More Best Evidence for aliens

[Braveheart]

That's the one!

Here's the star-map Betty drew:

Here's the actual layout of Zeta Reticuli:

I don't know about you, but to me that's a pretty accurate match!

The story and other details:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betty_and_Barney_Hill_abduction

It's an interesting story no doubt. Usually abduction don't win me over, but with the pieces of evidence they came away from this one with, I'm almost convinced.

[Hazzard]

You are wrong again! It is quite opposite! Many skeptics turns to believers! Beside, it is you who have to grow up....

Once again, you are wrong about Youtube about UFO reports that are also to find in other sites!

PLEASE!!!

Ra, before you do the "crazy birds victory dance" I suggest that you read that thread posted a wile back, where the OP asked us all here on UM, how many have tured skeptic after comming here..... If I remember it right, about 80%, or more, of the people posting had gone from "believers/on the fence" to skeptics.

There is little doubt in my mind that its because guys like Evangium, MID, Badeskov, Zero, Emma, Pericyntion, Nigel and Psyche...

There is to much crap in this tank that is UFOlogy... How the hell are we supposed to find an answer to the UFO enigma when people like Ra are posting EVERY AND ALL youtube video there is, and Skyeagle is doing his usual mantra BS routine!!!???

I think that Scanner said it best, in reply to Evangiums post...

if it's allowed to be continued to be led by belief, and agenda, will have not moved on one iota in another 50, 100 plus years....

This is true... and especially now that communications technology has made it possible to give global reach to the bizarre and archive it forever.

It is now, more than ever, essential for men and women of reason resolutely to counter the delusions of the fringe element.

Edited August 7, 2009 by Hazzard

[Hazzard]

That's the one!

Here's the star-map Betty drew:

Here's the actual layout of Zeta Reticuli:

I don't know about you, but to me that's a pretty accurate match!

The story and other details:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betty_and_Barney_Hill_abduction

It's an interesting story no doubt. Usually abduction don't win me over, but with the pieces of evidence they came away from this one with, I'm almost convinced.

From your link....

An alien seen on TV 12 days prior to the making of Hill's 'Grey' hypnosis tape...

The objects in the map, they discovered, closely match the positions of the Sun, the six inner planets and several asteroids around the time of the incident.

... star constellations are based on 3 dimensions and if you look long, and willingly enough, you will find one, or a thousand, that matches.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betty_and_Bar...uction#Analysis

Bottom line, it cannot be proven to be true, or false. All we have is their story of what they have experienced and seen.

Edited August 7, 2009 by Hazzard

[NigelTM]

Please do. On the surface, it sounds almost like the Hill case, but I don't recall any mention of them being forced into the spaceship. I could be wrong on that.

Unfortunately, one of the problems with the Hill case, is how this 'star-map' came to be. Interestingingly enough, Betty Hill's star map doesn't correspond to Zeta Reticuli, it's more of a case of the person who made the model decided that Zeta Reticuli was a very rough match.

Jacques Vallee actually goes into a little bit more detail on this in "Messengers of Deception", where he makes a very relevant point about how many other stars in 3d space could also match Betty's drawing when all other vantage points are considered (something that wasn't factored into the creation of the model).

For some reason ufology, and I believe Stan Friedman in particular, decided to run with Zeta Retic as the home of the Grey, and the rest is now well known folklore.

That is of course assuming your case is the abduction of Betty and Barney Hill.

Bolding mine. Randi points out in Flim-Flam! that the constellation Pegasus fits, as well as a map of Leo/Cancer. Meaning that it's easy to shoehorn the Hill "map" fits just about any configuration, and proves absolutely nothing.

[Evangium]

Anyone happen to have a copy of Fortean Times # 242 actually in their possession? Any comments on this article would be appreciated (and for brownie points the MUFON Journal article reffered to also) -

An update on the Fish interpretation of Betty Hill's star map? Link

[Hazzard]

Anyone happen to have a copy of Fortean Times # 242 actually in their possession? Any comments on this article would be appreciated (and for brownie points the MUFON Journal article reffered to also) -

An update on the Fish interpretation of Betty Hill's star map? Link

Id like to read that article... new evidence against hoaxers is always fun.

Astronomer Carl Sagan wiped-out the claims about the star map a long time ago... the match was not (and could not be expected to be) perfect - random chance would produce at least one similarly good match to the map somewhere in the star catalog Fish used in her analysis.

Edited August 8, 2009 by Hazzard

[badeskov]

Bolding mine. Randi points out in Flim-Flam! that the constellation Pegasus fits, as well as a map of Leo/Cancer. Meaning that it's easy to shoehorn the Hill "map" fits just about any configuration, and proves absolutely nothing.

Personally, I find that the starmap is a joke. As you mention yourself (indirectly) with your reference to Randi, there are so many stars out there so you could probably fit it onto a huge number of star constellations. The creation of the star map itself and the subsequent matching of the star map to the night sky is just suspicious to the extreme and not at all credible in my view:

1) The star map was drawn by hand with no reference to distances between the stars on the map. No matter how it is scaled there will be constellations matching it, I am sure.

2) Who says that the star map is actually referencing anything as seen from Earth?

It simply makes no sense to put any credit to this piece of "evidence" in my honest opinion.

Cheers,

Badeskov

[badeskov]

Id like to read that article... new evidence against hoaxers is always fun. Not that it matters to me...

Ditto!

Astronomer Carl Sagan also wiped-out the claims about the star map a long time ago... the match was not (and could not be expected to be) perfect - random chance would produce at least one similarly good match to the map somewhere in the star catalog Fish used in her analysis.

That is for sure. You could draw a horse and find a constellation that matched, I am sure

Cheers,

Badeskov

[Evangium]

As far as I can recall, Betty Hill never initially made the Zeta Reticuli claim. That came after Fish arbeterially decided that it had to be a solar system similar to ours within a 55 light year radius. Like so many other flawed analysis in this field, it just happened to be what certain people wanted to hear.

Getting back to Vallee, he also writes (re: the Hill case) that many people he spoke to left Stanton Friedman's talks on the subject utterly convinced that the ET riddle had been solved, and Zeta Reticuli is the answer (a theme that carries over to Roswell and MJ12/MAJIC...).

The flaws in the methodolgy can be seen even in the transcript from the 1974 MUFON Symposium.

http://www.nicap.org/hillmap.htm

Unfortunately, this is one of those cases where, no matter what new information turns up, it will always be defended from the emotional argument of the percieved attack on the witness, as opposed to the attack on the poor research that has been presented as verified conclusive and factual.

[badeskov]

As far as I can recall, Betty Hill never initially made the Zeta Reticuli claim. That came after Fish arbeterially decided that it had to be a solar system similar to ours within a 55 light year radius. Like so many other flawed analysis in this field, it just happened to be what certain people wanted to hear.

That would be correct, to the best of my knowledge. Betty Hill just drew the map and made no claims to constellations. It was Fish that made her own interpretation and the, as they say, is history.

Getting back to Vallee, he also writes (re: the Hill case) that many people he spoke to left Stanton Friedman's talks on the subject utterly convinced that the ET riddle had been solved, and Zeta Reticuli is the answer (a theme that carries over to Roswell and MJ12/MAJIC...).

The flaws in the methodolgy can be seen even in the transcript from the 1974 MUFON Symposium.

http://www.nicap.org/hillmap.htm

Unfortunately Mr. Friedman has so much interest vested in this so it would be hard for him to have any other opinion on the matter. Sadly. My respect to Mr. Friedman has certainly dwindled.

Unfortunately, this is one of those cases where, no matter what new information turns up, it will always be defended from the emotional argument of the percieved attack on the witness, as opposed to the attack on the poor research that has been presented as verified conclusive and factual.

Unfortunately another one of those cases added to an already long list of cases that fall into that category.

Cheers,

Badeskov

[Hazzard]

Answer me this, and like Badeskov just touched on... Some people simply cant admit they were wrong, being to much time invested or whatnot.

The UFOlogy soup would tast so much better without all these pseudoscientists that "has to much invested in this".

....not even to mention the money hungry charlatans... or are they one and the same....?

[badeskov]

Answer me this, and like Badeskov just touched on... Some people simply cant admit they were wrong, being to much time invested or whatnot.

The UFOlogy soup would tast so much better without all these pseudoscientists that "has to much invested in this".

It would and this unwillingness to implement the falsification process in the field of UFOlogy is naturally why it is not being considered a science by scientists. Being wrong and admitting being wrong is an integral part of science and essentially how science progresses.

....not even to mention the money hungry charlatans... or are they one and the same....?

I doubt that they can all the categorized the same way, but most for sure have a vested interest. Some most certainly do it for the money and probably don't even believe what they sprout themselves, but who cares as long as money is being deposited. Others I gather simply do not want to relinquish their system of belief for reasons we can only begin to guess at.

Cheers,

Badeskov

[Hazzard]

It would and this unwillingness to implement the falsification process in the field of UFOlogy is naturally why it is not being considered a science by scientists.

These believers keep complaining about how serious scientists dont want to touch the religion that is UFOlogy... Gosh(!), I wonder why!?...need I say it.. Galactic federation of Light, Hoagland, Greer, Meier, and the likes, makes it very hard for someone like me, and others, to cut through the BS.

I dont need this.... Before I have some real evidence I remain skeptical.

Edited August 8, 2009 by Hazzard

[NigelTM]

Answer me this, and like Badeskov just touched on... Some people simply cant admit they were wrong, being to much time invested or whatnot.

The UFOlogy soup would tast so much better without all these pseudoscientists that "has to much invested in this".

....not even to mention the money hungry charlatans... or are they one and the same....?

I'll agree with Bad in the point that you don't want to paint the pro-UFO field with too broad a brush, but the fact remains that history shows "them" to be more (a) misguided/self-deluded individuals, sometimes with an inflated sense of self-importance, or ( money-grubbing charlatans whose sole intention is to prey on the....less-well informed.

To be specific, and this is my opinion, category (a) would include those who sincerely believed in the "Space Brothers;" that Disclosure is just around the corner (as it has been for over 50 years); that (in some cases at least) that they were truly abducted by aliens from another planet, that the US and other governments are involved in a giant conspiracy, etc. Category ( includes known hucksters and hoaxsters such as George Adamski, Charles Berlitz, Billy Meier, von Daniken, etc. In some cases, of course, (a) and ( may overlap to an extent, which makes it harder to tell the difference between the two.

Unrelated to UFOs, but still worthwhile for the sake of discussion, is the book "The Psychic Mafia," by M. Lamar Keene. Keene was a spirtualist in the 1960s, and held seances for clients, and talked to the dead. He made a lot of money, but was an utter fake, and exposed his tricks in his book. Yet (and this is the point) he still had followers who believed he could talk to the dead even after he confessed to cheating them!

Given the current political climate in the US (at least), in regards to the health care debate, I don't hold out much hope that people will exercise their brains as much as they should, and use essential skills such as critical thinking. More's the pity.

[Hazzard]

..... He made a lot of money, but was an utter fake, and exposed his tricks in his book. Yet (and this is the point) he still had followers who believed he could talk to the dead even after he confessed to cheating them! .....

This is the part that blows me away, Nigel!! ..I mean, I get the time invested, hard to let go of a life long belief and all that, but, how in the hell can people still believe in an edmitted fake/hoax!?

Edited August 9, 2009 by Hazzard

[badeskov]

These believers keep complaining about how serious scientists dont want to touch the religion that is UFOlogy... Gosh(!), I wonder why!?...need I say it.. Galactic federation of Light, Hoagland, Greer, Meier, and the likes, makes it very hard for someone like me, and others, to cut through the BS.

Indeed. It is incredibly how such can proliferate. I mean, what happened to critical thinking and common sense? Believing in a Galactic Federation of Light (sounds like something one would come up with in the late 60/early 70's during an LSD trip) because some "channeler" says so? And then the faith in people like Greer and Hoagland et. al., people that have a very spotted history. Speaking of using some very effective blinds, just a pity they are put in the wrong way.

That said, there are a lot of scientists in the field of UFOlogy effectively, albeit not visibly so. They are astronomers, atmospheric scientists, astrophysicists etc. They work scientifically and rigorously on data they continuously obtain, some of which shows unknown events and phenomena. However, since they publish in peer reviewed scientific journals (where the populist field of UFOlogy very, very rarely goes) , they discuss with all options open and somehow have discovered and explained a lot of hitherto unknown natural phenomena. Or left the observations as of unknown origin until better models and/or more data can be obtained. But that is obviously not very appealing for a number of people, people for which the process of independent verification and falsification are completely unknown entities.

Until such a day when the populist field of UFOlogy will cease to be populist and embrace the process the scientific approach requires it will continue to be a joke and nothing can really be expected to come out of it in my honest opinion. It is so clouded in ulterior motives by some and a naiveté by others that it completely overshadows what really has to be done and thus locks the whole field down in "research tracks" that are really horses that have already been beaten to death, i.e. obviously leads nowhere.

I dont need this.... Before I have some real evidence I remain skeptical.

Me neither. And quite frankly, there is no evidence whatsoever for ET. Only evidence for something was there, but nothing as pertaining to the origin (natural, man made, ET, Nessie, Ghosts, <insert apparition of own choice here>). I will remain skeptical with you.

Cheers,

Badeskov

Edited for typos.

Edited August 9, 2009 by badeskov

[Ra_Sun-God]

Me neither. And quite frankly, there is no evidence whatsoever for ET. Only evidence for something was there, but nothing as pertaining to the origin (natural, man made, ET, Nessie, Ghosts, <insert apparition of own choice here>). I will remain skeptical with you.

Cheers,

Badeskov

Edited for typos.

Well well well, you are so wrong

The scientists confirmed the crashed Roswell UFO debris as Extraterrestrial origin!

[badeskov]

Well well well, you are so wrong

Not really, Ra.

The scientists confirmed the crashed Roswell UFO debris as Extraterrestrial origin!

Eh, no they didn't. That is a very imaginative story, but that is also all that it is - a story.

Cheers,

Badeskov

[Evangium]

These believers keep complaining about how serious scientists dont want to touch the religion that is UFOlogy... Gosh(!), I wonder why!?...need I say it.. Galactic federation of Light, Hoagland, Greer, Meier, and the likes, makes it very hard for someone like me, and others, to cut through the BS.

And yet the belief continues to gain ground. Matt Graeber, has a short piece in the latest edition of SUNlite, where he addresses the part skepticism has played within the ufology's 60 years of failure Link

21st Century UFOlogy: A challenge to skeptical thought

by Matt Graeber

I fully realize the UFO proponents haven't proven a single case to the satisfaction of the skeptical and scientific communities. But, they have made their case to the satisfaction,

endearment and embrace of a substantial number of peoples around the world. They have done so with the ever-increasing number of sighting reports,

etc.- which they present as 'Evidence.'

- Thus, skeptics have failed in their quest for hegemony in the saucer world primarily because they do not offer

excitement, mystery, exceptionalism, entertainment or, a sense of awe in folks with their more intellectual explanations and ideas.

Belief is a very powerful part of the human

living experience. The attempted extinguishing of belief by intellectually accented argument and persuasion are not adequate as a substitute for the stirring

of the human imagination and the anticipations of the soul. This is the dawn of an age of unbridled compassion, the blindfold is off the eyes of justice, the statistical

norm no longer applies, as it is the ‘exception’ to the rule which makes statistics necessary in the first place.

The challenges for skeptics are unique, more philosophical than scientific, more emotional than scientific and far more social

than scientific. It clearly demonstrates (as the Lorenzens of APRO once said) and I'm paraphrasing and revising a bit here..."When the emotional problems of UFOLogy

have been resolved, the phenomenon may then, give way to science."

I feel that he comes much closer to hitting the mark than any 'reality showing otherwise' saucer advocate. Skepticism has failed in that it hasn't marketed itself as well as mainstream ufology has marketed itself. In some ways, the pro-ufo camp has actually been given the opportunity to redefine what skepticism and debunking actually are. Historically, it really wasn't that long ago that those words had a positive connotation to them.

Mainstream ufology his its Hoaxlands, it Greer's, Lazaars, Bragalias, Friedmans and a whole host of supporting cast. It has slick production (in some cases) and the technological nous to market and spread it's message. And above all else it has a message to tell and a reason to believe. Something the churches of the world clued on to a long time ago. You don't fill the pews by coming out and saying there may or may not be an eternal reward, and you certainly don't fill a convention/conference centre with anything less than the 'irrefutable truth'.

So where does that leave the skeptic? Coming out with a truthful message accomplishes very little, since the target audience isn't interested in the truth (more so if they have to spend more than 5 minutes actually thinking about it).

I have noted in the past that we are seeing emergence of the new breed of ufologist. Those guys that aren't afraid to take the 'softline' approach and allow some doubt, skepticism and critical thinking guide their research. But we also need a new breed of skeptic to take the stage. Only then will serious science have a fair opportunity to place a foot in the mainsteam arena.

edit: Bolding mine, corrected minor format errors

Edited August 9, 2009 by Evangium

[TSS]

And yet the belief continues to gain ground. Matt Graeber, has a short piece in the latest edition of SUNlite, where he addresses the part skepticism has played within the ufology's 60 years of failure Link

21st Century UFOlogy: A challenge to skeptical thought

by Matt Graeber

I feel that he comes much closer to hitting the mark than any 'reality showing otherwise' saucer advocate. Skepticism has failed in that it hasn't marketed itself as well as mainstream ufology has marketed itself. In some ways, the pro-ufo camp has actually been given the opportunity to redefine what skepticism and debunking actually are. Historically, it really wasn't that long ago that those words had a positive connotation to them.

Mainstream ufology his its Hoaxlands, it Greer's, Lazaars, Bragalias, Friedmans and a whole host of supporting cast. It has slick production (in some cases) and the technological nous to market and spread it's message. And above all else it has a message to tell and a reason to believe. Something the churches of the world clued on to a long time ago. You don't fill the pews by coming out and saying there may or may not be an eternal reward, and you certainly don't fill a convention/conference centre with anything less than the 'irrefutable truth'.

So where does that leave the skeptic? Coming out with a truthful message accomplishes very little, since the target audience isn't interested in the truth (more so if they have to spend more than 5 minutes actually thinking about it).

I have noted in the past that we are seeing emergence of the new breed of ufologist. Those guys that aren't afraid to take the 'softline' approach and allow some doubt, skepticism and critical thinking guide their research. But we also need a new breed of skeptic to take the stage. Only then will serious science have a fair opportunity to place a foot in the mainsteam arena.

edit: Bolding mine, corrected minor format errors

Reading that reminded of the heading for chapter two of Operation Trojen Horse - John Keel. To Hell With The Answer!...What's the Question?? .....an area that is sorely lacking in modern ufology - where the loudest voices are saying To Hell with the Question???....We've got the answer!! .....the question is and always should have been, what could possibly account for the vast array of descriptions, sightings, timings, etc etc.......what we have now is those cases that seem to fit a certain critieria are cheery picked, the data within them cherry picked, so they fit the criteria of the question Is it ET??

What you was saying previously about the great researchers of the past warning against the current state of play over 20yrs ago - and what you say about researchers with a different approach and a new set of thinking needing to start drowning out the old school of thought, your right, and you make a lot of sense, plus your very knowledgeable, so what's holding you back?

Edited August 9, 2009 by Sky Scanner

[Evangium]

Reading that reminded of the heading for chapter two of Operation Trojen Horse - John Keel. To Hell With The Answer!...What's the Question?? .....an area that is sorely lacking in modern ufology - where the loudest voices are saying To Hell with the Question???....We've got the answer!! .....the question is and always should have been, what could possibly account for the vast array of descriptions, sightings, timings, etc etc.......what we have now is those cases that seem to fit a certain critieria are cheery picked, the data within them cherry picked, so they fit the criteria of the question Is it ET??

What you was saying previously about the great researchers of the past warning against the current state of play over 20yrs ago - and what you say about researchers with a different approach and a new set of thinking needing to start drowning out the old school of thought, your right, and you make a lot of sense, plus your very knowledgeable, so what's holding you back?

Motivation issues

Sadly, I know I'd start writing the book or creating the youtube series and end up shelving it 'for later', like many of my past hobbies. So I post in the vain hope that I'll inspire somebody more motivated in this area to pick up the baton and run with it

Edited August 9, 2009 by Evangium

[TSS]

Motivation issues

Sadly, I know I'd start writing the book or creating the youtube series and end up shelving it 'for later', like many of my past hobbies. So I post in the vain hope that I'll inspire somebody more motivated in this area to pick up the baton and run with it

Well I know of a few people who I sent links to and have been following events on here, since the last thread of the same name, as 'guests', and have been inspired to look a little further, so it's not in vain.

[badeskov]

Motivation issues

Sadly, I know I'd start writing the book or creating the youtube series and end up shelving it 'for later', like many of my past hobbies. So I post in the vain hope that I'll inspire somebody more motivated in this area to pick up the baton and run with it

*looks at baton and shudders*

Cheers,

Badeskov

[TSS]

*looks at baton and shudders*

Cheers,

Badeskov

LOL.....a couple more beers and it won't look so bad!

[badeskov]

Reading that reminded of the heading for chapter two of Operation Trojen Horse - John Keel. To Hell With The Answer!...What's the Question?? .....an area that is sorely lacking in modern ufology - where the loudest voices are saying To Hell with the Question???....We've got the answer!! .....the question is and always should have been, what could possibly account for the vast array of descriptions, sightings, timings, etc etc.......what we have now is those cases that seem to fit a certain critieria are cheery picked, the data within them cherry picked, so they fit the criteria of the question Is it ET??

Very well put, Sky Scanner! And so true. Some people are indeed coming to the discussion with a predefined answer to a question they don't really know.

Cheers,

Badeskov