Take The Anonymous ‘Communion’ Book Cover Poll

Please, take the quick one-question poll below the book cover about your reaction the first time you saw the book cover to Whitley Strieber’s Communion. The results will be integrated into a book I’m writing. Also, kindly forward this to anyone you think would be interested.

Thanks!

 

 

Advertisements

13 thoughts on “Take The Anonymous ‘Communion’ Book Cover Poll

  1. Errrrm, abductees! Take a flipping camera on board and photograph some flipping evidence, none of that blury crap either

      • To be fair, abductees are the problem. David Jacobs (who I am loath to cite) reported abductees who set up cameras in their bedroom to capture the aliens on VHS. The tapes showed the abductee waking in the middle of the night and turning off the camera. Often, the abductions would now take place on vacations, not in the home.

        There’s always an excuse not to produce corroborating evidence.

      • I think we can safely assume that advanced mind-reading aliens have a plan for webcams. That, to me, is a pretty good excuse to have not produced corroborating evidence. I don’t believe in the standard ETH aliens myself, but on its own merits, since that’s what we’re talking about, I cannot see what the argument is for abductees producing evidence.

        Mind-reading. Advanced. Aliens who have been monitoring us at least since the 40’s, maybe since the beginning.

        If that’s the story we’re talking about, how can anyone have the hubris to believe they’d be able to produce a clear snapshot/video of someone who already knows what you’re doing because they read your mind?

      • JV, there seem to be some words missing in your last response and I can’t quite be sure of your point, so this comment is not aimed at you:

        I’ll just say that if abductees and investigators claim the aliens produce physical effects (scoop marks, abdominal punctures, pregnancies, missing time, etc), there’s no excuse for failing to produce physical evidence. If proponents invoke unproven events and entities (the reading of minds, floating through walls, alien tech, etc) to corroborate related unproven events and entities (abduction and aliens), we are no longer talking about evidence, we are talking about circular reasoning.

        “The reciprical mode occurs when what ought to be confirmatory of the object under investigation needs to be made convincing by the object under investigation; then, being unable to take either in order to establish the other, we suspend judgement about both.” (Sextus Empiricus, book I, 169)

      • “I’ll just say that if abductees and investigators claim the aliens produce physical effects (scoop marks, abdominal punctures, pregnancies, missing time, etc), there’s no excuse for failing to produce physical evidence.”

        On that I agree. If abductees claim to already have physical evidence of aliens, show it. Odds are it won’t show what they say it does.

        Where I’m betting we disagree is here: I maintain that there is a phenomenon of some sort involving an intelligence that isn’t wholly concocted by the experiencer’s brain. This intelligence may give physical indications of its presence–but nothing that will be of any use to science or the public at large. As Jeff Ritzmann would say, some of this stuff is for YOU. It’s about the experiencer knowing it’s real for whatever reason that’s important.

        There’s no evidence of aliens like us doing doctorly things because that’s a cultural construct and mostly hypnotically-fabricated. But that doesn’t negate the mystery underlying the topic. It just means we’re blind to it in the worst way possible: we think we see it clearly.

      • > This intelligence may give physical indications of its presence–but nothing that will be of any use to science

        That’s a traditionally theological argument. Your posited entity is no longer capable of interacting with humans, I would suggest.

  2. All I can think about is how tiny the brain volume is compared to the large face. How can people be “familiar” with an anatomically unlikely creature.

    • Maybe rephrase it to say “This intelligence may give physical indications of its presence–but nothing that has thus far been of any use to science”?

      But now that you mention it, the theological framework has been and continues to be the dominant one through which humans define reality, much to the chagrin of most scientists.You could argue that such a being would be required to interact with us this way if he/she/it wanted to reach the majority of people. At least in a personal, subjective experience the other gets to somewhat control what you believe about them.

  3. I’m not sure what I thought the first time I saw it, but this time, I think it looks very much like the face of a praying mantis.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s