Betty Hill artfully debunked by Dr Simon & skeptics Phil Klass & Robert Sheaffer

originally posted by: frenchfries
a reply to: klassless

There's a million topics waiting to be given the same debunking treatment, but always in good taste.

lol automated mass boXsized debunking comes in mind

(sounded funny in my head)

Although I firmly believe in ET and some other CT's on ATS. I love it when people search for the Truth and debunk stories that discredit the UFO phenomenon.

cheerio!

Would you welcome and contribute to a thread debunking the reality of ET? With two simple words: no evidence.

originally posted by: FireMoon
Let's not mince words. Klass' own friends stated openly his hatred of UFOs was almost pathological and the FBI, grew so wary of his torrent of abusive letters they even questioned his mental state. In truth, Klass belongs in exactly the same category as Greer as "busted flush". Paying people to lie about being the relative of Travis Walton, accusing Valentich of being a "drug runner" without a shred of actual evidence, trying to force a photo expert to publish and back an analysis he did not agree with. His analysis of the !Wow" incident being utter pseudo science and factually inaccurate to the point of embarrassment. As for Sheaffer, a mere dilettante who loves seeing his smug smile on TV while he prates on about cases that are never too challenging. Sheaffer is also way too prone to trotting out "misinformation" about sightings as well, the actual depth of his research wouldn't trouble a legless fly.

As for Betty and Barney Hill, all one can really say is that, they seemed to truly believe what happened to them was genuine and that is about it. Neither Klass or Sheaffer had or have the "intellectual chops" to deal with the case as neither really have or had the slightest clue when it comes to pronouncing on complicated sociological issues and the chemistry of the brain, no matter what they might like or liked to have claim(ed).

However you feel about the principals, the documents used for this thread tell the unimpeachable truth. The best source is always the horse's mouth. You ignore the fact that Barney's story came from Betty and he was mentally weak and you (nor I) know what their interracial lives were like, what was eating him. And he must have been susceptible to Betty's possible control. We'll never know but the letters tell the tale.

a reply to: klassless

indeed klassless I would welcome that ! On the other hand I'm a strong believer of non-human civilizations.

I assume you follow mainstream science 'reality of ET' is however very hard to debunk I mean look at the size of the universe and it's age ? Are we alone in the universe even NASA does believe there is live somewhere ? Even most scientist accept the posibility of 'ET' being real somewhere. But indeed I love to see ET being debunked.
Maybe you could Start with the Drake equotation and maybe you could introduce some more relevant parameters

However if your a creationist the argument becomes quite simple doesn't it ? And then well.... i've sooo many treads see with that kind of debunking that i'm not really interested in that kind of reasoning ,sorry.

originally posted by: UnderKingsPeak
The bias is so evident in the debunk.
This is how all debunking goes, it's such a formula.
They make one doubt everything that happened.
Did the Sun actually rise and set that morning ?
This is one of the first abduction cases, keeping that in mind
the Hills could not have stole the mold
others use to claim alien contact, because there weren't any.

The Hills case is no less mysterious after the PDF.
What is mysterious is Klass's ghost coming back from the dead
and spending time on ATS writing a "Nothing to see here"
OP about the Hills when Phil could be saying
"Look I'm communicating from the beyond,
and don't believe it's possible so debunk me !"

There was no bias. A claim was made and it was full of holes which were quickly filled in. The Hills got their abduction idea from TV shows such as The Outer Limits ("The Bellero Shield") and who knows where else. What if Betty in her UFOlogical zeal discussed possible abductions after seeing the movies and popular TV shows?

Try to develop and nurture an open mind.

a reply to: klassless

I think the field is apt to knock people off their axles for periods of time.

Jacques Vallee and Hynek both had their dark times were reality became a fuzzier concept. Hynek was hearing voices and Vallee was interpreting crop circles as evidence of space-based weapons platforms. In a contrasting way, even Klass fell off his rocker when due diligence was extended to writing letters to government departments to cause trouble for ufologists. In what way was that proportionate and what on earth provoked such an emotional response in him? Likewise Menzel temporarily ditched his training as a scientist to conjure up any explanation for various UFO reports.

Some experiences cause our mental wallpaper to start peeling slightly. What happened with Betty was enough to open her up to anything; the old wallpaper was hanging right off in some ways. It doesn't have to have been an 'actual' incident of abduction; her innate belief that it was would be enough to leave her questioning and susceptible to her (and others) own imagination. Not that I'm saying it *wasn't* an actual incident either - it's an open case in my mind.

I envy you for having known Ann Druffel.

I heard a long interview with her (BoA) and found her very endearing and thoughtful. She provides a strong contrast to James McDonald and how two people can go in opposite directions off similar material. Whatever constitutes 'UFO reports and encounters,' they seem to bring out certain characteristics that are peculiar to each of us.

originally posted by: frenchfries
a reply to: klassless

indeed klassless I would welcome that ! On the other hand I'm a strong believer of non-human civilizations.

I assume you follow mainstream science 'reality of ET' is however very hard to debunk I mean look at the size of the universe and it's age ? Are we alone in the universe even NASA does believe there is live somewhere ? Even most scientist accept the posibility of 'ET' being real somewhere. But indeed I love to see ET being debunked.
Maybe you could Start with the Drake equotation and maybe you could introduce some more relevant parameters

However if your a creationist the argument becomes quite simple doesn't it ? And then well.... i've sooo many treads see with that kind of debunking that i'm not really interested in that kind of reasoning ,sorry.

Reality of ET is very easy to debunk. No evidence, just hearsay. And, yes, I do not accept anything associated with life outside of humans. Numbers do not mean anything when there is no evidence. Life elsewhere is a romantic fantasy. Possibility is just a concept. Drake's equation is a concept, not a reality. His numbers are meaningless 'cause you still wind up with zero, discounting us of course.

Now, if you are so sure of the reality of ET, please tell us what evidence convinces you.

originally posted by: Kandinsky
a reply to: klassless

I think the field is apt to knock people off their axles for periods of time.

Jacques Vallee and Hynek both had their dark times were reality became a fuzzier concept. Hynek was hearing voices and Vallee was interpreting crop circles as evidence of space-based weapons platforms. In a contrasting way, even Klass fell off his rocker when due diligence was extended to writing letters to government departments to cause trouble for ufologists. In what way was that proportionate and what on earth provoked such an emotional response in him? Likewise Menzel temporarily ditched his training as a scientist to conjure up any explanation for various UFO reports.

Some experiences cause our mental wallpaper to start peeling slightly. What happened with Betty was enough to open her up to anything; the old wallpaper was hanging right off in some ways. It doesn't have to have been an 'actual' incident of abduction; her innate belief that it was would be enough to leave her questioning and susceptible to her (and others) own imagination. Not that I'm saying it *wasn't* an actual incident either - it's an open case in my mind.

I envy you for having known Ann Druffel.

I heard a long interview with her (BoA) and found her very endearing and thoughtful. She provides a strong contrast to James McDonald and how two people can go in opposite directions off similar material. Whatever constitutes 'UFO reports and encounters,' they seem to bring out certain characteristics that are peculiar to each of us.

Well said. I used to admire Vallee when his first books came out and he presented a new way of thinking compared to what was available at the time. But then he went off into tangents that I couldn't fathom and now I just read that although he is a millionaire he was asking for help in raising $42,000 to publish a limited run of 500 books of which less than 200 have sold for $200 each and the material of the book is a rehash and full of errors. I'm done with him.

I did have fun with Ann that night but...

a reply to: klassless

Vallee is also a venture capitalist and apparently one hell of a businessman. I don't think I would let that fact alone discredit his work in my mind.

I personally loved Messengers of Deception and I think it to be his greatest published piece on UFOlogy.

Reality of ET is very easy to debunk. No evidence, just hearsay. And, yes, I do not accept anything associated with life outside of humans. Numbers do not mean anything when there is no evidence. Life elsewhere is a romantic fantasy. Possibility is just a concept. Drake's equation is a concept, not a reality. His numbers are meaningless 'cause you still wind up with zero, discounting us of course.

ok.... hmmmm.. that sets the tone/age ... same is true for black hole and string theory. Reality means being in existance. just because something is hearsay (which it isn't I saw it) doesn't mean it isn't real , . And numbers aren't meaningless , you didn't put any numbers in the equotation because the sum isn't zero ?

Now, if you are so sure of the reality of ET, please tell us what evidence convinces you.

ET literally in the jungle dancing in front of me... I was scared as hell.

originally posted by: klassless

originally posted by: FireMoon
Let's not mince words. Klass' own friends stated openly his hatred of UFOs was almost pathological and the FBI, grew so wary of his torrent of abusive letters they even questioned his mental state. In truth, Klass belongs in exactly the same category as Greer as "busted flush". Paying people to lie about being the relative of Travis Walton, accusing Valentich of being a "drug runner" without a shred of actual evidence, trying to force a photo expert to publish and back an analysis he did not agree with. His analysis of the !Wow" incident being utter pseudo science and factually inaccurate to the point of embarrassment. As for Sheaffer, a mere dilettante who loves seeing his smug smile on TV while he prates on about cases that are never too challenging. Sheaffer is also way too prone to trotting out "misinformation" about sightings as well, the actual depth of his research wouldn't trouble a legless fly.

As for Betty and Barney Hill, all one can really say is that, they seemed to truly believe what happened to them was genuine and that is about it. Neither Klass or Sheaffer had or have the "intellectual chops" to deal with the case as neither really have or had the slightest clue when it comes to pronouncing on complicated sociological issues and the chemistry of the brain, no matter what they might like or liked to have claim(ed).

However you feel about the principals, the documents used for this thread tell the unimpeachable truth. The best source is always the horse's mouth. You ignore the fact that Barney's story came from Betty and he was mentally weak and you (nor I) know what their interracial lives were like, what was eating him. And he must have been susceptible to Betty's possible control. We'll never know but the letters tell the tale.

You have just completely contradicted yourself there. Nothing Klass either claimed or did, can viewed as anything other than propaganda and he was infamous for extrapolating conclusions from what was in effect, thin air. The Betty and Barney Hill case is way more famous than many others mostly because, it happened in the USA and the USA was the original source of much of the media surrounding the whole subject. Sheaffer is merely a "me too sceptic" , I've yet to see him interview a single witness or actually sully his hands with a genuine investigation into a single case. Their opinion on anything to do with Ufology has to be viewed with a heap of salt and then open suspicion as they have both proved themselves to be , in Klass's case an outright liar and in Sheaffer's case, a mere dilettante whose knowledge of the subject is at best patchy and who seems to like nothing more than watching his own face on TV.

Then there is the thorny of question of the cognitive dissonance involved with Klass and Sheaffer whereby, they are the very first to moan about people and pseudo science yet, they themselves are self appointed "experts" when it comes to the psychology of the human mind. The "abduction narrative" is as old as human kind, it has nothing to do with some TV show, it's been around since the year dot. it is a tad ironic to be talking about the dynamics between Betty and Barney when , the net is full of so called "rational sceptics" who hang off the every word of a select bunch of "know it alls" and mindlessly trot out their cant on site after site, without actually stopping to check any of its' veracity.

I mean , given Sheaffer likes to rant and rave about modern feminism, one could equally accuse him of "having an agenda" and his view on and treatment of Betty Hill, is based wholly on his problem with "strong females". Ergo, he is prone to seek justification of his views by attacking someone such as Betty Hill and he also has the bonus of being able to attack another of his pet peeves, namely Ufology.

If one wants to debate whether the whole "abduction genre" is the result of a pre-programmed set of psychological reactions to certain stimulus rather than, the result of external forces creating a false memory then that's fine however, Klass and Sheaffer have no more expertise than anyone else in that particular field so their thoughts carry no more weight than the vast majority of those who choose to pontificate about it all.

In fact, one can argue perfectly logically that, both Klass' and Sheaffer's views carry less weight than most other people's, as they start form the wholly unscientific stance of, "I know this cannot be so because I know it is impossible". Their complete lack of self awareness does not augur well for their ability to pronounce on other people's ability to know what is "real" and what is not? In short, many so called sceptics are every bit the same mindset as the "believers" just the polar opposite point of view.

originally posted by: klassless
Some members are getting carried away with the infighting over Betty's starmap. Please restrict your replies to the topic which is the Hill's made-up experience. Since it's been proven beyond mondo that the Hill's never had the alleged experience then arguing about the damn starmap is a waste of mind power especially in a thread that disproves all claims associated with the map.

Please contribute to this thread or as someone threatened, start a thread on the starmap and I'm sure it's an old topic here.

Behave. You are all nice people but of differing opinions which are almost at fever pitch. Relax.

Well, actually, logically you do not have the proof you speak of...the Hill's experience HAS NOT been proven "false"...Further, this "map" is central to the understanding of the Hill's experience...

Science, Astronomy, Astrophysics and Mathematics go a very long way to demonstrating the reality of both the "map" and the experience of the Hills.. It does this by being a collection of data that could not have been gained by any means other than Extraterrestrial abduction / encounter. And, receiving information form those Extraterrestrials about space. In this case the "map", and where it is "viewed from".

Now that I have done every bodies job for them by debugging DJW001's logic exception, perhaps we can put this whole thing to rest...And perhaps the Hill's can have some degree of closure without biased, non scientist analysts intruding with their broken logic.

May as well do all this in one post:
DJW001. Your central issue is one of methodology, and in particular, star selection criteria, and dataset.

The dataset being used here is Hipparcos, a set of some 117,000 stars of all classes. You complain about the "biased" nature of this dataset, without acknowledging that it is reflective of the actual nature of the Stars them selves. In other words; the dataset isn't "biased"; Nature is...nothing we can do about that, so we must work with the data available. To not use this data dooms us to ignorance.

Your nest issue is that you seem to want to remove "life" from the ravages of statistics and probability; the very same statistics and probability; i.e Mathematics that is common and applies to the rest of the Universe. In this case you insist, and depend upon life NOT following and adhering to a statistical "Standard Model"...something that should be quite impossible.

Armed with this false notion that "Life" itself is something "special", and doesn't follow the same "path", or "rules" as all other things, you have reached the false idea that an analysis of this aspect is fruitless (this may also apply to you klassless).

Understanding this in the proper light is key to understanding a great many things including the Hill's experience...Once we begin to understand the impossibility of Betty drawing that map as a random event we can begin to grasp that there are very few, if any, other method for her to have "created" it...seeing it as a working bit of technology in ET craft actually does become the most probable.

So, just to recap; DJW001, you are wrong, your logic breaks down and we find that life, in all its wondrous forms does in fact, necessarily, conform to the standard model, and we have a "standard distribution" of life forms across the Universe (kind of like we find here on Earth). Your repeated explanations, etc. are nothing more than confabulation...

And, klassless, an explanation of the map should be key in anything you do to try to "debunk" the Hill case, and, as should be very apparent, an explanation of this "map" is not easy...

a reply to: frenchfries

ET literally in the jungle dancing in front of me... I was scared as hell.

That doesn't sound like extra-terrestrials... those were just local spirits.

originally posted by: JimiS

originally posted by: klassless
Some members are getting carried away with the infighting over Betty's starmap. Please restrict your replies to the topic which is the Hill's made-up experience. Since it's been proven beyond mondo that the Hill's never had the alleged experience then arguing about the damn starmap is a waste of mind power especially in a thread that disproves all claims associated with the map.

Please contribute to this thread or as someone threatened, start a thread on the starmap and I'm sure it's an old topic here.

Behave. You are all nice people but of differing opinions which are almost at fever pitch. Relax.

Well, actually, logically you do not have the proof you speak of...the Hill's experience HAS NOT been proven "false"...Further, this "map" is central to the understanding of the Hill's experience...

You mean the one that Betty herself says is stars AND planets?

Science, Astronomy, Astrophysics and Mathematics go a very long way to demonstrating the reality of both the "map" and the experience of the Hills.. It does this by being a collection of data that could not have been gained by any means other than Extraterrestrial abduction / encounter. And, receiving information form those Extraterrestrials about space. In this case the "map", and where it is "viewed from".

Only if you ignore planets.

Now that I have done every bodies job for them by debugging DJW001's logic exception, perhaps we can put this whole thing to rest...And perhaps the Hill's can have some degree of closure without biased, non scientist analysts intruding with their broken logic.

You mean like your issued, non scientific analysis that ignored the part about planets?

May as well do all this in one post:
DJW001. Your central issue is one of methodology, and in particular, star selection criteria, and dataset.

What about the planets?

The dataset being used here is Hipparcos, a set of some 117,000 stars of all classes. You complain about the "biased" nature of this dataset, without acknowledging that it is reflective of the actual nature of the Stars them selves. In other words; the dataset isn't "biased"; Nature is...nothing we can do about that, so we must work with the data available. To not use this data dooms us to ignorance.

To ignore the planets part has doomed you to ignorance.

Your nest issue is that you seem to want to remove "life" from the ravages of statistics and probability; the very same statistics and probability; i.e Mathematics that is common and applies to the rest of the Universe. In this case you insist, and depend upon life NOT following and adhering to a statistical "Standard Model"...something that should be quite impossible.

You removed planets from the statistics and probabilities.

Armed with this false notion that "Life" itself is something "special", and doesn't follow the same "path", or "rules" as all other things, you have reached the false idea that an analysis of this aspect is fruitless (this may also apply to you klassless).

And you have a false notion that it's all about stars and not planets.

Understanding this in the proper light is key to understanding a great many things including the Hill's experience...Once we begin to understand the impossibility of Betty drawing that map as a random event we can begin to grasp that there are very few, if any, other method for her to have "created" it...seeing it as a working bit of technology in ET craft actually does become the most probable.

Only if you include planets.

So, just to recap; DJW001, you are wrong, your logic breaks down and we find that life, in all its wondrous forms does in fact, necessarily, conform to the standard model, and we have a "standard distribution" of life forms across the Universe (kind of like we find here on Earth). Your repeated explanations, etc. are nothing more than confabulation...

Your logic breaks down when you ignore planets.

And, klassless, an explanation of the map should be key in anything you do to try to "debunk" the Hill case, and, as should be very apparent, an explanation of this "map" is not easy...

Why should it be key? It's a minor point. It's only key to you because you insist on wasting your time on it. You don't even use planets, yet you want to tell people what should be discussed in a thread? Wow, the arrogance is high with you tanka.

a reply to: DJW001

Yeah could be , but it looked like a grey very scary could also move very quick. Another explanation could be that I had some drug or so in my system but I didn't ingest anything so still I don't know... but for ME the best explanation that ET exists... go ahead debunk if you like.

a reply to: TerryDon79

Perhaps IF you actually read the material at the link, you could find your planets...

Ya know, I've noticed that you and DJW both rely and depend on a very narrow interpretation of the story...And if we use the most common interpretation; all of your stuff falls apart...just an observation...

But, again, IF you want planets; follow the link...

originally posted by: JimiS
a reply to: TerryDon79

Perhaps IF you actually read the material at the link, you could find your planets...

Perhaos if you included planets on your "interpretation" of the map, no one qiuld question why they weren't there.

Ya know, I've noticed that you and DJW both rely and depend on a very narrow interpretation of the story...And if we use the most common interpretation; all of your stuff falls apart...just an observation...

You ignore almost all parts of the story, including the bit about planets, just to get your map to work.

But, again, IF you want planets; follow the link...

Your map has never included planets. Remember us going through this for pages and pages before you were banned?

originally posted by: FireMoon
" Let's not mince words. Klass' own friends stated openly his hatred of UFOs was almost pathological"

I don't know whence you came up with this, I was a close friend since the early 1970s and I never saw anything pathological about his passion to solve engineering and science puzzles, he did it for a living. UFOs was a hobby but the methodology and commitment was the same.

Martin Kottmeyer made this contribution to possible cultural roots of the Hill narrative: www.debunker.com...

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: JimiS
a reply to: TerryDon79

Perhaps IF you actually read the material at the link, you could find your planets...

Perhaos if you included planets on your "interpretation" of the map, no one qiuld question why they weren't there.

Ya know, I've noticed that you and DJW both rely and depend on a very narrow interpretation of the story...And if we use the most common interpretation; all of your stuff falls apart...just an observation...

You ignore almost all parts of the story, including the bit about planets, just to get your map to work.

But, again, IF you want planets; follow the link...

Your map has never included planets. Remember us going through this for pages and pages before you were banned?

Again...IF you follow the link you will find all known planets...and, they ARE a part of my "interpretation" of the map...but you would have to read the article to know that...maybe you should! Also, these planets have always been a part of the analysis...But, again, you must read it to know...

Never mind.

I'm done talking about a made up map.