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

originally posted by: InhaleExhale
much less speculation than speculating on the psychology of aliens we have never met or examined I would say.

No, actually, the psychology of ET is rather plain. And, wouldn't be very different than a Terrestrial...

its extremely high due to humans existing and abducting one another since the dawn of time.

Yes, yes, terrible Humans...yet, I think you'd be harder pressed to provide actual evidence, nearly has hard pressed as I would be to illustrate ET.

Yet, ET has something like a 12,000+ year history, and tradition right here on good ole Earth...

However, since you like to bring math into it please show or try to explain why it would be low.
We know humans exist and abduct one another

Motivation. There are many other ways to achieve the same result, is mostly a matter of just how lazy the Human is. However, the actual number of Humans that are abducted by other Humans is still rather low, After a quick search; that would be about 0.2% of the US population each year, with most of them subsequently "found"

we know mind altering drugs exist that can give effects of one communicating with entities from else where.

Oh? Which ones are those? Any of them useful in an abduction? The use of the kind / class of drug you are thinking of aren't really useful for playing with someone's "communication" beliefs...

on the other hand there is very little evidence, none direct and only speculation that aliens are visiting earth.

I know, sigh; only 12,000+ years of reports, history, Human tradition...nothing there at all. Then of course there is direct evidence like Betty's map...the probability of coincidence is so small as to be non-existent.

If human experimentation is illegal without a persons consent and certain ideas about how to manipulate the mind or body are too extreme and wild and would be torturous for a person to go through is something a person wouldn't allow.

You know, there are still many legal avenues for what you suggest...so One has to ask; "Why take the more risky route?"

Use aliens as a cover to hide the human experimentation being done by our own.

Well I guess, maybe; But, I gave Humans more credit for intelligence... am I wrong?

well then I say your blabbing on about probability to be absolute nonsense then.

Do you drive a car? How about walk?

IF you do either of these activities; you DEPEND on probability to do so successfully! So, if you want to think that probability is nonsense; think again...you could not live without it.

for the simple reason

that

1- humans exist and abduct one another and have done some rather nasty experimenting on each other until it made illegal so now it must be done in the shadows.

2 - intelligent aliens visiting earth is speculation and interpretation of varying bits of info.

1) explains a relatively low number of "Alien" abductions. I'm a victim abductions, both Alien and Human, so I know they are real, and vastly different. I've even had the opportunity to talk about these experiences with a psychologist that specialized in memory, so we were able to sort out what memories were real, and which ones were "dream memory"

I've also had the opportunity to observe the affects of medical drugs on consciousness and memory, all quite interesting.

Part of what these experiences have taught me is that there are vast differences between some drug induced memory and a "real" one.

2) Now for some "fun facts"
a. there are, within 33 parsec (about 107ly) some 2826 cataloged (by Hipparcos) stars, of these stars 2028 are either a Class "F", Class "G", or class "K" star; this is vastly disproportional (should be on the order of 641)

b. Of these stars 30 are Class G2V, one of which is known to harbor an advanced sentient species...nearly space faring. That is on the order of 3.3% (a viable prior probability?)

c. Inside of 33parsec there are 324 stars 3 billion years or older.

d. If we extrapolate...it works out to 10.69 civilizations in "spitting distance" of Earth...6 of these are accounted for in the Hill Map.

So it would appear that there is a very good probability that ET is visiting, abducting, interacting with the people of Earth.

Do you actually want me to do the whole Bayesian thing? I will if you ask; you won't like the results!

a reply to: james1947

Hey James

[Apologies for the delay in replying.]

Dude, I can see this [B&B Hill] is your bread and butter. (Why? springs to mind. But anyway...) I'm impressed with your tenacity here on ATS...on this topic.

My point is.... you can present as many stats and star maps as you like but ultimately - and I'm not a debunker - but we are left with the fact that Betty and Barney produced all their evidence under hypnosis. And Betty was a UFO nut! Seriously... It did not happen.

Either, (a) you're a rational human being, in which case you'll just stop...STOP, or (b) you're either (i) mental, in which case please stop it, or (ii) a being paid by some shadowy goon. Either way, stop defending this fairytale.

Tell you what, if you ever visit Edinburgh (Scotland, UK) I'll take you out for a knees-up proper good time; as long as you stop perpetrating this B&B Hill abduction myth. It's silly. And didn't happen.

a reply to: james1947

James1974, hot on the heels of my previous message, I just read your last post. S E R I O U S L Y dude, Betty was a weirdo compulsive liar and Barney was a paranoid racist with a criminal past.... and by jingo, they weren't just a couple in love, they were a mixed racial couple intent on shoving their miscegenative ways down everyone's throats. In summary, a vile pair.

SO, why oh why oh why do you back their story up? (are you really Stan Friedmen in disguise?)

originally posted by: BenutzerUnbekannt
a reply to: james1947

James1974, hot on the heels of my previous message, I just read your last post. S E R I O U S L Y dude, Betty was a weirdo compulsive liar and Barney was a paranoid racist with a criminal past.... and by jingo, they weren't just a couple in love, they were a mixed racial couple intent on shoving their miscegenative ways down everyone's throats. In summary, a vile pair.

SO, why oh why oh why do you back their story up? (are you really Stan Friedmen in disguise?)

Because science; computer science, astophysics, astronomy, and mathematics have conspired to inform me that the "Hill map" is a real thing, as I have evidenced, and, that the "map" cannot be coincidence.

IF you fail to see that, then you fail to see that. If you wish you may ignore everything I say...its your right.

Character assassination, racism, prejudice, hate, and intolerance are no ways to win a logical argument, and IF that is where you are coming from; please do ignore my presence.

a reply to: james1947

Fair points, well made, although I was just offering one potential explanation (mixed race relationships) for their publicity seeking and outrageous claims; I appreciate this was perhaps a little too spicy for some tender snowflakes to countenance (my insincere apologies to any offended parties).

But we're at an impasse: you're attempting to "re-bunk" the B&B case, while I point out it has been debunked and thoroughly discredited several times over. You are the one attempting to prove the unprovable, and logically speaking there is literally nothing you can say or show in support of your case. Not in the real world (although maybe in the internet realm where nonsense is presented as fact if asserted loudly and repeatedly).

To get back to the OP, the B&B Hill case (as we know it , and as presented here by you) is still bunkum.

originally posted by: BenutzerUnbekannt
a reply to: james1947
You are the one attempting to prove the unprovable, and logically speaking there is literally nothing you can say or show in support of your case. Not in the real world (although maybe in the internet realm where nonsense is presented as fact if asserted loudly and repeatedly).

To get back to the OP, the B&B Hill case (as we know it , and as presented here by you) is still bunkum.

Actually man, I've successfully proven my point(s). I've made my argument, provided scientific data to support it, and, nobody around here has refuted any of it, at least not properly (you can't refute hard astrometrics (science), and mathematics with BS, prejudice, racism and intolerance, or indeed with anything other than...hard science.

So...when you get your stuff together enough to mount a real argument, you let me know.

You cannot debunk the Hill case without debunking the map...you have not done that...the map is undebunkable!

a reply to: james1947

No, actually, the psychology of ET is rather plain. And, wouldn't be very different than a Terrestrial...

I guess you can believe this no matter how funny such a stupid statement can be.

Yes, yes, terrible Humans...yet, I think you'd be harder pressed to provide actual evidence, nearly has hard pressed as I would be to illustrate ET.

Provide actual evidence?


You want police records of all the kidnapping and abduction for how long and for what countries?


Why not go to a police station and ask about abductions and how they are real and children and people are taken without their will.

Its has happened since caveman days when Fred would knock Marsha over her heard with a club and he would take her as his mate.


put the news on or look at internet news and see how, daily, someone is abducted somewhere in the world, I should probably say by the hour if we are talking world wide.

Yet, ET has something like a 12,000+ year history, and tradition right here on good ole Earth...

Huh?


There is no solid evidence that ET has been here at all, circumstantial and speculative based on interpretation of numerous things, yes, but no solid evidence.

You can delude yourself all you want. I believe we have but there is no evidence what so ever that directly points to this without any other explanation.

However, the actual number of Humans that are abducted by other Humans is still rather low, After a quick search; that would be about 0.2% of the US population each year, with most of them subsequently "found"

So you now saying there is evidence for human abductions?


you are really all over the shop.

Oh? Which ones are those? Any of them useful in an abduction? The use of the kind / class of drug you are thinking of aren't really useful for playing with someone's "communication" beliefs...

Yes actually quite a few substances that would extremely effective in abduction scenario where humans want to make the abductee think they have been taken by non human entities.


What substances am I thinking of?

I know, sigh; only 12,000+ years of reports, history, Human tradition...nothing there at all.

Yes,

Like I said its just interpretive speculation not solid evidence that ET has come here, doesn't matter what nonsense people want to scream in threads about evidence of aliens on earth, it doesn't exist.

Then of course there is direct evidence like Betty's map...the probability of coincidence is so small as to be non-existent.

what is it direct evidence of?

I will tell you,

its direct evidence that a person called Betty can draw a diagram, that is all it is direct solid evidence for, nothing else.

anything else is interpretation and speculative.

You know, there are still many legal avenues for what you suggest...so One has to ask; "Why take the more risky route?"

Not on earth.

no where on earth can a person be experimented on without their consent.

It may happen illegally but I am stating the laws agreed upon by nations.

So, if you want to think that probability is nonsense; think again...you could not live without it.

I never said that, math and psychology are my life.

I said you have no idea about what you talking about when you mention probability.

So it would appear that there is a very good probability that ET is visiting, abducting, interacting with the people of Earth.

you just keep showing you don't even understand what probability is when you try and say its more probable that aliens are abducting than humans.


Its showing a deeper ignorance not just of probabilities but simple critical thought.


No solid evidence that something exists let alone visiting compared to what you are, a human, that we know exist because we are them and we know abduct one another.


Its a bit more complex that 1+1=2 but seriously if you don't understand that its way more probable for humans to be abducting than aliens then there is nothing further to say, nothing can be said.

originally posted by: InhaleExhale
a reply to: james1947

I guess you can believe this no matter how funny such a stupid statement can be.

I thought you said psychology was your life? And, here you demonstrate that you don't realize that much of "Human psychology" is also the psychology of "sentient / intelligent" creatures, regardless of species.

You want police records of all the kidnapping and abduction for how long and for what countries?

Why not go to a police station and ask about abductions and how they are real and children and people are taken without their will.

put the news on or look at internet news and see how, daily, someone is abducted somewhere in the world, I should probably say by the hour if we are talking world wide.

Ya know...I live near Dallas, Tx and around here we get rather few news reports of abductions, or missing people. And, as I pointed out earlier the magnitude of of abducted/missing is on the order of 0.2% of the US population...yearly, AND, statistics show that most are "found" rather quickly.

Those are only the numbers that CAN be quantified, those who are abducted by Aliens typically don't come forward, and try to live their broken lives in silence...Many suffer from PTSD alone primarily because of fear of ridicule...

"So it would appear that there is a very good probability that ET is visiting, abducting, interacting with the people of Earth. "

you just keep showing you don't even understand what probability is when you try and say its more probable that aliens are abducting than humans.

Its showing a deeper ignorance not just of probabilities but simple critical thought.

No solid evidence that something exists let alone visiting compared to what you are, a human, that we know exist because we are them and we know abduct one another.

Its a bit more complex that 1+1=2 but seriously if you don't understand that its way more probable for humans to be abducting than aliens then there is nothing further to say, nothing can be said.

Yes, it is a bit more complex that 1 + 1.

You insist there is no solid evidence of ET visiting / abducting, etc. and I say there is. I've put up solid scientific data, you have only talk with nothing to back it up...so please, some substance.

a reply to: james1947

And, here you demonstrate that you don't realize that much of "Human psychology" is also the psychology of "sentient / intelligent" creatures, regardless of species.

what do mean realize?


can you speak rationally and not with a delusional mindset?

Can I go to a public library and read publicly available studies on the the physiology of extra terrestrial beings?

Not fiction.

Ya know...I live near Dallas, Tx and around here we get rather few news reports of abductions, or missing people.

So why ask if i could find any if you have seen them yourself?

you made it sound in the delusional way you are posting that humans have never abducted other humans.

And, as I pointed out earlier the magnitude of of abducted/missing is on the order of 0.2% of the US population...yearly, AND, statistics show that most are "found" rather quickly.

out of all those how many are alien abductions?

is it even 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001%?

You say you get probability?

Those are only the numbers that CAN be quantified, those who are abducted by Aliens typically don't come forward, and try to live their broken lives in silence...Many suffer from PTSD alone primarily because of fear of ridicule...

but if we are to use probability like you said to determine which is more likely to be the cause of the abductions and all we have is claims to go by then its more probable that its humans.

You insist there is no solid evidence of ET visiting / abducting, etc. and I say there is. I've put up solid scientific data, you have only talk with nothing to back it up...so please, some substance.

you have brought much tooooo much speculation to the table, its not solid evidence, circumstantial at best but when we see how you modify Betty's map then that is not science.

then you display ignorance of things you want use to strengthen your stance.

I don't insist anything, reality is how it is, sorry that you and many others on internet forums cannot deal with it.

originally posted by: InhaleExhale
a reply to: james1947

can you speak rationally and not with a delusional mindset?

Can I go to a public library and read publicly available studies on the the physiology of extra terrestrial beings?

Not fiction.

How about we leave out the personal attacks, okay?
And, yes, you can go to a public library and find books on (alien) Psychology...you will find them in the same place as all other psychology books.

And what I meant by "realize" is your understanding of Nature, and the fact that Alien psychology is the same as Human psychology...perhaps you should visit good ole Hermes, and what He left to aid your understanding of the Universe.

is it even 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001%?

You say you get probability?

Well, actually, probably more like 0.1% Unfortunately most alien abductions are never reported, mostly because of people like you that try to break down the victim and show that they have mental issues / are delusional. And, of course they do, an alien abduction is much worse psychologically than a Human one, the only advantage the alien abduction has is that the victim is typically returned with little memory...probably the action of Orexin.

you have brought much tooooo much speculation to the table, its not solid evidence, circumstantial at best but when we see how you modify Betty's map then that is not science.

then you display ignorance of things you want use to strengthen your stance.

I don't insist anything, reality is how it is, sorry that you and many others on internet forums cannot deal with it.

Oh? Show me!! I'm betting you can't.

How I modified Betty's map...SHOW ME!!! I've made no changes. What you perceive as changes are the differences between a "memory" representation and the real world. Betty's map is necessarily slightly different, again, this is due to the nature of the map's production.

IF you think that the map MUST be an exact fit to Nature, then you are the delusional one...

In any case; you show me how / where Betty's map is changed! And, in the future; IF you wish to debunk something, try to be as specific as the One you are trying to debunk. A whole lot of words can saved with just a little science...you should try it.

Oh...and just how is Hipparcos, Simbad, and ExoplanetEU speculation? Those are the sources of my data! And there is NO speculation.

As for the map...well the only speculation there is Hipparcos because that is what was used to create my model.

a reply to: james1947

How about we leave out the personal attacks, okay?

You keep talking with a delusional mind set, it snot a personal attack but an observation

just look at this

And, yes, you can go to a public library and find books on (alien) Psychology...you will find them in the same place as all other psychology books.

Non fiction books and stories are not in the same section of a library as psychology journals.

I seem to have forgotten, Can you remind me when humanity agreed upon the existence of extraterrestrials?


Then, when and where biological examinations were done to gain knowledge about their physiology which would have indicated if their psychology is chemically based like humans?

Oh? Show me!! I'm betting you can't.

ATS has your posts saved

If I quote them a MOD will just delete the post.

IF you think that the map MUST be an exact fit to Nature, then you are the delusional one...

I don't think it has too.

But if you want make claims that it indicates something or is evidence of something then yes it has to be very precise any deviations requires adjustments and speculation and interpretation,

How I modified Betty's map...SHOW ME!!! I've made no changes. What you perceive as changes are the differences between a "memory" representation and the real world. Betty's map is necessarily slightly different, again, this is due to the nature of the map's production.

How you showed ATS you modified it to fit.

originally posted by: InhaleExhale
a reply to: james1947

IF you think that the map MUST be an exact fit to Nature, then you are the delusional one...

I don't think it has too.

But if you want make claims that it indicates something or is evidence of something then yes it has to be very precise any deviations requires adjustments and speculation and interpretation,

So...just how was I imprecise? I showed how the template matched the real world with rather good precision.

But then i may have made the error in thinking that you knew about computer vision, pattern/template matching, and other aging technologies that are far more precise than you have been in trying to "debunk" my work.

How you showed ATS you modified it to fit.

Again, I modified nothing, and it appears you can't even show how you "think" I modified things, I guess that's your delusion, eh?

So...how about, IF you really want to disprove my theory; you do something scientific...you know, use something that anyone can repeat that shows that I'm wrong. You might try starting with how the template doesn't match the stellar configuration I illustrated. Or maybe that there are no "stars and planets" or something that is at least a little relevant.

Then perhaps we can move on to your delusional notion that Extraterrestrials are somehow different than Humans. I know y'all like to think this way, but, it is wrong, logically, biologically, and in almost all ways...Please remember Hermes, and his words of Wisdom!!

ETA: I posted this, and continue to try to argue in favor of my theory because I truly want y'all, anyone, to poke real holes in my theory. I want you to show me where my astronomy is wrong, where my computer science is wrong, where my Math is incorrect...but, it seems that none of you can...I should think of this as a good thing, for my theory anyway, but, with all the "talk" I get, it seems that the best y'all have is "you're wrong because I want it that way", which of course can never work.

So PLEASE, before you respond, THINK, and post something of real substance...for science.

a reply to: james1947

So...how about, IF you really want to disprove my theory; you do something scientific...you know, use something that anyone can repeat that shows that I'm wrong.

What theory?

Why do you keep trying to make this thread about you and your theory about the Hills?

I don't want debunk anything.

I initially responded to you because of your probability statements.


No one in this threads thinks its worthy of what the thread is about to add the Hills case.

If you need to discuss it or have whatever theories you have debunked then do a thread and share whatever you have.

a former poster did that a while back with very similar views that also used the same argument of why the map Betty drew had to be adjusted.

Sorry but that poster was very blinded by their bias to a point of it being delusional.

Then perhaps we can move on to your delusional notion that Extraterrestrials are somehow different than Humans.

I never said they are different, please stop putting words in my mouth,

saying something like that would be knowledge that I am saying humanity doesn't possess other than in fiction and in other cases wild speculations based on a need to have ones beliefs or delusions confirmed by others.


If you want science and have a theory...

then the real question is why are you on ATS trying to get this peer reviewed or simply viewed and not some institution that can verify whatever work you say you have?


Its quite simply because its not science but entertainment you are after, something to entertain your mind and feed it to keep it walking the same path.

originally posted by: InhaleExhale
a reply to: james1947

What theory?

Why do you keep trying to make this thread about you and your theory about the Hills?

I don't want debunk anything.

I initially responded to you because of your probability statements.

I'm not trying to make this thread about me, or my theory. After all its supposed to be about "un-debunkable abduction cases", and that is what I am trying to discuss.

No one in this threads thinks its worthy of what the thread is about to add the Hills case.

If you need to discuss it or have whatever theories you have debunked then do a thread and share whatever you have.

No one thinks my theory is worthy mainly because of prejudice. They (perhaps you too) have read reports, that are missing information, based on cherry picked information, or are just plain wrong, and/or misinformed, perhaps intentionally.

It appears as if all y'all have accepted the common / mundane denier's explanation and have forgotten about real science. I have asserted that the "map" is a real bit of evidence, and all of you deny that probability, and do so without any foundation what so ever...and your simple denial isn't enough, you actually MUST prove all bits of data to be "false" or you've proven nothing. And, of course with the map; I've proven that it is a real view on local stars, and I've shown the "stars and planets", I've shown you the "trade / exploration routes"...more importantly, I've demonstrated that the "map" cannot be coincidence.

None of y'all has done anything to disprove my work (theory)...And IF you wish to actually "see" what I have: its been posted all this time, along with a link...but here view at your pleasure. ETA: That page is interactive; mouse over the stars and click for more...

And, your continued refusal (that would be all of y'all) to actually address my theory mostly shows that none of you were looking for that "un-debunkable abduction case", but rather just seeking confirmation of your own delusional beliefs from others. You are not interested in science, truth, understanding, only in having your delusions confirmed.

I never said they are different, please stop putting words in my mouth,

Actually man; you did. Perhaps not in so many words, but you most assuredly did say that.

Now, about that wee issue of who abducts more; Humans or Aliens...a simple search shows that Human abductions are on the order of 0.2% of the US population, while those who have experienced Alien abduction ranges to about 5 - 6%...that makes Alien abduction about 30 times more common than Human abductions. And, that is with most alien abductions going unreported.

I don't enjoy repeatedly asking / demanding that all y'all employ a little science, common sense, and reality to this. But then, I suppose I was a bit mistaken when I thought that science, common sense, and reality would make any damn difference, especially to the deluded, and intransigent.

So, anyway, I've had my little "alpha" and "beta" tests of my theory, none of y'all even tried to disprove it, or indeed discuss it in any way. So, I'll just presume that it is indeed ready for the next level...

Y'all have fun now; hear.

a reply to: james1947

I'm not trying to make this thread about me, or my theory. After all its supposed to be about "un-debunkable abduction cases", and that is what I am trying to discuss.

Yet no one in the thread agrees and most are saying to them its debunked.

Its only you that is making this about your theories about a case no one wants to discuss in this thread because everyone that has replied has given the impression that its debunked.


If you say its not then do a thread.

No one thinks my theory is worthy mainly because of prejudice.

damn


you got us

looks like we get paid this week.

Seriously, what prejudice?

Actually NO, I don't' care to explore whatever is in your head.

They (perhaps you too) have read reports, that are missing information, based on cherry picked information, or are just plain wrong, and/or misinformed, perhaps intentionally.

But your information is all there right?


And how again are you not making this thread about you and your theories?

I have asserted that the "map" is a real bit of evidence, and all of you deny that probability, and do so without any foundation what so ever...and your simple denial isn't enough, you actually MUST prove all bits of data to be "false" or you've proven nothing.

Good for you.


Your ideas of probability were destroyed when I simply pointed out the fact that humans exist and intelligent ETs haven't been confirmed to exist let alone be visiting earth let alone abducting humans.


That there alone destroys any credibility you may have had to argue the case.

None of y'all has done anything to disprove my work (theory)...And IF you wish to actually "see" what I have: its been posted all this time, along with a link...but here view at your pleasure. ETA: That page is interactive; mouse over the stars and click for more...

for the 100th time


let your ego go

this thread is not about you and your theories.

If you want a thread about that, then do one and put all the links you want in there.

And, your continued refusal (that would be all of y'all) to actually address my theory mostly shows that none of you were looking for that "un-debunkable abduction case", but rather just seeking confirmation of your own delusional beliefs from others. You are not interested in science, truth, understanding, only in having your delusions confirmed.

is that similar to the attention seeking you are doing?

non stop posting you want others to see your work sounds like you want your "whatever" confirmed.

Actually man; you did. Perhaps not in so many words, but you most assuredly did say that.

so just quote me and I will gladly help you understand your misinterpretation.

Now, about that wee issue of who abducts more; Humans or Aliens...a simple search shows that Human abductions are on the order of 0.2% of the US population, while those who have experienced Alien abduction ranges to about 5 - 6%...that makes Alien abduction about 30 times more common than Human abductions. And, that is with most alien abductions going unreported.

so you wont answer where humanity agreed upon the existence of intelligent aliens visiting earth you will just keep posting random numbers like they mean something?

I don't enjoy repeatedly asking / demanding that all y'all employ a little science, common sense, and reality to this.

I am trying


you are jumping way to far ahead.


If its science then please direct me to what I asked for

the peer reviewed journals on ET biology and what not.

So, anyway, I've had my little "alpha" and "beta" tests of my theory, none of y'all even tried to disprove it, or indeed discuss it in any way.

again for the simple reason this thread is not about you.

So, I'll just presume that it is indeed ready for the next level...

So you are going to present it to where a scientist would like I suggested?

Y'all have fun now; hear.

a reply to: InhaleExhale

It is truly incredible; y'all ask for an un-debunkable abduction case. One is illustrated, and you reject it out of hand. I know, you "think" is been debunked, but, in reality it hasn't...that will be YOUR DELUSION.

Here is what has been said of "debunkers"

The problem is NOT that there is not enough evidence to justify my conclusions; but that most people, especially the noisy negativists, are unaware of the real, non-tabloid evidence.

Debunkers seem to employ four major rules:

1) What the public doesn’t know, we certainly won’t tell them. The largest official USAF UFO study isn’t even mentioned in twelve anti-UFO books, though every one of those books’ authors was aware of it.
2) Don’t bother me with the facts, my mind is made up.
3) If one can’t attack the data, attack the people. It is easier.
4) Do one’s research by proclamation rather than investigation. It is much easier, and nobody will know the difference anyway.

stantonfriedman.com...

All of y'all seem to have gotten that rather well as you seem to have followed the script very closely...

Perhaps, you are failing to understand just what new data, new technologies can do to some old tired misunderstood idea. In this case, that "new data", and those "new technologies" have made your favored astronomers, regardless of how famous they were, into delusional old men. In that, EVERY ANALYSIS of the Hill Map to date, has NOT used anything more recent than the Gliese study, which was replaced in the early 1990's. Even the few analyses that tried to include the Hipparcos data failed; they failed because they misinterpreted the stars. Those stars thought to be inappropriate to the map because of different stellar properties, have been shown to NOT have those properties, or the property doesn't matter (variable stars, binary stars). In some other cases the bogus report states that stars were moved too far away by the Hipparcos mission, NOT TRUE.

In fact, ALL of the old analyses I've found were riddled with errors that, quite frankly, I'm surprised any Astronomer worth his salt, would state. Most of these instances render the entire report to more of a bold faced lie rather than anything resembling science.

You seem to keep "harping" on this being about my ego...well what can I say; Rule 3 above! I'm sorry man, but its not about ego, it is about reality, science, truth...but I guess y'all can't accept that...sigh.

In any case; y'all asked for an um-debunkable abduction case; I provided one; YOU FAILED TO DEBUNK!!! And, I was really hoping that you might actually try, but, it appears that y'all don't actually have anything other than your delusions. So, I will leave you with then, may they serve y'all well.

And on another subject: You asked to some numbers about abductions. I replied recently that alien abduction appeared to be something on the order of 30X more probable,. that's probably pushing things a bit. BUT...

A relatively famous "Roper Poll" showed that 5 - 6% of the population think it is abducted by aliens every year. This is likely an abnormally small value due to fear of stigma, though higher because it is semi anonymous...so instead of calling it something like 1% of reality, perhaps we should use some standard engineering values to adjust it to reality...

So, how about we call that 5 - 6% something more like 20% of the actual number of people who think they've been abducted...then we can adjust that back to 5 - 6% who have actually been abducted by ET...

Do this still makes alien abduction on the order of 5X the number of Human abductions...

So. it might appear that it is indeed much more probable to be abducted by Aliens than Humans.Now, I know you won't like this, and will disagree, so all I can say is provide your own probabilities...and I do mean real numbers.

And, now that we're back to probability; How about YOU provide us with a prior probability for either/both alien visitation, or alien abduction. (you claim to be a Math and Probability guy, so , let us see some)

a reply to: james1947

So. it might appear that it is indeed much more probable to be abducted by Aliens than Humans.Now, I know you won't like this, and will disagree, so all I can say is provide your own probabilities...and I do mean real numbers.

I have.

You don't understand the simplicity that humans are known to exist while aliens are only speculated.

With probability you cant work out how probable something to any accuracy if you do not have solid factors to use.

Speculation (aliens abducting humans) is making up numbers to fit.

This is across the board when using any formula, if you don't have real factors and use speculative factors then your answer inst real but simply more speculation based on your speculated numbers.

originally posted by: InhaleExhale
a reply to: james1947

So. it might appear that it is indeed much more probable to be abducted by Aliens than Humans.Now, I know you won't like this, and will disagree, so all I can say is provide your own probabilities...and I do mean real numbers.

I have.

Where??!!! Pretend I'm a hard drive and require redundancy; repeat you numbers please.

You don't understand the simplicity that humans are known to exist while aliens are only speculated.

With probability you cant work out how probable something to any accuracy if you do not have solid factors to use.

Speculation (aliens abducting humans) is making up numbers to fit.

This is across the board when using any formula, if you don't have real factors and use speculative factors then your answer inst real but simply more speculation based on your speculated numbers.

Oh, actually I DO understand the "simplicity", though I am wondering IF you understand probability, and its Mathematics.

Anyway, there is no speculation here. Perhaps an assumption, an "engineering" style assumption, which works very well in everything in your life that you take for granted (like your electrical grid, your car, your PC, your phone, that list is very long). Then there is the FACT that I have proven that there is at least one additional data point (Zeta Reticuli...you have to include it until you disprove my "map theory", sorry man, but my science trumps your rhetoric...perhaps IF you could actually point something out...).

And, of course, IF we were to actually remove all the Egos here, then we would have to admit that there IS Extraterrestrial life, and that will give rise to the kind of fantasy numbers YOU want. I call them "fantasy" numbers because we already have more than sufficient data upon which to base a probability of ET, and his visitations, and of course your numbers are either off by orders of magnitude, or just plain delusional.

And that reminds me; You haven't given us a prior probability...

Did you know that we live in a region of space that has a 3.14159 times greater probability of containing Extraterrestrial life than should be normal for the Galaxy? Its true; the part I kind of like is that its almost equal to PI...wonder what that probability is?

I'm not seeing any evidence of science, or logic, or critical thinking in any of your ramblings, you have a lot of talk, but never with any substance...what I would expect from someone who doesn't really have an argument. Your have already shown that your language skill are small, your psychological skill are probably non-existent, and I have serious doubts about your Math and probability skills as well...I don't want to "DIS" you man, but you are showing nothing but delusion.

You have accused me of many things, but, you have never shown that what you have is any closer to the truth, in fact, you have shown the opposite; you have shown data bias, you have have shown confirmation bias, and you have not shown that you have any sort of expertise in the subject we are trying to discuss...

So, how about you get honest and start working toward finding truth, as contrasted with trying to obfuscate it.

The probabilities I speak of are real, despite your desire for them not to be. And, IF you wish to disprove them, you are going to have to use real mathematics, and science...not your (fundamentally) word salad...i.e. words don't cut it, math and science does.

ETA: Something I've noticed here; Y'all are the Ones who are jumping up and down "screaming" at me that I'm wrong. The reality is; you are the Ones jumping up and down screaming, irrationally, while I am the One with the science/reality. Everything I've said/demonstrated can be duplicated by you or indeed anyone, everything yo need is readily available. NOTHING y'all have said have been backed up in any way shape or form...

I kind of like Graham Hancock's take on abductions, in which he points out the significant parallels between abduction experiences and shamanistic experiences had by users of heavy psychoactive and psychedelic drugs. The appearance of animals, the abductee being taken someplace odd and experimented on, the gift of a "book of knowledge," and then that book being taken away from them, and so on.

However, this is not to say that these experiences aren't "real," or that they only happen in a person's mind. Hancock is of the opinion that psychoactive enhancement of perception could be allowing people to perceive certain "aspects" of reality that we ordinarily don't have access to. This goes along with the notion that our brains are not so much storehouses of information, perception and personality, but more like a radio receiver gaining information from external sources. Like your brain is the computer, but to work on anything more than a basic level it relies on being hooked up to a larger wi-fi network.

The idea has a nice feel about it. Of course, science still has no real good theories to account for the spontaneous perception and awareness we experience. All bets still open.

originally posted by: Blue Shift
I kind of like Graham Hancock's take on abductions, in which he points out the significant parallels between abduction experiences and shamanistic experiences had by users of heavy psychoactive and psychedelic drugs. The appearance of animals, the abductee being taken someplace odd and experimented on, the gift of a "book of knowledge," and then that book being taken away from them, and so on.

However, this is not to say that these experiences aren't "real," or that they only happen in a person's mind. Hancock is of the opinion that psychoactive enhancement of perception could be allowing people to perceive certain "aspects" of reality that we ordinarily don't have access to. This goes along with the notion that our brains are not so much storehouses of information, perception and personality, but more like a radio receiver gaining information from external sources. Like your brain is the computer, but to work on anything more than a basic level it relies on being hooked up to a larger wi-fi network.

The idea has a nice feel about it. Of course, science still has no real good theories to account for the spontaneous perception and awareness we experience. All bets still open.

As an "experiencer" I think I would agree. I've also done some of the Shamanic thing, though more in the context of Western Ceremonial Magick. Anyway, I've seen the advantage certain drugs have and the effects on consciousness and perception.

Lately, I've taken the notion that when ET does abduct they use chemicals not unlike the modern drug Belsomra (a sleep aid). What Belsomra does is affect the action and levels of a neurotransmitter called Orexin. This can perfectly mimic the abduction experience. It also opens One up to such wonders as hallucinations, and some other stuff that makes the experiencer a bit less reliable afterwards, makes for reports that have a reduced confidence level.

By the way, I've also been abducted by Humans (USAF involvement I think), the "Human" experience was vastly different. For instance there were no psychedelic drugs involved, just "you are not awake" sort of treatment...except when it doesn't work right...