After watching The Stan Romeneck Story, are there any un-debunkable abduction cases?

Barney n Betty were recruited by Russian hoaxsters. Ufo agenda is all to discredit and obfuscate military capabilities of the world's power players.

a reply to: BiffJordan

Many years ago I was with friends on a beach in the south of England that looked across the English Channel. There were four of us and a bunch of people further down the beach we didn't know. It was night time and there were only a few wispy clouds in the sky.

One of the guys starts swearing at something in the sky behind us so we turn to look. What we saw was a red light silently zig-zag across the sky in under four seconds. It vanished from sight over the horizon towards France. As fast as we were dropping f-bombs, the group down the beach were doing the same.

I've thought about it often over the years and the other guys still have no clue. It looked like a meteor, but they travel in straight lines. It could have been some super advanced rocket, but they don't zig-zag in silence. It could have been an 'alien probe,' but I couldn't imagine anything intelligent wasting energy on a zig-zag flight pattern. Then again, the fact it was flying through the air in a zig-zag is very suggestive of something being intelligently controlled at the least.

I hope you can appreciate how the experience did not conclude with 'must be aliens.' I go to air shows and know how loud low-flying jets are. Like anyone else, I've seen planes fly over at 30k and they aren't crossing skies in seconds.

What it did was open my mind to other people and their claims, reports and encounters. If I see some Blue Book reports of lights in the sky, I can't dismiss it because I've seen it. When someone on ATS says they saw a UFO, it isn't an unreasonable claim.

The abductee stuff is less unbelievable as many of the early reports began with a light in the sky. I personally believe the abductee scene to be a lightning rod for mental ill-health and it's hard to say there's a signal in the noise. I don't know. It wasn't helped by abductee researchers fanning the flames out of self-interest or because they'd lost the capacity for critical thinking. Some became like brands who appealed to different segments of the 'community' and sub-culture.

There's some persuasive evidence of Intel involvement (see Jack Brewer) in the scene and perhaps that's where the 'signal' resides? Maybe some type of MKULTRA program was in play? Again, I don't know. It was basically a case of 'Let's f*** with people and see what we can make them believe or how we can exploit them.' It officially ended in the early 70s and most of the files were destroyed. It didn't end because it was unethical or possibly illegal, it petered out when cost overwhelmed benefit.

I'm a big time Science fan, and an even bigger Science Fiction fan. In my logical mind I think there has to be intelligent life out there just because why would our race be the only one in an ever expanding infinite undiscovered universe?

People are generally wired to be either/or. Aliens aren't here so UFO reports aren't real. Or the obverse where believers say there must be intelligent life in the universe so UFOs are aliens. A lot of people have found the explanations that suit them best or that answer all of their questions. It's cool even though a bit of bickering or disputes occur...

As a science fiction fan you might recognise this great quote: INSUFFICIENT DATA FOR MEANINGFUL ANSWER. Those famous five words best fit my own hypothesis. Factor in 80 years of spinning wheels and it's hardly worth the energy to keep fighting over it all.

I appreciate your logic Shrike.

And to Kadinsky.

I wouldn't attempt to deny that you saw something unique in the sky that Night on the beach. Something illuminated moving in a zig zag motion in the sky isn't common. I don't think I've ever seen something like that. I also can imagine how seeing something so unique would send you down the rabbit hole of researching what it could be. I don't have a suggestion for what it could've been but I am glad that you don't jump to the easy answer that a lot of people would go to.

The link you provided is excellent and the introduction to his book captures the way I feel exactly. I may pick that up and give it a read.

originally posted by: Prene
Barney n Betty were recruited by Russian hoaxsters. Ufo agenda is all to discredit and obfuscate military capabilities of the world's power players.

Not heard this one before, but it's worth considering, Prene; it's certainly more credible than B&B Hill's cock 'n' bull story (with spacefaring Nazis and probing grays et cetera).

Here (link below) is a damn fine analysis of B&B's claims by The Iron Skeptic:

www.theironskeptic.com...

I defy anyone [rational and open-minded] to read this analysis and still believe the Hills; I don't know about the woo-woo junkies, however, but they're rarely rational or open-minded.

originally posted by: BenutzerUnbekannt

Here (link below) is a damn fine analysis of B&B's claims by The Iron Skeptic:

www.theironskeptic.com...

I defy anyone [rational and open-minded] to read this analysis and still believe the Hills; I don't know about the woo-woo junkies, however, but they're rarely rational or open-minded.

Okay...I'm of rational mind and quite open minded...that was one of the worst treatments of the Hill case I've ever seen. In particular the statements about the map...Ms. Fish's interpretation does actually contain planets, though, at the time they were unknown as the ability to detect exoplanets wasn't available yet.

For instance Tau Ceti, one of the primary stars, has 4 planets, two in the habitable zone, some of the other stars also have planets.

There is one question I would have for y'all, also the other "skeptics"; "Why do you ignore the data contained in the map?" What is it about that scribble that makes you so vehement about its "meaninglessness"? In what wet dream about ignoring viable, relevant data does it ever work? You continue to base your opinion /hypotheses on incomplete data, and the worst of that is the fact that it is deliberate.

So...I'm thinking that my THEORY trumps your hypothesis...until and unless y'all can disprove my theory...unfortunately you don't seem interested in doing that, nor actively pursuing truth. In the words of our esteemed president; "SAD"

Seriously folks, IF you don't want to actually use real science; what the eff is the point?


ETA: Something I find kind of interesting; we both, that is to say me and the 3 - 4 skeptic here each seem to think the other is irrational and close-minded. All I can say is that I have been using science, mathematics, and 40+ years of engineering to attempt to determine truth and reality; I son't see that in the skeptics.

The Betty Hill map is incredibly debunkable. There are likely an infinite amount of stars in the galaxy, the vast majority we will never see or know about. If I drew dots on a map with certain lines, and there are an infinite amount of stars, that means that at some point my map will match up to something out there. On top of that Zeta Reticuli has been seen by the naked eye since 1756. So if she did have an eye witness moment, she simply just went outside at night and looked up.

originally posted by: BiffJordan
The Betty Hill map is incredibly debunkable. There are likely an infinite amount of stars in the galaxy, the vast majority we will never see or know about. If I drew dots on a map with certain lines, and there are an infinite amount of stars, that means that at some point my map will match up to something out there. On top of that Zeta Reticuli has been seen by the naked eye since 1756. So if she did have an eye witness moment, she simply just went outside at night and looked up.

Wow...you should have considered what you said, before saying it.

Firstly: there are not an infinite number of stars available as you seem to think. There are in fact only about 2825 stars within 33 parsec. We have to impose some practical limit on distance since ET can not be significantly more advanced that Earth. Also the entirety of the template match lies within 33 parsec, thus making it easier to find a match (better probability), unfortunately, that doesn't really help since the probability of a match is almost 0 (zero)

Further, even IF you used a more modern sky survey (such as Kepler, or another), that includes a plethora of small, cold, class "M" stars; there is no guarantee that they will provide an acceptable match, not to mention that using such stars would negate the "trade / exploration? nature of the map.

Finally, IF you wish to debunk anything you HAVE to do better than "by-gosh" and "by-golly" which is all you have managed. Seriously, science and mathematics will always trump unsupported opinion every time!

However, IF you truly think you can debunk the map, please try.

ETA: Previously I stated that there were 2625 stars within 33 parsec. There are in fact 2825. That was an error caused by my crappy vision (cataracts), which will be fixed in the next couple of months.

a reply to: james1947

I have a question, why are you trying to convince and argue with people on a UFO/alien message board rather than presenting what you have to astronomers or those with deeper knowledge into the subject? Is this purposeful? You believe here you'll come out on top because of the obsessive study? Are you afraid of challenging those who will know more about the subject than you with questions and points that you can't effectively defend? Being challenged is how you prove or disprove your theory if that's what you're truly attempting to do. You're wasting your time and effort trying to do it here, but I can understand why you would chose it. But then again I could be wrong, maybe you've had your work looked over and can show it?

This "white paper" has been in the works for quite some time. If this is a serious attempt to scientifically prove the map, you could publish it as an independent researcher and welcome anyone who challenges you. If your work is convincingly solid, maybe you'd get somewhere with it, who knows. It won't be here though.

a reply to: Kandinsky

I read the Jack Brewer article at the link and while I didn't read anything I didn't already know there's an aspect of UFOlogy that bothers me 'cause it's perpetuated without any evidence to tie UFOs/UAPs with greys OR aliens/Ets.

Jack says:

The general thesis I developed is that a genuine mystery may lie at the heart of humankind's fascination with the unknown, but public perception of whatever phenomena it may include has been exploited, distorted and manipulated for a variety of reasons. The perpetrators span several demographics, including the intelligence community, hoaxers, disingenuous writers, con men and, in all reasonable likelihood, lunatics, among others.

I think it likely the mid 20th century US intelligence community conducted a variety of deception operations mistaken for UFO-related phenomena. Some of those operations were intended to create confusion surrounding airborne objects.

First, I've never seen any attempts by the "intelligence community" affect UFOlogy to the extent that results were achieved. We've always had hoaxers and their nefarious activities have always come to light thanks to some hardworking skeptics such as Phil Klass who outed the MJ-12 memo and Bill Moore. I was once scouted by Moore but nothing came of it. Disingenuous writers came out of the woodwork when they realized that gullible believers were a good market to exploit. By connection these writers became con men. A lunatic would make an appearance now and then but they were harmless and, again, only the gullible believers were the victims. Tempering all of the above were us, the clear thinkers - logical and rational. Unfortunately, we were in the minority and still are.

In all of my years interested in UFOlogy I never saw or was subjected to:

I think it likely the mid 20th century US intelligence community conducted a variety of deception operations mistaken for UFO-related phenomena. Some of those operations were intended to create confusion surrounding airborne objects.

I was never confused and I scanned the sky regularly since 1957. My UFO sightings never involved anything but true UFOs, never a human-created aerial illusion or article or anything.

Finally, there is no doubt that from the first reported flying saucer report back then to the modern acronym - UFO - someone got the great notion that flying saucers and later UFOs had to be from outside of earth, from far away, from another galaxy, aliens and/or extraterrestrials. That took hold without any evidence to back it up. Of course, that notion took off as early as 1893.

Wikipedia

The precise origin of the Grey as the stereotypical extraterrestrial being is difficult to pinpoint. In the 1893 article "Man of the Year Million", the well-known science fiction author H.G. Wells envisioned the possibility of humanity transformed into a race of grey-skinned beings who were perhaps one meter tall, with big heads and large, oval-shaped pitch-black eyes. In his 1901 book The First Men in the Moon, Wells described Selenites (natives of the Moon) as having grey skin, big heads, and large black eyes. He also briefly describes aliens resembling Greys brought down to Earth as food for the Martians, who were the antagonist characters in his 1898 novel The War of the Worlds.

And Gray Barker launched the mythology of sinister "men in black" in his 1956 book "They Knew Too Much About Flying Saucers". Modern day UFOs are all we have and anything else connected to them is the product of creative humans.

originally posted by: james1947

originally posted by: BenutzerUnbekannt

Here (link below) is a damn fine analysis of B&B's claims by The Iron Skeptic:

www.theironskeptic.com...

I defy anyone [rational and open-minded] to read this analysis and still believe the Hills; I don't know about the woo-woo junkies, however, but they're rarely rational or open-minded.

Okay...I'm of rational mind and quite open minded...that was one of the worst treatments of the Hill case I've ever seen. In particular the statements about the map...Ms. Fish's interpretation does actually contain planets, though, at the time they were unknown as the ability to detect exoplanets wasn't available yet.

For instance Tau Ceti, one of the primary stars, has 4 planets, two in the habitable zone, some of the other stars also have planets.

There is one question I would have for y'all, also the other "skeptics"; "Why do you ignore the data contained in the map?" What is it about that scribble that makes you so vehement about its "meaninglessness"? In what wet dream about ignoring viable, relevant data does it ever work? You continue to base your opinion /hypotheses on incomplete data, and the worst of that is the fact that it is deliberate.

So...I'm thinking that my THEORY trumps your hypothesis...until and unless y'all can disprove my theory...unfortunately you don't seem interested in doing that, nor actively pursuing truth. In the words of our esteemed president; "SAD"

Seriously folks, IF you don't want to actually use real science; what the eff is the point?


ETA: Something I find kind of interesting; we both, that is to say me and the 3 - 4 skeptic here each seem to think the other is irrational and close-minded. All I can say is that I have been using science, mathematics, and 40+ years of engineering to attempt to determine truth and reality; I son't see that in the skeptics.

Your continued support of the Betty Hill "star map" is irrational and illogical. The Hills were not abducted, it was a fantasy fueled by television programs, the people she met thru her interest in UFOs and lord knows what other activities she took part in. She didn't see any map, she brought all of her gained information together from planetariums, astronomers, etc. You bet your money on a losing horse.

You really have to trust your fellow human being to learn new things....this oppositional defiance disguised as a quest for irrefutable yet status quo catalysed proof by proxy disenfranchises a human beings word and worth.


These are pieces of technology we are abducted into....it all begins and ends there...simply because all sentient beings strive to replicate nature using technology the ONLY WAY they can PROLONG their own SPECIES EXISTANCE in the face of NATURES ever changing special landscape is to POSTULATE EMULATE REPLICATE DUPLICATE natures own directives.


If I could give one single gift to any of the people who continue to disregard the testimony of their fellow man and woman it would be the EXACT feeling IN EVERY WAY of having the Nasal Implant located and injected.Hearing but not completely feeling the cartilages rupture is somethng to be remembered vividly....and nope it really doesnt hurt....not conventionally anyways.

There are MANY different groups and there are MANY different FATES for people abducted or KIDNAPPED by those operating these technologies or ships....no different than if a non-terrestrial were snapped up off the street in New York then later someone tried to figure out what race had taken them and or why.

One must accept that anyone we ever meet will be a rebel fighting against nature to prolong their species existance in any ways possible.....and IMHO because I already know a Universal level Humanity is in existance it is rational to expect that EXPANSION is the only way to ensure true species longevity....continued expansion....not dominance but tangible expansion across the geography of the Universe and beyond if possible ASAP.....to ensure we have our bases covered because when things happen on a Universal level they happen BIG.

originally posted by: The Shrike

Your continued support of the Betty Hill "star map" is irrational and illogical. The Hills were not abducted, it was a fantasy fueled by television programs, the people she met thru her interest in UFOs and lord knows what other activities she took part in. She didn't see any map, she brought all of her gained information together from planetariums, astronomers, etc. You bet your money on a losing horse.

So...explain the stars she couldn't have known about...you know; the ones that were added in 1969.

But, be that as it may; I think you a bit irrational in your refusal to disprove my theory. I mean, it should be easy...right?

In any case; you can't disprove, or discredit my theory via character assassination of Betty Hill. As I've already stated; Betty's character can not affect the astrometrics, nor the mathematical probabilities, and that is where you must disprove / discredit my theory.

originally posted by: Ectoplasm8
a reply to: james1947

I have a question, why are you trying to convince and argue with people on a UFO/alien message board rather than presenting what you have to astronomers or those with deeper knowledge into the subject? Is this purposeful? You believe here you'll come out on top because of the obsessive study? Are you afraid of challenging those who will know more about the subject than you with questions and points that you can't effectively defend? Being challenged is how you prove or disprove your theory if that's what you're truly attempting to do. You're wasting your time and effort trying to do it here, but I can understand why you would chose it. But then again I could be wrong, maybe you've had your work looked over and can show it?

This "white paper" has been in the works for quite some time. If this is a serious attempt to scientifically prove the map, you could publish it as an independent researcher and welcome anyone who challenges you. If your work is convincingly solid, maybe you'd get somewhere with it, who knows. It won't be here though.

Are you familiar with the software concepts of Alpha and beta testing?

This is like an alpha test, putting it all out there and seeing what holes are punched in it, and of course, IF they can be fixed. It is a way of testing the strength of my theory.

Yes, the paper is taking more time than I would like, my only excuse is a new project and my crappy vision. I have most of the presentation graphics done, much of the text is also done...so, hopefully I can deploy it all to a cloud server soon.

a reply to: The Shrike

I guess it's all about perspective or at least that's how it strikes me. People are drawn to the subject/s for their own reasons and see whatever they choose to see. Hardened skeptics know it's all BS and that's all they take from it. Mr Oberg sees it all as delusions and space rockets and that's what he finds. Others, like James Carrion, see much (if not all) of ufology as deriving from Cold War machinations and he has the evidence that confirms his beliefs. Many see it as aliens and they have their own logic which satisfies them. You have your own take and everyone collectively knows how right they are and how wrong the rest are.

I think Bill Moore was a very interesting man whose capacity for story-telling has made him an unreliable witness. He's done quite a few interviews with Greg Bishop and they're interesting enough. The long association with Doty just leaves me unable to trust everything he has said.

You referenced Phil Klass and I think his 'curse' has held true and will continue to do so. My faith in that (in part) caused me to dial down the energy expended on the subject and realise all the squabbling is, was and will be futile.

Finally, there is no doubt that from the first reported flying saucer report back then to the modern acronym - UFO - someone got the great notion that flying saucers and later UFOs had to be from outside of earth, from far away, from another galaxy, aliens and/or extraterrestrials.

It wasn't a great leap under the circumstances. People were describing disc-shaped objects and, if they weren't from 'here,' they must be from 'there.' The 'there' was initially thought to be local planets and swiftly went further afield. It was a reasonable train of thought considering the times. Whilst I'm not a great proponent of the ETH, it stays on the table as far as I'm concerned.

I don't know you're own conclusions, but I've yet to find the answers and have suspended judgement and keep my own counsel. The vast majority of reports have been explained and that small rump of 'unknowns' resist having pins stuck in them. One thing I've learned is it's ultimately a wasteful pursuit with high costs and very low benefits. Despite that, probably like yourself, it still has the ability to draw me back on occasion.

originally posted by: The Shrike

Your continued support of the Betty Hill "star map" is irrational and illogical. The Hills were not abducted, it was a fantasy fueled by television programs, the people she met thru her interest in UFOs and lord knows what other activities she took part in. She didn't see any map, she brought all of her gained information together from planetariums, astronomers, etc. You bet your money on a losing horse.

Indeed, I'm sure James is well-intentioned and he's clearly an enthusiast guy, but it's a bit like trying to have a rational conversation with a deluded religious fundamentalist.

As a nod back to the OP, this discussion on the Hill case is a perfect example of how logic and common sense butts up against delusion and dogma when it comes to debunking. Even when a case (like the Hills) is as easily dismissed as fraudulent, some people just want to believe, and resort to all forms of mental gymnastics to demonstrate otherwise.

originally posted by: BenutzerUnbekannt

Indeed, I'm sure James is well-intentioned and he's clearly an enthusiast guy, but it's a bit like trying to have a rational conversation with a deluded religious fundamentalist.

Do you know what one of the Hallmarks of the "deluded, religious fundamentalist" is? It is the acceptance of unsupported opinion over science, mathematics, logic and reason...y'all should go look in a mirror!

As a nod back to the OP, this discussion on the Hill case is a perfect example of how logic and common sense butts up against delusion and dogma when it comes to debunking. Even when a case (like the Hills) is as easily dismissed as fraudulent, some people just want to believe, and resort to all forms of mental gymnastics to demonstrate otherwise.

Y'all are quite special do ya know that! You call me delusional, simply because I prefer to use REAL science as opposed to hear-say to try to prove my point. And when I do, you dismiss (again) REAL science (astrometrics, computer vision, pattern and template matching), as well as very established mathematics...the very kind of mathematics that YOU use all the time (we all use probability daily, and for some of the simplest, and complex tasks), yet you refuse to even look at what the reality might actually be, You are so convinced of your reality that you won't even consider an alternate, even when the alternate is not just more plausable, but, supported by "hard science".

What does your opinion have? several "expert" opinions? Very good! That is a start, but only a start. As it is right now, all you have is a notion, an idea, not quite a hypothesis (hypotheses frequently have some supporting science/evidence), but, alas you position has little to no support from anything logical, rational, or scientific. IF you had any real science to support your position, you would use that as an argument instead of trying to use tired, unsubstantiated words.

I started this as a way to test my theory, unfortunately there is no one here to use as a sounding board for such a test...alas!

In any case, I put forth my stuff, not so much as a "proof" nor as anything other than a hypothesis to be tested...

But, until y'all can PROVE otherwise, I think it should stand as a PROOF, that not only the Hills were abducted (which I don't really care about), but also that many other abductions are real. And, just for good measure (and this is what I feel my work says), Advanced Extraterrestrial civilizations exist within 40ly, AND they are visiting, and abducting.

Now, you NEED to understand this, unless and until you use real scientific methodology, procedure, and protocols, my wee analysis will constitute PROOF.

Seriously, I was really hoping for something...more. More logical, more rational, more scientific...I guess that's my bad.

ETA: By the way; it would be very easy to change my mind! Just disprove my theory...the right way!

a reply to: james1947

James I am not a scientist of any kind, I have no degree in anything relevant to this topic and do not profess to be necessarily "knowledgeable" about physics, astrology, astronomy, or anything to do with outer space. But I did just type into Google "How many stars are there?"

100 billion stars There are about 10 billion galaxies in the observable universe! The number of stars in a galaxy varies, but assuming an average of 100 billion stars per galaxy means that there are about 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (that's 1 billion trillion) stars in the observable universe!

To my knowledge of the Big Bang Theory, which I subscribe to as the source of origin, the universe is ever expanding. Since time is a man made ideal, therefore infinite.

To me the Betty Hill map is no proof of anything, and is easily debunkable without using science and math, therefore I do not consider it even in the conversation of "un-debunkable abduction stories". I don't need to qualify anything to you, I created this thread so that knowledgeable forum members may provide example to me and othesr of instances where abduction cases seem legit. And nobody has provided proof of anything, thus furthering that my instinct on the topic is correct. Abduction stories are no different than the search for Bigfoot. They search in the woods and don't find anything, and UFOlogists search the skies and don't find anything. The Betty Hill story is no different than the Patterson-Gimlin film.

This I have to address. My words in bold.

originally posted by: one4all
You really have to trust your fellow human being to learn new things....this oppositional defiance disguised as a quest for irrefutable yet status quo catalysed proof by proxy disenfranchises a human beings word and worth.

Okay first, I would never take someone unknown and unqualified at their word, that is how you get manipulated into believing things they want you to believe. Do you live in an area with a large homeless population? I do. In NYC in the summer you will see tons of homeless people in large winter coats. Does that mean it's cold or does it mean they are mentally ill. You decide.


These are pieces of technology we are abducted into....it all begins and ends there...simply because all sentient beings strive to replicate nature using technology the ONLY WAY they can PROLONG their own SPECIES EXISTANCE in the face of NATURES ever changing special landscape is to POSTULATE EMULATE REPLICATE DUPLICATE natures own directives.


If I could give one single gift to any of the people who continue to disregard the testimony of their fellow man and woman it would be the EXACT feeling IN EVERY WAY of having the Nasal Implant located and injected.Hearing but not completely feeling the cartilages rupture is something to be remembered vividly....and nope it really doesnt hurt....not conventionally anyways.

I have no choice to but to assume that you claim to have been probed with a nasal implant. If that happened to you then you have the ability to proof to us all beyond a shadow of doubt that abductions truly do happen. What did your doctor say when you got the x-ray? Did he remove it? What happened to the implant after it was removed?

There are MANY different groups and there are MANY different FATES for people abducted or KIDNAPPED by those operating these technologies or ships....no different than if a non-terrestrial were snapped up off the street in New York then later someone tried to figure out what race had taken them and or why.

I gotta ask how you know about so many different groups of aliens? Did you read Sgt. Clifford Stone's 57 species "manifesto"? Were you told this by your abductor? I gotta ask because if you know this to be fact then you know a lot more than any of the smartest people I've ever met or even herd of.



One must accept that anyone we ever meet will be a rebel fighting against nature to prolong their species existence in any ways possible.....and IMHO because I already know a Universal level Humanity is in existence it is rational to expect that EXPANSION is the only way to ensure true species longevity....continued expansion....not dominance but tangible expansion across the geography of the Universe and beyond if possible ASAP.....to ensure we have our bases covered because when things happen on a Universal level they happen BIG.

I agree with your theory. In regard to human beings, we've expanded our Nations geography, we've grown as a human civilization and there has been talk for a long time about what will happen when our Earth is uninhabitable and we will "colonize" Mars. Plenty of great science fiction on the topic. But how can I take you as a credible witness to "Universal Expansion" when we haven't even gone past the moon, and you or anyone else have no proof that anyone else has expanded a civilization much less even had one?

I understand that you will think I'm attacking you but you're talking nonsense and fiction as if it's accepted scientific fact, and it's just not. I'm not a scientist like I said above, but have never herd a credible scientist say without a shadow of doubt that there are other active or inactive civilizations beyond our own.

originally posted by: BiffJordan
a reply to: james1947

To me the Betty Hill map is no proof of anything, and is easily debunkable without using science and math,

You do understand that that is all I'm asking y'all to do. Debunk the map. But, you haven't, and it seems that you can't....which make it "un-debunkable"...just what you asked for!

therefore I do not consider it even in the conversation of "un-debunkable abduction stories". I don't need to qualify anything to you,

Yet, you asked for proof of an undebunkable abduction event, I provided evidence of just such an event, yet you refuse to accept the obvious...so why ask IF you will not consider ALL data?

Anyway, I'm not asking for you to "qualify" anything, only engage in scientific discussion about evidence I provided.

Abduction stories are no different than the search for Bigfoot. They search in the woods and don't find anything, and UFOlogists search the skies and don't find anything. The Betty Hill story is no different than the Patterson-Gimlin film.

Just because you've not seen a thing doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Have you ever seen the Constitution, or the Bill of Rights? Now I don't mean one of the knock-off copies, but the real deal. If you answer "NO", then One must ask; "How do you know they exist?"

The abduction experience isn't one that comes with an abundance of physical evidence. In fact the most common way for us to know if we've been abducted is the "missing time" property. And, that is difficult to nail down without the aid of technology. Unfortunately (depending on how you look at it) the use of technologies typically leads to cessation of abduction events...nobody wants to be detected and recorded...

Anyway; debunk the map...I dare you!

originally posted by: BiffJordan
a reply to: james1947
snip
Abduction stories are no different than the search for Bigfoot. They search in the woods and don't find anything, and UFOlogists search the skies and don't find anything. The Betty Hill story is no different than the Patterson-Gimlin film.

We've had some fun trying to make james1947 see the errors of his way and he's really beating a dead horse thanks to your logic.

But I don't agree with your comments, above. Abduction stories are different than the search for Bigfoot. There isn't one iota of proof for abductions 'cause it concerns the concept of nefarious aliens, which are also lacking in evidence. But Bigfoot has a long history dating back to

Bigfoot - Museum of Unnatural Mystery
www.unmuseum.org/bigfoot.htm
The first sighting of a Sasquatch by a white man apparently came in 1811 near

And sightings persist even though all we have are hundreds, if not thousands, are reports of sightings supported by a lot of bad videos and one doesn't know what to make of what is seen in videos from unattended trailcams. The Patterson-Gimlin film is a controversial film and it's been contentious from day one but it's more than what the Hill's provided which was nothing. The jury is still out on the P-G film. Aside from those grainy, out of focus videos, there are still the thousands of sighting reports some of which include interactions with people, plus footprints, etc.

I'm still waiting for some evidence of Bigfoot such as a skeleton, hair that proves in the lab that it is not from known species, whatever. But before anyone produces proof of an abduction I think Bigfoot will win. Especially since some of the videos are from police car cams.

What if instead of the Hills claiming an alien abduction they had claimed to have had a Bigfoot sighting? And one that provided them with a star map!