Sleep Paralysis

[Pollux]

Hi
I want to know what the exact studies of Sleep Paralysis are.
How the did they do the study, and how they reach their conclusions.

One might say the patient/study object had a night terror while being watched and the wachting party didnt see anything by/around the study object- herby case closed.

Meaning, if nothing is objectivly observed by bystanders then there must have been a "mental incident", so the object "must been out of their frackin mind"..case closed.

This is the basic thinking about the trials that might been made about this phenomena as I have seen it.
But there haft to been much more of it, parts of the brain going "wild life" during this time, comparing it to mental patients hallucinations etc.

If I get time I can evolve my thinking some more, not much of time right now though.

Also, the possibility of "normal" ordinary people having hallucinations, not just by themself, but having a form of collective hallucinations.
How is that even possible?

I have heard some debunkers saying that some UFO-witnesses as a group have ONE person who is more vocal about the phenomenon who would by their stature diminish the others witnesses recollection and by that fact dismiss the incident as the others witnesses wouldnt be as credible.

To me this is/sounds like frackin bollox, just some silly "slight of hands" from cynics/sceptics who reach a situation where their "theroies" are pushed in to a corner.

The easy way out is to say " everyone is stupid or dumb, case closed".

[Psibeliever]

Many abductees were not asleep at the time, and, furthermore, many of them, asleep or awake, came back with cuts and incisions. Sleep paralysis would not account for cuts and incisions.

But there is an explanation for everything, of course. There always is, no matter how convulated.

[strange_mind13]

Sleep Paralysis is a phenomenom that science still has not solved. Sleep Paralysis is also very common to those of physic abilitys.

[AlexSmith]

Sleep paralysis is a feeling of being conscious but unable to move. It occurs when a person passes between stages of wakefulness and sleep. During these transitions, you may be unable to move or speak for a few seconds up to a few minutes. Some people may also feel pressure or a sense of choking. Sleep paralysis may accompany other sleep disorders such as narcolepsy. Narcolepsy is an overpowering need to sleep caused by a problem with the brain's ability to regulate sleep.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by Psibeliever

Many abductees were not asleep at the time, and, furthermore, many of them, asleep or awake, came back with cuts and incisions. Sleep paralysis would not account for cuts and incisions.

But sleepwalking might.

But there is an explanation for everything, of course. There always is, no matter how convulated.

As opposed to the entirely nonconvoluted "aliens didit"?

~~ Paul

[Psibeliever]

But sleepwalking might.

Provide proof that they were sleepwalking.

As opposed to the entirely nonconvoluted "aliens didit"?

Simplest explanation. It accounts for those who were awake when abducted, as well as those who were asleep, and it accounts for the cuts and incisions. Last, but certainly not least, it accounts for abductions that took place in front of witnesses. Apparently, those cuts and incisions were of the same shape and kind as found in many abductees.

[hoggworks]

Originally Posted by Psibeliever

Provide proof that they were sleepwalking.

Provide proof that they were actually awake when the abduction happened.

Simplest explanation. It accounts for those who were awake when abducted, as well as those who were asleep, and it accounts for the cuts and incisions. Last, but certainly not least, it accounts for abductions that took place in front of witnesses. Apparently, those cuts and incisions were of the same shape and kind as found in many abductees.

It's simpler, in your view, that aliens (which we have no direct evidence of) travel to Earth (for reasons we have no direct evidence of, using a method we have no direct evidence of) and abduct people, than it is that they sleptwalked (which we have direct evidence of) or had hypnogogic (which we have direct evidence of)?

As far as consistency of wounds goes, one could imagine that, were sleepwalking the cause, that injuries might be consistent as most people have the same type of things in their house, and if they, say, bumped into a wall or corner of a bed frame, they're not so different from person to person that said injuries would look terribly different.

Now, of course, that's just a guess, but it least it's reasonable, and doesn't rest entirely on completely unproven entities.

[Psibeliever]

Provide proof that they were actually awake when the abduction happened.

Testimony, eyewitnesses, as in the Travis Walton case. Also hypnotic sessions by a prominent registered psychiatrist, the late Dr John Mack of Harvard College. If you want proof beyond a reasonable doubt, then you probably wouldn't believe in any ancient history. In fact, you can't prove you ever wrote exams, as opposed to someone writing it for you.

Again, a skeptic can always provide an alternate explanation - providing proof is another matter.

[hoggworks]

Originally Posted by Psibeliever

Testimony, eyewitnesses, as in the Travis Walton case. Also hypnotic sessions by a prominent registered psychiatrist, the late Dr John Mack of Harvard College. If you want proof beyond a reasonable doubt, then you probably wouldn't believe in any ancient history. In fact, you can't prove you ever wrote exams, as opposed to someone writing it for you.

Again, a skeptic can always provide an alternate explanation - providing proof is another matter.

You seem to have missed the point where Paul wasn't claiming he had proof of the sleepwalking hypothesis, but rather offered it as a potential alternative, one which more easily fits the bill. Did he SAY he knew for sure? No, because such absolutes are unreasonable.

Testimony and eyewitnesses are good (ish, depending on the circumstances). As for the hypnosis, well, hypnosis doesn't actually exist, nor do recovered memories.

It may very well be that these folks are getting abducted in full view, but pointing toward non-existent phenomena as evidence isn't a way to make your case. You may as well assert a murder suspect's innocence because the court can't prove that an evil leprechaun didn't do it.

[Psibeliever]

You seem to have missed the point where Paul wasn't claiming he had proof of the sleepwalking hypothesis, but rather offered it as a potential alternative, one which more easily fits the bill. Did he SAY he knew for sure? No, because such absolutes are unreasonable.

Do you speak for Paul?

Testimony and eyewitnesses are good (ish, depending on the circumstances). As for the hypnosis, well, hypnosis doesn't actually exist, nor do recovered memories.

If there were eyewitnesses and the victims themselves are reliable, then we can take their evidence as a working hypothesis.

It may very well be that these folks are getting abducted in full view, but pointing toward non-existent phenomena as evidence isn't a way to make your case.

Why not? They say they were taken aboard a craft, where strange creatures cut into them, and some other witnesses say they saw those victims being abducted. So why not make it a tentative hypothesis that they were abducted? As for your phrase, "non-existent phenomena", that presupposes the phenomena doesn't exist, which I do NOT presuppose.

You may as well assert a murder suspect's innocence because the court can't prove that an evil leprechaun didn't do it.

The prosecution has to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and it has to provide the evidence. This includes eye-witness testimony - "I saw Butch fire the gun." - and, if the eye-witnesses were reliable, then that would be sufficient evidence.

Furthermore, direct evidence isn't all that's used to convict - circumstantial evidence can also be used.

To apply the legal methodology here, if eye witnesses and/or the victim were seen as reliable, then that is proof of an abduction - Dr Mack said the people were ordinary and didn't have anything special, and they were quite reliable, so that's one point.

The other point is the evidence of surgical incision marks. Now, I don't know an incision from a sore thumb, but my understanding is that
1) the victims were examined and those marks were diagnosed as cut marks or surgical incision marks, and
2) the women were pregnant, but, suddenly, the fetuses were removed, and there were no signs of abortion.

I don't know if 1 and 2 are correct, and I would love to hear from someone who has knowledge of the diagnosis, but, IF they were diagnosed as such, then this is very clear circumstantial evidence of abduction and implantation.

Last, but certainly not least, there have been a lot of wrongful convictions, and this is a shame on the legal profession. Maybe all that evidence I've mentioned, about the eyewitnesses, about the circumstantial physical evidence, and so on, maybe there's a good explanation for all this. But, for now, the only one that fits the facts are alien abductions. And it is, of course, only tentative.

That said, I hope you're right.