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

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: TheLaughingGod

And I don't trust the judgement of someone who uses known debunked claims as their proof.

Go figure.

Have your read " unconventional flying objects" by Paul R Hill ?
Read it, then you'll understand what's going on.

originally posted by: TheLaughingGod
a reply to: TerryDon79

I don't believe you, you're intellectually dishonest enough to claim that the only evidence that exists is testimonial. So if you want to claim that these cases have been debunked you would have to prove it.

It's a list of cases, you could easily google them.

You might want to read the threads. Sometimes there are links to other threads....like the one I pointed out already.

I'm sure there actually are thousands of cases, this does not mean that all of them have been rigidly scrutinised, or that information about all of them are even available in English.

I am sure I have heard that there are thousands of cases thousands of times but I have never seen any evidence that there are. Just the same links that people never bother reading and constant repeating of "thousands of cases".

Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.

There is no baby in the bath nor water for that matter...

Either way we look at it the reality of the phenomena - unknown craft flying in our atmosphere - is undeniable.

actually, it is deniable. UFOs, sure, ok. Crafts? As in aliens? that has not been shown.

But like I said in my first post, trying to understand what is going on by looking at individual cases is mostly pointless. A holistic perspective encompassing all the different kinds of evidence and taking them all into account would be the way to get at the truth.

No. That's the path to developing a mythology. Examining individual cases shows what the mythology is comprised of...stories, ambiguity, poor research, etc..

Thinking nothing is going on here is foolish in the extreme. Thinking our government is clueless about this is even more foolish.

Something is going on but its most likely psychological...and the government is well aware and takes full advantage of this to cover up whatever it is they want to cover up.

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 am not a believer. I rely on evidence. We humans on planet earth is all there is in all in existence. However, I'm not stupid and I have to take into account UFOs. We don't know what they are, where they originate. Are UFOs "manned" or remotely-controlled vehicles? Whether one or the other, they have a reality. When I say there's no ETs I mean that I don't accept that the occupants or controllers are in a far off world, another galaxy, etc. I don't know of a single UFO sighting farther than the Moon, although we're getting images of UFOs from Mars. Still no images of beings or whatever they may turn out to be. They are a mystery and no one on earth knows anything about them. The variety of UFO shapes beats Detroit by a mile. So are "they" one "race" or multiple? I don't expect answers to my questions in my life.

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

Ever since the first time I saw Drake's equation I've been laughing seeing it taken seriously when it's a mathematical joke. Drake has no idea of any other lifeforms similar to us so his equation has to start with zero or one for us. When you start with zero the end result is zero.

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.

I'm not a creationist, I'm a realist. For the present it's us 1, aliens 0.

a reply to: ZetaRediculian

There's always those 5%...

Psychological? How can psychology affect the radar of the military? Please explain that.

Crafts yes. Since these showed up long before we had such capabilities it is fairly obvious that we're either dealing with extraterrestrials, some type of extradimensional beings or terrestrial beings that have been living beside us for thousands of years. Either way they're alien to us.

Only fools do not realise this, and only fools would be gullible enough to buy the explanations of governments and militaries without skepticism. Especially when their own have repeatedly blown the whistle on the whole thing.

Frank B. Salisbury, Ph.D. (Professor, Plant Physiology, Utah State University)
“I must admit that any favorable mention of the flying saucers by a scientist amounts to extreme heresy and places the one making the statement in danger of excommunication by the scientific theocracy. Nevertheless, in recent years I have investigated the story of the unidentified flying object (UFO), and I am no longer able to dismiss the idea lightly.”

This is at the heart of it.. people and academia in particular have been conditioned not to take the subject seriously. The fact that this type of excommunication occurs at all really says it all.

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics UFO Subcommittee (1967)
“From a scientific and engineering standpoint, it is unacceptable to simply ignore substantial numbers of unexplained observations…the only promising approach is a continuing moderate-level effort with emphasis on improved data collection and objective means…involving available remote sensing capabilities and certain software changes.”

Peter A. Sturrock, Ph.D. (Professor, Space Science and Astrophysics, and deputy director of the Center for Space Sciences and Astrophysics, Stanford University)

“The definitive resolution of the UFO enigma will not come about unless and until the problem is subjected to open and extensive scientific study by the normal procedures of established science and administrators in universities.”
“Although…the scientific community has tended to minimize the significance of the UFO phenomenon, certain individual scientists have argued that the phenomenon is both real and significant… To a scientist, the main source of hard information (other than his own experiments [and] observations) is provided by the scientific journals. With rare exceptions, scientific journals do not publish reports of UFO observations. The decision not to publish is made by the editor acting on the advice of reviewers. This process is self-reinforcing; the apparent lack of data confirms the view that there is nothing to the UFO phenomenon, and this view works against the presentation of relevant data…”

To think that governments haven't figured out what is going on by this point is ridiculous in the extreme.

It's just unfortunate that people like you are too hopelessly brainwashed to actually realise this.

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: Kandinsky

Kandinsky said: Being hypnotised also involves scales of suggestibility. A good sample size would probably require a means of measuring each subject's levels of suggestibility so like was being compared with like.

Stage magicians who have large numbers of volunteers being directed by him/her do not have the time to use the tactic suggested by Kandinsky. So, since the average person is well educated they make ideal subjects and it has been shown that a high number of the group could be put it a trance demonstrating positive and negative hallucinating. So sometimes scales are meaningless as in a such a public demonstration.

The whole idea of "hypnosis" seems problematic to me. I think what we are really talking about is suggestibility and being "under hypnosis" is just a suggestion. I also think it has to do with the persons belief that such a state exists. Not unlike a placebo effect. Professional psychologists and psychiatrists have no trouble selling it and most people have no problem buying it. That's just my suggestion which makes me un-hypnotizable.

"'being "under hypnosis" is just a suggestion.'" Nope. It takes thought to construct hypnotic patter that the subject will accept and not react to negatively and not cooperate. True, some people are highly susceptible to suggestion and don't need the hypnotist to carry on.

A hypnotic state does not depend on belief. You either want to be hypnotized or not. Your belief is then based on the hypnotist's skill.

You sound like and intelligent person which means you can be hypnotized by a hypnotist that may feel that you're resisting and employ an effective patter to conquer your mind.

originally posted by: JimOberg
a reply to: Kandinsky Good point on overwriting, there was a marvelous NOVA episode on exactly that process a few months ago.

Before I read his reply I was dwelling on overwriting except I didn't use that term. I was thinking more along the lines of memories being fixed since there was no overwritng as the memories were being created. But with enough effort from the hypnotist parts of memory could be affected. However, I don't think that we can do it to ourselves, only an outside force. You could fool yourself with a weak memory but you would be conscious of your effort.

originally posted by: ColdWisdom
a reply to: JimOberg

Yes I made a thread about it here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Now back to my original question. Is there anywhere online where I can see your ideological exchange with the hypnotherapist on TV?

From your thread:

originally posted by: ColdWisdom
SOURCE

The implications discussed in this documentary are mind boggling and unprecedented. It really opens up the door to explain many a phenomena involving the paranormal, mind control, abductions, etc.

Abductions? Do you mean alleged "alien abductions"? If you do, they've been explained. They never happened and they are creations of the mind. To counter my comments, provide evidence for just one abduction. Hearsay won't do and neither will beliefs.

originally posted by: JimOberg

There's enough evidence to send someone to jail for a 1 million year sentence.

The expiration date of this undead zombie fallacy was sometime in the last century.

A trial occurs when there is indisputable physical evidence of a crime [corpus delicti], the jury relies on testimony and other evidence merely to determine if a particular person was responsible, NOT whether the crime even existed.

I beg to differ. The jury determines if a person was responsible because they are TIED to a crime. Otherwise, why is there a case? And you said that there was physical evidence of a crime. The jury has to accept that the reason they are in a courtroom is because a crime was committed and justice has been mobilized.

I will appreciate if LaughingGod and all others communicating with him/her stop hijacking my thread which is titled "Betty Hill artfully debunked by Dr Simon & skeptics Phil Klass & Robert Sheaffer"

If you have nothing to add please start a thread and take your bickering to it.

a reply to: TheLaughingGod

There's always those 5%...

What about the other 95% that were once thought to be alien spaceships but turned out to be something else? That's more telling then those 5%.

Psychological? How can psychology affect the radar of the military? Please explain that.

How on earth could it not? These are humans operating these things right?

To think that governments haven't figured out what is going on by this point is ridiculous in the extreme.

Only fools do not realise this, and only fools would be gullible enough to buy the explanations of governments and militaries without skepticism. Especially when their own have repeatedly blown the whistle on the whole thing.

Like Paul Bennewitz?

It's just unfortunate that people like you are too hopelessly brainwashed to actually realise this.

oh knock it off. Do you realize that if the scientific community actually got involved that they would be excommunicated by ufology if they found anything less than aliens or had crazy ideas about psychology? Yes, scientists are called skeptics and some of them will debunk those silly links you provided as evidence. Its nonsense. What you are really wanting is some scientist to confirm aliens for you. Not happening unless there is something solid to go on but what we have is people making stupid claims like there are thousands of cases and "crafts" flying around based on stupid web sites.

read this quote again and tell me honestly what you think this means and why you think I am against this.

“The definitive resolution of the UFO enigma will not come about unless and until the problem is subjected to open and extensive scientific study by the normal procedures of established science and administrators in universities.”

Obviously Dr. Sturrock doesn't think that normal procedures of established science are at play and neither do any of the people you are arguing with. Do you get it yet?


OK...I'm done. back on topic.

a reply to: klassless

I will leave you with the words of the amazing Kreskin

Oh, there’s one more point that is not found in this article, an article which helps to shroud and perpetuate some of the misconceptions, and that is what they should have stated is that there is absolutely no evidence on the face of the earth of a specific state or condition that can be defined as hypnosis, because in order to define such a state or condition, you have to show what can be done with that condition that cannot be done without that condition. I have news for you, folks, there’s nothing, and I repeat nothing. The bottom line is if I had written this article, I would have made it clear that the key to the whole phenomena is pure suggestion, no trance, no deep relaxation, etc. etc., but pure suggestion.

The Fantasy of Hypnosis Continues

a reply to: klassless

Ah.. I see no aliens in your opinion all clear. ? Even in the vastness of space there is no single other intelligent lifeform like human.

So ? what's the point of debunking melee cases ?

You asked me to debunk other case well debunk SETI. Debunk these poor delusional scientists that search for intelligent life.

originally posted by: klassless

Ever since the first time I saw Drake's equation I've been laughing seeing it taken seriously when it's a mathematical joke. Drake has no idea of any other lifeforms similar to us so his equation has to start with zero or one for us. When you start with zero the end result is zero.

I agree that the Drake equation is constantly misused and misunderstood.
Your statement above is an example of the latter.
There is no parameter in the equation that corresponds to "lifeforms similar to us," hence your statement is actually meaningless.

Harte

originally posted by: frenchfries
a reply to: klassless

Ah.. I see no aliens in your opinion all clear. ? Even in the vastness of space there is no single other intelligent lifeform like human.

So ? what's the point of debunking melee cases ?

You asked me to debunk other case well debunk SETI. Debunk these poor delusional scientists that search for intelligent life.

And...
Same old straw man argument.

Harte

originally posted by: IVANV

The proof is the visual and radar contact. Visual contact is what is used in trials to sentence people. Again radar is used to sentence pilots which break rules over populated areas.
If you accept something being sent to jail for murder cause there are witnesses claim they witnessed a stabbing, then visual proof is good enough.

I'm a pilot with over 10,000 hours in the military, and have flown all over the world across all seven continents so I understand the whole pilot radar thing very well. So I need to ask, when they see the radar blip does the craft ID come up as "alien's on board"? Convince me it isn't top secret human tech made in the Nevada desert. Convince me it isn't an incorrect radar signal caused by external sources.

In ALL cases of UFOs they are still called UFOs unless identified and not a single one has any proof of being alien in nature. You sir, have forgotten what UFO stands for...

originally posted by: IVANV
The proof is the visual and radar contact. Visual contact is what is used in trials to sentence people. Again radar is used to sentence pilots which break rules over populated areas.
If you accept something being sent to jail for murder cause there are witnesses claim they witnessed a stabbing, then visual proof is good enough.

Again with this idiotic courtroom argument/analogy. You cannot compare eyewitness testimony aka "visual contact" of a suspect committing a crime to visual contact of a UFO. In a courtroom setting, a suspect can be physically brought into a courtroom and tried. The identification of the person is in question, not his/her existence. Do we have comparable scientific evidence of the existence of a human being as we do UFOs? Can we test human beings through physical evidence? Throughout the entire history of the UFO phenomena, has there ever been a UFO captured or a single piece of a UFO found that was physically studied, scientifically analyzed, and identified? No, it's still yet to be identified.

The UFO argument belongs in the category of other unknown and unestablished facts such as bigfoot, Loch Ness monster, etc. It doesn't belong with any type of legal comparison. Even in courtroom situations, eyewitness testimony has been notoriously unreliable. People are released from prison every year because of misidentification, many because of DNA evidence. That's why a search for physical evidence, such as gunshot residue on a suspect or DNA, is the ultimate proof for conviction.

a reply to: ZetaRediculian

Those 95% that can be explained have no bearing on the 5% that are unexplained. What kind of twisted reasoning is that?

If they were thought to be space craft it's because the precedence has been set by unexplained cases featuring intelligently controlled craft doing maneuvers our own craft could never hope to achieve.

So, what you are saying is the psychology of the people operating the radar miraculously affected the outcome of the radar stations? You're not very intelligent then are you? These are objective readings completely independent of the psychology of the people involved. You're trying very hard not to understand this are you? What a ridiculous suggestion.

Don't project your own perspective on me. I don't need scientists to confirm anything for me - I reserve that for intellectual cowards like yourself that can't recognise evidence when they see it. I already know about the reality of extraterrestrials visiting this planet, I'm simply waiting for the rest of the World to catch up.

This is the important quote right here:

“Although…the scientific community has tended to minimize the significance of the UFO phenomenon, certain individual scientists have argued that the phenomenon is both real and significant… To a scientist, the main source of hard information (other than his own experiments [and] observations) is provided by the scientific journals. With rare exceptions, scientific journals do not publish reports of UFO observations. The decision not to publish is made by the editor acting on the advice of reviewers. This process is self-reinforcing; the apparent lack of data confirms the view that there is nothing to the UFO phenomenon, and this view works against the presentation of relevant data…”

It demonstrates an objective bias in academia. Not that I think that they would ever solve "the problem" by endlessly observing UFO's.. The problem would be solved by open contact or acknowledgement by official institutions that know full well what is going on. Either that or the populace would have to acknowledge what is going on. Which wouldn't really do much if neither the ET's or the government opened themselves up because we lack the intelligence and the capabilities to really get at the truth.

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: klassless

I will leave you with the words of the amazing Kreskin

Oh, there’s one more point that is not found in this article, an article which helps to shroud and perpetuate some of the misconceptions, and that is what they should have stated is that there is absolutely no evidence on the face of the earth of a specific state or condition that can be defined as hypnosis, because in order to define such a state or condition, you have to show what can be done with that condition that cannot be done without that condition. I have news for you, folks, there’s nothing, and I repeat nothing. The bottom line is if I had written this article, I would have made it clear that the key to the whole phenomena is pure suggestion, no trance, no deep relaxation, etc. etc., but pure suggestion.

The Fantasy of Hypnosis Continues

Of course it's pure suggestion, that's what's needed to be able to stick a needle on a person's arm without flinching! When your doctor sticks a needle in your arm there might be apprehension accompanied with a flinch as the needle punctures your sensitive skin. You can relax yourself all you want but you'll have to spend a longtime putting aside your constant thought process and drift off to a conscious "nap". You try getting a conscious person to not see what's in front of them or to imagine that they are seeing something that is not really there. A hypnotized person can. A hypnotized person may be told to ignore those around them. It might be difficult to do with an "awake", fully conscious person.

"The Manchurian Candidate".

a reply to: Xtrozero

This does not explain the sightings that happened well before we had any such capabilities.

You people are unbelievable.. to say that your perspectives are skewed would be an understatement. This pretense of scientific sensibilities is a complete sham. This endless plausible deniability of yours, I don't ever see you guys apply it to any other area of study. It's not a mentality of open minded investigation, it's an exercise in strict, rigid and inflexible skepticism that will always lean in favour of mundane explanations even when their explanatory power is lacking. You don't ever question the most ridiculous cover stories and you never ever question your own perspective.

What's the psychology behind this pathological viewpoint? Is it fear? Are you too intellectually invested? Would it ruin your worldview? Is it arrogance?

We're obviously dealing with intelligently controlled craft.. not hallucinations, not balloons, not Venus.. And we cannot say that they're only ours because this has been going on for far longer than we've had aircraft. So we're dealing with alien intelligences.. they're literally alien to our sensibilities..

originally posted by: TheLaughingGod

We're obviously dealing with intelligently controlled craft.. not hallucinations, not balloons, not Venus.. And we cannot say that they're only ours because this has been going on for far longer than we've had aircraft. So we're dealing with alien intelligences.. they're literally alien to our sensibilities..

Yes we are.

I'm very straight forward, don't jump to conclusions, don't get all emotional.

I saw a UFO. Daytime, about 4pm, clear blue skies, only high wispy clouds. It appeared to be self-illuminating in a whitish/yellow. Cigar/disk shape.

Up in the sky it was only about an inch (or less) across. It moved in what appeared to be a half circle about a mile or more distance. It returned, in half circle pattern, to its starting point. Then went straight up until it was no longer visible.

It behaved like a Drone might behave. Only problem - - - this was 1964. We barely had computers.