Re Betty Hill 'Star Map' -- Was Marjorie Fish's retraction covered up?

reply to post by Xtraeme

For the part of your question that can be answered

All parts of the question can be answered. People can recall things that never happened to them, even very traumatic things. Give this article by Oliver Sacks a read. www.nybooks.com...

Memory is a very strange thing.

reply to post by Harte


I would emphasize the part that said "more than a quarter". Or in other words, barely more than half of half. As I said, if you add hypnosis, the results MAY be quite different.
I think the experiment is more than fair. After all, the entire story hinges on the Hill's recollection of an event under hypnosis.
If Jim can't get takers at UFO "debates", I am offering to help him.

Originally posted by JayinAR
reply to post by JimOberg

 

Set it up, Jim.
I will gladly take that challenge.
From everything I have heard and understood the mind has an excellent capacity for accurate recollection under hypnosis.

And if I am wrong, I will have helped close the door on this issue.

I would be glad to help.

ETA: but a quick question. Given the info Gazrok posted above, if I WERE to reproduce the drawing, where would that leave your position on this issue?

edit on 9-7-2013 by JayinAR because: (no reason given)

The position I take is that it doesn't matter. Even if you are to accurately reproduce the drawing under hypnosis, it doesn't mean anything. We all know that the drawing exists and have something to compare your results to. The whole idea is of this is somewhat contorted. The real question is, did Betty Hill see an actual "map"? Could she have remembered something that never happened in such detail? The answer would seem to be that people can remember experiences that never happened to them.

reply to post by ZetaRediculian


I may be inclined to agree, but for the sake of this discussion I was responding to Jim's "point" that he makes in UFO "debates" to which he says nobody is willing to try.

Originally posted by JayinAR
reply to post by ZetaRediculian

 

I may be inclined to agree, but for the sake of this discussion I was responding to Jim's "point" that he makes in UFO "debates" to which he says nobody is willing to try.

Fair enough. I'm not sure that I would let Jim Oberg hypnotize me though.

reply to post by ZetaRediculian


Noted.
Stipulation: Must be performed by licensed hypnotherapist.

The two stars in the Zeta Reticuli binary system are NOT too close for the formation of stable, habitable planets. In fact, they are something like 3750AUs apart (1AU is the distance between Earth and Sun), with an estimated orbital period of around 170,000 years! Each star could have its own separate planetary system.

you don't need me to perform the experiment. I've lost interest in it, anyway.

reply to post by JimOberg


Hey, maybe in Jim's heart of hearts he always believed in Betty Hill then !

The position I take is that it doesn't matter. Even if you are to accurately reproduce the drawing under hypnosis, it doesn't mean anything. We all know that the drawing exists and have something to compare your results to. The whole idea is of this is somewhat contorted. The real question is, did Betty Hill see an actual "map"? Could she have remembered something that never happened in such detail? The answer would seem to be that people can remember experiences that never happened to them

Whilst undoubtedly true that false memories can appear as "real", it is usually those planted by an outside source. The classic experiment was the one about early childhood memories of a mobile hanging over the cradle which several of he test subjects insisted they remembered , when the mobile had been "suggested" to them beforehand during the hypnosis

What we aren''t fully au fait with, in the case of Betty Hill, is just how far did the "interviewer", "Interviewee" interaction, prompting, go? Did Betty proffer the details of the "star map" from her own volition or was she "guided" by the person who hypnotised her? Again, that's not to say Betty wasn't "joining the dots" in her own head out of frustration at seemingly, being denied the narrative of her own experience. However, people don't tend to, just make "random stuff up" under hypnosis

Hypnosis, whilst deeply flawed has at times, aided law enforcement officers to tease details witnesses did see and had consigned to the subconscious back to the surface and those details have been shown to be correct when checked.

Currently, I'd say, the best we can manage is that. Betty and Barney Hill had an experience that was very "real" to them, on the other hand, whether the experience was actually "real" is still a moot point.

It has been suggested that the hypnogenic memories were based on several SF shows -- an outer limits episode and 'invaders from mars'., where there is a closing 'star map' scene. I dunno.

reply to post by FireMoon


I think I get the gist of your point. The understanding I have is that all
"experiences" are equally real whether they actually occurred or not.

Dreams are a good example. We all have had dreams that seem very real. We can have actual conversations with "others" as if there was another person actually there. Our bodies physically respond to the events that happen while we dream and so on.

All this occurs without the need of outside influences. I believe memories work in the same way. I personally have memories of things that never occurred. Granted, I never had a memory of alien abduction.

From what I understand of this case, Betty Hill had many dreams of this event for some time before undergoing hypnosis. Is it a stretch to say that this memory spontaneously formed prior to hypnosis?

reply to post by Xtraeme

I don't know if anybody has mentioned it, but Betty Hill stated the star map she saw was in 3d. Her drawing omits the 3rd dimension, so it really cannot be trusted at all.

I"ve also read that she said there were stars AND planets on it. Marjorie assumed that all of the dots on the drawing were stars, but what if they were supposed to be planets? How would Betty know anyway? If she can't name the stars on the map then why trust her that they're stars?

Not to mention Fisher eliminated all multiple star systems (like binary systems) in her initial search. Oddly, Zeta 2 Reticuli is a binary star system - she didn't know at the time, I don't think anybody did. So despite that she skipped a host of other multiple star systems, we're expected to believe the Zeta 2 Reticuli system is the best match?

All in all, the star map thing to me is a huge flippin' joke.

reply to post by ZetaRediculian

People can recall things that never happened to them, even very traumatic things.

Alright, so you're claiming the diagram is a false memory. How would you prove it?

What parameters would you consider fair?

I assert extreme experiences increase recall; and that there are empirical tests that can definitively prove whether that's the case.

There's a big difference between being put into an extremely exigent situation where each thing takes on significance because the person's survival instinct kicks in versus being told to remember something for a memory test.

All parts of the question can be answered.

Sure. However the questions aren't really relevant to the hypothesis that exigence/newness increases recall and how that can be tested. Case in point:

I mean, considering the aliens used some kind of alien memory block, how can a fair test be conducted?

No one on this forum can honestly answer that. All we can do is isolate aspects that are testable.

The Hills were not supposed remember anything.

Seems to be true.

How well do you recall information in dreams?

I am not sure how this is relevant unless you're trying to say that the memories were created in something other than a fugue state. However, to answer the question, for whatever reason over the last two years I remember most of my night-time excursions.

Each morning I wake up and I can typically recall at least one or two complete sequences. According to sleep researchers, we have four or five REM cycles in a single nights rest. So I imagine 20% to 50% memory is pretty good. I can typically trace through most of the details. What I find curious is that the memories aren't faint. They're in many cases more vivid than memories of real life events (even from just the previous day).

It's a nuisance.

How well do you think we can remember something that never happened?

Depends if someone intentionally and systematically tried to implant the thought. If the question is rhetorical I'd counter with, "How well do you remember other people's memories?"

edit on 10-7-2013 by Xtraeme because: (no reason given)

reply to post by jonnywhite

I don't know if anybody has mentioned it, but Betty Hill stated the star map she saw was in 3d. Her drawing omits the 3rd dimension, so it really cannot be trusted at all.

I seem to remember something similar. Did she say that in an interview? From Fuller's book this is what I have to work off,

And so then I said, I asked him where he was from. Because I said that I knew he wasn't from the earth, and I wanted to know where he did come from. And he asked if I knew anything about the universe. And I told him no. I knew practically nothing. That when I was in graduate school we were taught that the sun was the center of the solar system, and there were nine planets. And then later, of course, we did make advances. And I told him about seeing, I think I met him at one time. Harlow Shapley; he wrote a book, too. And I had seen photographs that he had taken of millions and millions of stars in the universe. But that was about all I knew. So, he said that he wished I knew more about this, and I said I wish I did, too. And he went across the room to the head of the table and he did something, he opened up, it wasn't like a drawer, he sort of did something, and the metal of the wall, there was an opening. And he pulled out a map, and he asked me had I ever seen a map like this before. And I walked across the room and I leaned against the table. And I looked at it. And it was a map--it was an oblong map. It wasn't square. It was a lot wider than it was long. And there were all these dots on it. And they were scattered all over it. Some were little, just pin points. And others were as big as a nickel. And there were lines, there were on some of the dots, there were curved lines going from one dot to another. And there was one

pg. 208

big circle, and it had a lot of lines coming out from it. A lot of lines going to another circle quite close, but not as big. And these were heavy lines. And I asked him what they meant. And he said that the heavy lines were trade routes. And then the other lines, the other lines, the solid lines were places they went occasionally. And he said the broken lines were expeditions ...

So I asked him where was his home port, and he said "Where were you on the map?" I looked and laughed and said, "I don't know." So he said, "If you don't know where you are, then there isn't any point of my telling where I am from." And he put the map—the map rolled up, and he put it back in the space in the wall and closed it. I felt very stupid because I did not know where the earth was on the map. I asked him would he open up the map again and show me where the earth was, and he again laughed.

pg. 209

Marjorie assumed that all of the dots on the drawing were stars, but what if they were supposed to be planets? How would Betty know anyway?

That's a good and honest question.

Maybe the luminance?

Ala ... workshop.chromeexperiments.com...

Also if they were supposed to be showing trade routes between different systems. I would suspect the scale of the stars would dwarf the planets by such a significant margin that the map wouldn't depict planets.

... we're expected to believe the Zeta 2 Reticuli system is the best match?

That's why it's nice that we have real mechanisms nowadays (tran.astrometry.net...) to check for other matches.

Originally posted by JayinAR
reply to post by Harte

 

I would emphasize the part that said "more than a quarter". Or in other words, barely more than half of half.

"More than a quarter" of participants even after they were warned.
Also, those are false memories involving things that never happened.

More to the point was the end of the quote: ''There's a cultural expectation that hypnosis will lead to more accurate and earlier memories, but that's not true.''

That's why I bolded and underlined it.

Hypnosis does not improve one's memory of an event. That is, unless the subject is so scatterbrained that they cannot concentrate at all unless forced to settle down through hypnosis.

Harte

With the billions of stars in our own Milky Way Galaxy, anyone could draw a series of dots on a blank piece of paper and they are sure to line up with some star system in the galaxy.

reply to post by JimOberg


Well, I'm one who thinks there's some non-human intelligence behind some UFOs, but ... UFO proponents, I think we need to admit that the Hill "star map" is plagued with problems. My personal view is that it probably should not take on any major significance, and it certainly should not be the centerpiece of anyone's pro-UFO position. (However, nor does the star map's dismissal really bolster the views of the skeptic ... but that's a different thread.)

Here are some of my issues with Hill's recollection and representation of the ET's holographic star map:

-- she drew around 10 or 12 of the most prominent stars in the map, and even connected the "trade routes", but ... she also said there were many other stars in the map that she couldn't remember. (This alone is hugely significant.)

-- there's undoubtedly some error in her recall.

-- there's necessarily significant error in her drawing ... because...

-- what's the perspective in her drawing? In other words, which kind projection (of 3-dimensional space onto a two dimensional surface) was Betty Hill thinking and drawing in?

-- what's the SCALE of the map? I see no legend.

-- what's its orientation? (This is not so crucial, since orientation is pinned down and accounted for in any "match" the map has with the real stars ... but it is one more unknown.)

-- must any star on the map be our sun, Sol? I'd guess it was, but what are the actual odds?

-- other things ...

All I see here are a bunch of assumptions and unknowns, compounding themselves and amplifying the weaknesses in each other, until the total error involved is so great that the map is basically useless.

What we have is ten to twelve points on a piece of paper, some connected with lines and others not, and stars which do exist missing from the map. All in a region of the galaxy where, at some scales, the distribution of stars is mostly uniform.

There's just not much there.

Sorry if I'm hurting anyone's feelings here, but ... though I think some UFOs are definitely the result of non-human intelligences, for a pro-UFO person to give this Hill star map any significant role in his UFO attitudes is akin to trying to hang your heavy, rain-soaked coat onto a hook made of hay.

Maybe the following interactive 3-D visualizations of the nearest stars will help highlight the problem with the Hill star map?

This one goes out to 40 light years. (Around 12 parsecs.) Java is needed, but the site is safe.

The Hill star map, with its inherent inaccuracies, and with many stars missing from her map (as she admits) ... I think you can see how her drawing could be shoved in to fit countless combinations / orientations.


This interactive map is probably more browser friendly for most, and shows our place with respect to all currently known stars within 16 light years. (About 5 parsecs.) Even within that "small" volume (haha), what an impossible mess it makes of most any Hill-like 2-D representation of 3-D star space.

reply to post by Xtraeme

Alright, so you're claiming the diagram is a false memory. How would you prove it?

No claim. just pointing out that it can happen. Nobody can prove that my dream last night didn't actually happen either but I'm sure that most will attribute my experience to being a dream.

I assert extreme experiences increase recall; and that there are empirical tests that can definitively prove whether that's the case.

Yes, I believe this is the case. However, the neurochemicals involved with this effect such as Epinephrine are also involved with perceptual distortions. en.wikipedia.org...

You make some good points

How well do you think we can remember something that never happened?

Depends if someone intentionally and systematically tried to implant the thought. If the question is rhetorical I'd counter with, "How well do you remember other people's memories?"

Well...from the Oliver Sacks article...

It is startling to realize that some of our most cherished memories may never have happened—or may have happened to someone else. I suspect that many of my enthusiasms and impulses, which seem entirely my own, have arisen from others’ suggestions, which have powerfully influenced me, consciously or unconsciously, and then been forgotten.

www.nybooks.com...
.
The point I am making is that false memories seem to be more common than we think. That's why its a good idea to take pictures or write stuff down. A memory recalled under hypnosis of some bizarre event that happened a year before seems like it would have a high probability of being a false memory. Obviously, I cant prove that this is the case here but I do believe that all the elements are present in this case for this to be a reasonable assumption.