Author Topic: Whitley Strieber  (Read 54764 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Whitley Strieber
« Reply #210 on: July 22, 2015, 06:34:00 PM »
To me, it's hilarious how many people focus their attention with laser-like precision on the anus.


Perhaps they are compensating for something.

Re: Whitley Strieber
« Reply #211 on: July 22, 2015, 06:34:48 PM »
Do I detect some flippancy? You are discussing rape, and a real experience.

Would you like to be violated? No, you wouldn't. No one would. Yes, Whitley is a public person, has chosen to share his story, and so he's been put under scrutiny.

But still, I don't think we can comprehend the courage it took to tell the world about what happened to him. To me, its so sad he is dismissed by so many.

Space Alien rape doesn't exist because Alien abduction doesn't exist.  Not on this planet at least.

If anyone is making light of the subject, it would be the guy profiting off of the topic, and leading everyone to believe in the alien weebering.  Rape is a serious topic and should be reserved for serious crime.  In this case it's not rape, because Weeber is apparently into getting abducted (and because it only exists in his imagination).

Yes he was very courageous to save his sci-fi writing career with a crazy alien buttfuck story.  Just like L.  Ron Hubbard saved his sci-fi writing career by buttfucking the wallets of people he was going to extract the alien spirits from.  We should all be thankful.

Re: Whitley Strieber
« Reply #212 on: July 22, 2015, 06:36:28 PM »
Alien abduction doesn't exist.


Are you inclusively dismissing extraterrestrials, interdimensional beings, and demons, or are you so mouth-gapingly ignorant that you just think all that is the same?

Re: Whitley Strieber
« Reply #213 on: July 22, 2015, 07:44:12 PM »

Are you inclusively dismissing extraterrestrials, interdimensional beings, and demons, or are you so mouth-gapingly ignorant that you just think all that is the same?

A little scientific proof would be nice.

Re: Whitley Strieber
« Reply #214 on: July 22, 2015, 08:06:19 PM »
A little scientific proof would be nice.


Here, start with something simple. Give this cat a pill, then take a urine sample.



Get back to me with your measurements.

Re: Whitley Strieber
« Reply #215 on: July 22, 2015, 09:25:13 PM »

Here, start with something simple. Give this cat a pill, then take a urine sample.



Get back to me with your measurements.


reported for abuse of animals >:(

Re: Whitley Strieber
« Reply #216 on: July 22, 2015, 09:54:27 PM »
reported for abuse of animals >:(




interpretation is left at the discretion of the student

Re: Whitley Strieber
« Reply #217 on: July 23, 2015, 06:35:36 AM »

So are space aliens.   

Appearing in whitley's room uninvited, taking him out to their flying saucer, and then forming a big ol' buttfuck train to run on him before drugging him to make him forget.

Conservationatists due roughly the same thing to wild animals everyday.

Re: Whitley Strieber
« Reply #218 on: July 23, 2015, 06:45:41 AM »

Pulling A man's dentures out is in no way comparable to buttfucking

I was referring to the giant needle Betty Hill reported as being painfully jabbed into her abdomen.

So, are we only belittling males who report invasive treatment?

Re: Whitley Strieber
« Reply #219 on: July 23, 2015, 07:13:40 AM »
Space Alien rape doesn't exist because Alien abduction doesn't exist.  Not on this planet at least.

We don't know if it exists as a purely psychological phenomenon or if there is some physical event which is contributing toward people reporting it.

I am pretty sure the "alien abduction" phenomenon exists, because here we all are talking about it.

Broadly speaking it appears many people slot it into one of these camps

1) EVERYONE who reports this is crazy

2) EVERYONE who reports this is a con artist / liar

3) Abductions are performed by aliens originating from some physical location within our universe

4) Abductions are performed by some sort of supernatural beings (demons, angels, etc)

5) Abductions are performed by some sort of "alien", but from some other realm (another dimension)

6) Abductions are performed by the US Military for black projects and aliens are a cover
 

I believe that many who report the abduction experience, frankly fall into categories 1 and 2.
It can be nearly impossible to determined which one is which though.

I COULD eventually be convinced that #6 is something which has happened -- because after all the US Government has done some pretty strange things over the years.  I'd like more information.


3/4/5 all rely on the reporter's intrepretation of what was experienced.

For example, I don't believe in demons and angels personally, so I would be totally unlikely to ascribe any experience to them.

Also, I have no idea how I could determine in an unknown creature was from another planet, another dimension, another time, an unidentified location on earth, etc.

There's no way you'd ever get a definitive answer between 3/4/5, so that's troubling.
And it's EASIER to assume 1, 2, and, to some degree in rare cases, even 6.

I am curious about your caveat above though

"On this planet a least"

So you hold out the option that on some planet in the universe it could exist?

But you exclude the planet earth for some reason?

Re: Whitley Strieber
« Reply #220 on: July 23, 2015, 07:47:01 AM »
A little scientific proof would be nice.
As far as proof:

We are actively looking for alien civilizations with SETI.

We are looking for potentially habitable worlds with space telescopes.

We are investigating local bodies in our solar system hoping to discover more about exobiology.

So there is a growing consensus that detection of astrobiology is a "when" instead of an "if"

Or more plainly put, lots of scientists are hedging their bets that aliens exist.


There have been some experiments I've heard of trying to confirm the existence of "nearby" extra dimensions. In some models these dimensions should be detectable, but so far, far as I know, there's not been any luck. But if I remember correctly these experiments weren't very robust and wouldn't
detect anything unless it was mega obvious.

So this is far more speculative, but it has received some scientific investigation.

As for "demons", I don't know what those are or how you would devise an experiment to detect them.
 

Re: Whitley Strieber
« Reply #221 on: July 23, 2015, 01:47:55 PM »
As far as proof:

We are actively looking for alien civilizations with SETI.

We are looking for potentially habitable worlds with space telescopes.

We are investigating local bodies in our solar system hoping to discover more about exobiology.

So there is a growing consensus that detection of astrobiology is a "when" instead of an "if"

Or more plainly put, lots of scientists are hedging their bets that aliens exist.


There have been some experiments I've heard of trying to confirm the existence of "nearby" extra dimensions. In some models these dimensions should be detectable, but so far, far as I know, there's not been any luck. But if I remember correctly these experiments weren't very robust and wouldn't
detect anything unless it was mega obvious.

So this is far more speculative, but it has received some scientific investigation.

As for "demons", I don't know what those are or how you would devise an experiment to detect them.

Maybe the way back home is through a a black hole behind Uranus


Still no proof.  Just an lot of "might be's"

Re: Whitley Strieber
« Reply #222 on: July 23, 2015, 01:49:49 PM »
Conservationatists due roughly the same thing to wild animals everyday.

Who probes the probers?

Re: Whitley Strieber
« Reply #223 on: July 24, 2015, 10:33:45 AM »
Maybe the way back home is through a a black hole behind Uranus


Still no proof.  Just an lot of "might be's"

If I had proof I would be collecting a noble prize.

Midnight in the Desert seems to place to imagine beyond the point where you have good peer reviewed evidence



Re: Whitley Strieber
« Reply #224 on: July 24, 2015, 01:46:44 PM »
... Midnight in the Desert seems to place to imagine beyond the point where you have good peer reviewed evidence

Some nights it's where arrogance, crazy, and attention seeking intersect

Re: Whitley Strieber
« Reply #225 on: July 24, 2015, 02:27:43 PM »
Are you armchair investigators aware that you have no proof that there is no proof?

Re: Whitley Strieber
« Reply #226 on: July 24, 2015, 02:38:00 PM »
Are you armchair investigators aware that you have no proof that there is no proof?

Nothing convinces me this is all bullshit more than listening to Whitley Streiber whine about it for a couple hours

Re: Whitley Strieber
« Reply #227 on: July 24, 2015, 02:42:19 PM »
Nothing convinces me this is all bullshit more than listening to Whitley Streiber whine about it for a couple hours

I'm putting your answer down as an unequivocal "I don't know how science works." Thank you for your participation.

Re: Whitley Strieber
« Reply #228 on: July 24, 2015, 04:31:47 PM »
Nothing convinces me this is all bullshit more than listening to Whitley Streiber whine about it for a couple hours

Even if it was a carved in stone fact, Weeber would make me doubt.
Weeber stretches credibility, farther than aliens stretched his anus.

Weeber has more paranormal events happen to him before 8 AM, than any 10 people will have in a lifetime. He must be really special. My bet is hes window licking short bus special, as apposed to the nexus of the paranormal here on Earth.

Re: Whitley Strieber
« Reply #229 on: July 24, 2015, 04:45:50 PM »
Any of you wiseasses got anything worth reading to add to this Strieber thread?

Some of us are his fans.

What does "Weeber" even mean?

I'm not without a sense of humour, but some of these cracks are a bit flat.

Re: Whitley Strieber
« Reply #230 on: July 24, 2015, 04:49:45 PM »
Are you armchair investigators aware that you have no proof that there is no proof?

Prove a negative? I reckon some will think you a genius for your above statement.
However I'll leave the extraordinary proof to the one making the extraordinary claims.

All I get from Weeber is a lot of lip service, that he makes money from. If anyone else turns their anal escapades into cash they are considered a whore or porn star. How many people turn their rape into a career? More power to him, nice work if you aren't bothered by profiting from your own rape. 

Re: Whitley Strieber
« Reply #231 on: July 24, 2015, 05:02:09 PM »
However I'll leave the extraordinary proof to the one making the extraordinary claims.

... and, that would be you.


Re: Whitley Strieber
« Reply #232 on: July 24, 2015, 05:03:48 PM »
Prove a negative? I reckon some will think you a genius for your above statement.
However I'll leave the extraordinary proof to the one making the extraordinary claims.

All I get from Weeber is a lot of lip service, that he makes money from. If anyone else turns their anal escapades into cash they are considered a whore or porn star. How many people turn their rape into a career? More power to him, nice work if you aren't bothered by profiting from your own rape.

Why are folks so interested in how he earns a living?

Re: Whitley Strieber
« Reply #233 on: July 24, 2015, 05:04:54 PM »
Any of you wiseasses got anything worth reading to add to this Strieber thread?

Some of us are his fans.

What does "Weeber" even mean?

I'm not without a sense of humour, but some of these cracks are a bit flat.

Awww! Sorry you don't approve of others assessment concerning Weeber. Maybe if you could get your head out of Weebers anus long enough you would know where the term "Weeber" came from.

It amazes me that a fan such as yourself wouldn't have listened to Weeber on DM, where a caller coined the term. It was classic listing to Weebers little tantrum as Art soothed his sore anus on air. 

Re: Whitley Strieber
« Reply #234 on: July 24, 2015, 05:09:13 PM »
I read Communion back in '88. Maybe it was the gut-wrenching stress I was experiencing at that time in the military, but THAT book made me more than a little uncomfortable at night.

Re: Whitley Strieber
« Reply #235 on: July 24, 2015, 05:09:30 PM »
... and, that would be you.

I've made no claims, I just doubt his claims with only his word for it.
What he says could be true... but lacking anything else, I doubt it. 

Re: Whitley Strieber
« Reply #236 on: July 24, 2015, 05:13:54 PM »
Why are folks so interested in how he earns a living?


http://www.whale.to/m/disin.html




Quote
5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule.  This is also known as the primary 'attack the messenger'  ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as 'kooks', 'right-wing', 'liberal', 'left-wing', 'terrorists', 'conspiracy buffs',  'radicals', 'militia', 'racists', 'religious fanatics',  'sexual deviates', and so forth. This makes others  shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.

7. Question motives. Twist or amplify any fact which could be taken to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive.

11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions.  Using a minor matter or element of the facts, take the 'high road' and 'confess' with candor that some innocent mistake, in hindsight, was made -- but that opponents have seized on the opportunity to blow it all out of proportion and imply greater criminalities which, 'just isn't so.' Others can reinforce this on your behalf, later, and even publicly 'call for an end to the nonsense' because you have already 'done the right thing.' Done properly, this can garner sympathy and respect for 'coming clean' and 'owning up' to your mistakes without addressing more serious issues.

18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can't do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how 'sensitive they are to criticism.'

19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the 'play dumb' rule.  Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant  and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon.) In order to completely avoid discussing issues, it may be required that you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.


These tools are straight out of Central Casting. I think Pussygrin is a 2nd year rookie, I spotted him right off months ago with his clumsy antics before he was ever assigned to this thread by his little handlers.

Re: Whitley Strieber
« Reply #237 on: July 24, 2015, 05:14:28 PM »
Why are folks so interested in how he earns a living?

Hez made himself a public figure making claims of alien anal rape. For $1000, Alex.
If he could release the sex tape, like Kim K his fame would skyrocket.   

Re: Whitley Strieber
« Reply #238 on: July 24, 2015, 05:14:40 PM »
I've made no claims


Awww, look, it's trying to backpedal. So cute!!!

Re: Whitley Strieber
« Reply #239 on: July 24, 2015, 05:15:53 PM »
Awww! Sorry you don't approve of others assessment concerning Weeber. Maybe if you could get your head out of Weebers anus long enough you would know where the term "Weeber" came from.

It amazes me that a fan such as yourself wouldn't have listened to Weeber on DM, where a caller coined the term. It was classic listing to Weebers little tantrum as Art soothed his sore anus on air.

Haw haw!

I don't give a shit what you say, everyone's entitled to their opinion.

I remember now, the caller that referred to him as Weeber... But he sounded a backward Southerner who didn't know any different or had heard wrong.