it should do? > > I think it is too inexact.It is not a scientific instrument.Here is a > simple way to tell if something is a scientific > instrument.1/It gives precise readings ie a readout.2/it can be > calibrated 3/it is used by REAL scientists in real > field studies 4/Its "results" are used in published papers, in any > mainstream academic paper. > The trifield fails in all 4 areas. > Sort of tears the old "perhaps Williams needs lights and beeping > bulbs" sarcasm to shreds doesnt it tiger. > I noticed you used a spectrum analyser with no results which is > interesting. > Also,you also seemed to have judged the tri-field on the fact that it > came with 3 A4 pages of technical data,therefore its > a scientific device. > My video recorder comes with about 10 A4 pages. > > Budden:You ask me how the Electromagnetic Pollution Approach could be > shown to be false. This is actually self-evident > from the exposition of it in my book"ElectricUFOs". Just reverse all > of the primary parameters I have set out. > > The above comment sounds reasonable.Ie Popper/Kuhn etc.It means that > Budden accepts that if the opposite of his > predictions could be found ,then his theory is wrong. > But,then this appeared. > Please note the last line. > > Budden post:So let me state here and now, for Mr Williams benefit, > that the parameters I predict for such experiences > as =D2alien abductions=D3, are robust and physical, and have been found > to be in close association with these experiences. > This statement should be absorbed before any assumptions are then > made about what such factors may mean. Simply,they > are there in every genuine case, whatever they may mean.Any account > of an alien abduction experience that does not > display these parameters IS A HOAX."<My italics> > > Real science makes a hypothesis,and accepts that if their is a > failing in the predictions etc ,there is a problem. > Thats the difference between science and your ideas. > > Budden Post:"He does not seem to understand what the term parameter' > means. > The word 'characteristic' could be used instead, or 'aspect' > or 'factor'." > > Please read page 25 of your own book for my definition of parameters, > ie,Budden: "Primary parameters:In conclusion,investigators in the > field should search for the primary PARAMETERS > which are associated with these EM induced consciousness > effects...The following is a list of primary PARAMETERS." > > The 25 listed "questions" implying increased prediliction > to "paranormal" claims/events etc are to all encompassing. > Here are some examples.With another 8 on page 83. > Thats 33 characteristics one can look for in an individual. > > Number 2/Are you sensitive to cigarette smoke > Number 5/Are there foods/drinks that you either avoid or consume > large amounts of. > Number 6/did you have a happy childhood ? > Number 7 Do you ever have hairs on your body stand on end,feel > suddenly cold or overheated,experience tingling or > numbness. > Number 19/Do you have periods where you lose all concentration. > Number 25/Are there any of the following features near your home:a > quarry,radio mast,power lines,reservoir,HILL, > military base,tv /radio station,radio ham > Budden: post number 2/ "Not all 25 PARAMETERS (listed on page 28 > of "Electric UFOs")were present in every case, but > the core ones were," > Budden: page 28 "Some people just do not have the information which > is requested,or may not answer truthfully for > various reasons." > > So,the "parameters" define the case,but not really,also we have > people who give the "wrong" answer to what we(Budden) > wanted.Therefore they are lying.And the final ,if they do not > display these parameters they are a hoax. > Perfect. > > Budden Book:"Use Of Controls.Over 50 subjects were selected on the > basis of the exclusion of identified hotspots,ie > they were not subject to EM polllution and did not live in locations > with raised levels of time varying fields.Also none had experienced > an MEE....Results showed that EH had not developed in the control > group,who did not expereince formed figures or alien abduction..." > > Control groups information was the clincher in all of this,yet 9 > lines are devoted to this "information". > Were 50 houses actually visited/measured etc.Of course not! > Normal epistemological data etc always has slight deviations in it. > But none in this.! > > Budden post "I must begin to address this suggestion by Mr Williams > by stating at the outset that "paranormal" > events do not exist at all." > > "paranormal" events exists Albert,its just that science hasnt learnt > to explain all of them yet. > > Budden:"So in effect, because of this continual process > where "paranormal" events become understood and "normalised" > by > scientific investigation and research" > > > Please read your own book > > "Budden...a distinction has been made between endogenous > hallucination,ie imagery originating from the nervous > system of the experiencer,and PLACE MEMORIES,which have been > described as 'recordings'imprinted in the fabric of the > building.Such "recordings" have been said to have been imbued into > the enviromental water of the location,..."page 152 > > 1/Lets cut straight to the chase.These "place memories" are a > paranormal event.There is no need to obfuscate with > mindless semantics about this. > No sceptics groups anywhere in the world accept the > above "exclamation" for a haunting report. > You now advocate part of the belief system,of the very group you > deride. > Zero evidence is supplied to back up this idea.Budden uses a > collection of hypotheses to suggest possible mechanisms. > But there is a problem with this idea as well. > In many cases(as Budden is aware>the apparition reacts to the > presence of the observer.Budden uses an example on page 58. > Budden "..The figure turned to look at him,and then walked away > through the closed door.." > Now if Budden is allowed to make points using anecdotal > reports,<which for the sake of the argument we accept>then > the reverse is also true. > Report 1,from the authors files. > Michelle watched the blue apparition appear in the hallway,she rubbed > her eyes in disbelief,when she looked again,the > blue apparition was clearly the figure of a young boy,she rubbed her > eyes again<she had not been asleep>.The figure was right in front of > her.Then the boy raised his hand to shake as if he wanted to shake > Michell`s hand.She hid her face in her hands,and when she looked up > the figure had vanished.3 months later,she learnt that a small boy > had died in that very house. > Report 2,from the authors files. > Sharon and David Moss were eating lunch with a guest,a male figure > walked passed them eating,,looked at the individuals > present and then turned a corner of the house.The guest thought the > figure was of a real person. > Report 3 > > Port Arthur Prison.Numerous visitors to the old prison have > complained about the behaviour/language of the staff > members > dressed in historical gear.The "staff members" had reacted to the > movements of the visitors ,and sometimes sworn at > them.Problem being, that until recently,the place HAD NO STAFF > DRESSING UP IN HISTORICAL GEAR. > A phone call to Port Arthur administration centre can clarify the > above reports. > Now this is the main problem of GUT, ie,Grand Unifying Theories. > They must explain ALL cases. > The probability that ALL cases that dont fit Buddens theories, being > false/lies etc is zero. > It only takes ONE case,world wide,in the whole of human history,and=20 > bang goes the theory. > It doesnt require a great skill in induction/deduction to work that > one out.! > But wait,there`s more. > 2/EVP,Electronic Voice Phenomena. > http://aspsite.tripod.com/ > This is the recording of voices onto audio tapes.Now the common > answer is that the tape deck is acting as a radio > pickup device.But the problems is this.What happens if groups Like > PYe Electronics,ex-NASA contractors etc use > Faraday > 3/Some crop circles. > http://www.circlemakers.org/weird_shit.html > Now before you get too excited,just for this example,I am referring > you to a crop circle fakers > page,and then you can see all the reports by sceptics,0f odd > phenomena they are experiencing. > 4/PK results/research."Sorrat"John Richards,1982+"The Scole > Experiment"Grant and Jane Solomon 1999+"Conjuring up > Phillip",Owen and Sparrow,"The Conscious Universe,by your friend Dean > Radin. > http://members.aol.com/Mysphyt1/yggdrasil-9/Stoney.htm > http://www.wyrdsmiths.com/index.php?fid=3Dtw_pk_ux > http://www.uri-geller.com/geller-effect/tge15.htm > 5/Aerial light /religious phenomena,"Fatima Prophesy" Stanford > 1987,with photos of "shared hallucinations"/government > reports on the phenomena. > 6/Animal Mutililation,"Enter the Valley"+"The Mysterious > Valley".Chris O`Brien.The suggestion that it is an > "electric arc" that is doing all the picking up of animals,dropping > them,draining blood etc is just truly bizarre. > http://shell.amigo.net/~tmv/ > http://www.floridatoday.com/space/explore/stories/1997/041997a.htm > 7/Near Death Experiences"The Omega Project,by Ring+"The Truth in the > light" by Fenwick > 8/Physic aspects some Ufo encounters"Ufo Dynamics"Schwarz > 9/Discoidal ufo`s, > Budden: "through the EM Pollution Approach, e.g. alien abduction > experiences, "hauntings", > poltergeists, SOME UFO`S" > The above implies you admit that not all ufo`s can be explained by > your GUT theories.<let alone any ufo`s. > And of course the Vallee letter you sent me, validated this.You > realise the data to > support "genuine" discoidal ufo`s are to complex/voluminous etc,thats > why class them as "some ufo`s",a wise move.! > 10/Some earth light phenomena.Yes,some earth light/geological > connections/response setc are easily explained. > But not all of the phenomena is. > 11/Photo/video anomalies associated with "haunted" > areas.Probably<when talking about Film>a alot of the phenomena is > UV related as film is UV sensitive ,outside human vision. > http://www.melodief.com/ghosts/ghosts.html > There are thousand of sites like the above one.Yet not a peep in the > book about even one anomalous photo. > How come? > 12/Visions/experiences induced by Mirrors etc,ie,the work of Dr > Raymond Moody,"Reunions". > http://www.psychomanteum.com/books/moody_interview.htm > > I have just moved to Tasmania ,speak to you soon. > > > Mike