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

originally posted by: TerryDon79
Never mind.

I'm done talking about a made up map.

I know right?!? The nerve of Betty Hill and Marjorie Fish and their insipid "made up map"...

So...why is it that you refuse to actually "look" at the data you condemn? Isn't that kind of contraindicated? I mean IF you looked at you might you should be better equipped to criticize it...or do you prefer to criticize blind?

a reply to: JimiS

You can try as hard as you like, I will not entertain your, or any other, map that is a work of fiction based on fiction.

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: JimiS

You can try as hard as you like, I will not entertain your, or any other, map that is a work of fiction based on fiction.

Good news: No fiction here...just solid astronomy, astrophysics, Mathematics, and computer vision / pattern matching!

So you don't need to worry about fiction...but, then again; you never checked out the data and evidence...so how would you know.?

a reply to: JimiS

You map is fictitious as it's based on fiction. The data is contrived to fit what you wanted it to fit.

Same argument from you we had in another thread when you were tanka.

*yawn*

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: JimiS

You map is fictitious as it's based on fiction. The data is contrived to fit what you wanted it to fit.

Same argument from you we had in another thread when you were tanka.

*yawn*

That is a serious statement; One that you have been unable to support.

Truth is...I used the original Betty Hill drawing, the interpretation by Matjorie Fish as a starting point. I then changed the stellar data from the Gliese catalog to the Hipparcos dataset...it is more modern and accurate.

From that data I constructed 3D models, I was able to locate a star that was left out by both Betty and Marjorie; the "view point" star...

So, none of your allegations about my theory and data hold any water...and you just have sour grapes...So cry as you like; my work remains on very solid and stable scientific ground.

a reply to: JimiS

You're still trying to get an argument out of me based on your fictitious map based on a fictitious map?

*double yawn*

originally posted by: klassless


UFOs are a real, "nuts and bolts", physical reality. We see them, photograph them, film them and videotape them. The word "social" does not apply.

The problem is there are no alien nuts and bolts. We have pictures that we (humans) say, look at the alien without really knowing a single thing about it. How is this much different than looking at a cloud and saying look at the rabbit. I agree in UFO as in "unidentified". Nothing in the history of this whole UFO phenomenon has been identified as alien.

Show me one thing that doesn't have human abstract thinking in the creation.

I gotta tell you, while I am a skeptic and an atheist and used to consider "demons, little people, fairies etc" as mental fantasies, there seems to be an overwhelming amount of miscellaneous evidence in the form of photos and videos that are difficult to say are hoaxes. The best examples come from trailcams that show all kinds of normally invisible beings and creatures. It's safe to claim that some are hoaxes but which ones, how many? If you were to stay by a trailcam would you see what it sees, such as the "Rake"? Bring along some waterproof undies!

How do you call yourself a skeptic when you do not need empirical data and facts. The UFO phenomenon might as well be faith based.

originally posted by: JimiS

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: JimiS

You map is fictitious as it's based on fiction. The data is contrived to fit what you wanted it to fit.

Same argument from you we had in another thread when you were tanka.

*yawn*

That is a serious statement; One that you have been unable to support.

I saw the thread. He's right.
Does the same argument have to take place in every thread here? Is someone realizing they're wasting their time responding to the same argument already shown wrong an inability to support an argument?
I don't think so.
I was there. TerryDon is right.

Harte

wow are the actually really involved in that

a reply to: Xtrozero

I have no source to back up that number but it might even be a conservative estimate, having experiences with extraterrestrial intelligences don't seem to be all that uncommon.

In my experience miracles do happen. And they happen in such a way that they can't be explained away by delusion or hallucination. I don't care how crazy a person is, hallucinations do not affect physical reality.

www.theatlantic.com...

More and more science is starting to look like mysticism. Slowly and surely they're starting to confirm age old axioms of mystery traditions.

Besides, not all of the evidence is human based. You ignore all the other evidence I cite and focus strictly on the personal testimony. There's all kinds of trace evidence including radioactive readings. When you also have whistleblowers speaking of this reality this should have been enough for people to collectively have demanded an explanation. But people haven't.. and I know why, they have been conditioned to not take the subject seriously and I think this is illustrated by the 1938 The War of the Worlds broadcast: people lost their goddamn minds.. because they hadn't been conditioned yet. I think this is at least somewhat indicative of how public perception changed after a few decades of propaganda.

originally posted by: ColdWisdom
a reply to: Xcathdra

doesn't the star map segment confirm their account of what occurred?

The star map proves nothing.

The star map proves something.

originally posted by: IVANV

originally posted by: ColdWisdom
a reply to: Xcathdra

doesn't the star map segment confirm their account of what occurred?

The star map proves nothing.

The star map proves something.

The star map shows an extremely high probability that Betty, and Barney were abducted by ET's. And, shown a "map" of a region of space, that became Betty's drawing.

The thing about the "map" is that it is a "view on space" that can not be "seen" from Earth, and after finding the viewpoint we find that the view point is several light years from Earth. Since the probability of Betty creating her map at random is virtually non-existent. It would indicate that Betty saw it while on board an ET craft.

originally posted by: TheLaughingGod
I have no source to back up that number but it might even be a conservative estimate, having experiences with extraterrestrial intelligences don't seem to be all that uncommon.

As a skeptic, what empirical data for the numbers do you use other than a WAG. I'm not saying this to be an ass, I'm suggesting that you believe so you think it is rather common in nature, when it is not.

In my experience miracles do happen. And they happen in such a way that they can't be explained away by delusion or hallucination. I don't care how crazy a person is, hallucinations do not affect physical reality.

Luck happens too, but luck isn't real either. It is just a way for us to explain the abnormal. You flip a penny 10 times and you call it correct every time, luck or normal process of percentages. BTW abnormal is normal just normal in small amounts.

More and more science is starting to look like mysticism. Slowly and surely they're starting to confirm age old axioms of mystery traditions.

I agree to a point, but it still doesn't make science mysticism, just science. A match stick was mysticism at one time, so are you suggesting that UFOs are still in the mysticism stage, also remember just because science may look like mysticism, most mysticism will never be science.

Besides, not all of the evidence is human based. You ignore all the other evidence I cite and focus strictly on the personal testimony. There's all kinds of trace evidence including radioactive readings. When you also have whistleblowers speaking of this reality this should have been enough for people to collectively have demanded an explanation. But people haven't.. and I know why, they have been conditioned to not take the subject seriously and I think this is illustrated by the 1938 The War of the Worlds broadcast: people lost their goddamn minds.. because they hadn't been conditioned yet. I think this is at least somewhat indicative of how public perception changed after a few decades of propaganda.

Trace evidence that can not be found or checked in anyway. Once again we take only the words of humans to explain that aliens are real. What evidence is there that the "secret Government" hasn't taken or destroyed. 1938 was rather different than 2016, I would think we are ready, and you fail to put the whole world in play and assume it just the USA with the secret. The whole world can not get along but the whole world can keep this a secret.

Can you not see that this is just another way to explain the lack of evidence out there.

originally posted by: klassless

I am a skeptic and a debunker. But an open-minded one.

So what have you debunked? Care to show us any of your research that definitively debunks a particular issue or event?

I'm skeptical that you're a debunker, but I'm open minded about it.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

Trace evidence that can not be found or checked in anyway. Once again we take only the words of humans to explain that aliens are real. What evidence is there that the "secret Government" hasn't taken or destroyed. 1938 was rather different than 2016, I would think we are ready, and you fail to put the whole world in play and assume it just the USA with the secret. The whole world can not get along but the whole world can keep this a secret.

Can you not see that this is just another way to explain the lack of evidence out there.

Betty Hill's map! That improbable bit of a scrawl on notebook paper which turns out to be virtually impossible to produce at random...

That is your evidence...

And, IF you will be honest, you might notice that States not so friendly to the US and the West; the view of UFO's is rather different.

a reply to: JimiS

The map is fiction. Your interpretation is fiction.

Your (tanka418) map:


Betty's original map:


They're vaguely similar, but nowhere near identical. My map is closer to a match than yours.

My map:


This was discussed in your own thread, which got closed by a mod. It was shown to you over and over again how your map used your own personal bias. It was shown how to you over and over again how your choosing the parameters used your own personal bias. You failed to accept it there, just as you are here.

The whole story of the Hills is fiction from start to finish.

a reply to: TerryDon79

The problem with your "match" is that it only uses 12 of the 25 points....

Mine, which is nearly identical to the Fish interpretation uses 25 of the 25 available points.

And, you can't call any of it "fiction" simply because, there is absolutely no fiction involved...what we have is the matching of a pattern successfully to the Hipparcos stars...that "pattern" is the original Hill map.

Your insistence of an exact "point-for-point" match is unrealistic, and unscientific, and completely unattainable...so perhaps you should actually go and learn about what it is that was done here...deny ignorance...and stop your three year old tantrum antics and learn to recognize reality.

The reality here TerryDon, is that you refuse to apply science, mathematics and technology to the problem...apparently preferring to make stuff up in order to support your fantasy.

I have shown very concisely just how this is a high quality match, and you have failed to understand a single word of it...so, please, before you respond again with your useless banter; go an learn about computer vision, pattern and template matching. Learn how facial recognition works, learn how fingerprint recognition works...basicall learn about what was done here...then you may assail it.

Did you know that the other "artifacts" I found in the original (which are also present in the computer rendering) provide the whole with even greater match quality? I bet you don't even know what I'm talking about...perhaps you should read the paper. You know, find out what the theory even says...

Your example using UK cities is invalid because you don't use enough data points, nor appropriate ones...

Now, please stop disrupting everything until you actually have something real.

Oh, and, the Hill's story, which you want to be fiction? It isn't...fiction that is...because of the probabilities of Betty's drawing...


Here...this is how close the match is:

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: JimiS

Give it up tanka418. You've already been shown how you're wrong. Try accepting that it's all fiction. Maybe it will help you.

Uh-huh...

I've used science (astronomy, astrophysics), Mathematics, and technology to show what I have...you have used nothing but your own opinion. You try to use irrelevant drawings to show how I'm wrong, yet your drawing are quantifiably more vague than mine, simply because you use less than half the available data...(actually...I have discovered new data, and am able to make predictions; based on my research)

Anyway man, do you think we could move on? I've shown beyond any scientific doubt that I'm correct, and as I said, you have nothing...

originally posted by: JimiS

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: JimiS

Give it up tanka418. You've already been shown how you're wrong. Try accepting that it's all fiction. Maybe it will help you.

Uh-huh...

I've used science (astronomy, astrophysics), Mathematics, and technology to show what I have...you have used nothing but your own opinion. You try to use irrelevant drawings to show how I'm wrong, yet your drawing are quantifiably more vague than mine, simply because you use less than half the available data...(actually...I have discovered new data, and am able to make predictions; based on my research)

All based on your personal bias.

Anyway man, do you think we could move on? I've shown beyond any scientific doubt that I'm correct, and as I said, you have nothing...

Actually, you haven't. What you have done is regurgitate your failed arguments from your closed thread.