Neil DeGrasse Tyson: ET and DNA

originally posted by: rebellion7
a reply to: ZetaRediculian

Im not trying to debunk ALL abduction stories because i have a friend who claims she was abducted 3 yrs ago but doesn't want to talk or even think about it anymore do to her friends and family accussing her of seeking attention. My only argument is that it is becoming harder to separate true abductees from attention seekers you know

Sure, neither am I. Its actually impossible to do since its not a falsifiable claim. I dont want to come across as being judgemental about anyone's personal experiences either. Nobody can experience exactly what someone else did. That's the nature of subjective experience. Personally I dont think attention seeking is the culprit. There is just a lot of bad information out there and people are too eager to dismiss the real information.

It really does bother me that there could be a real answer for your friend that doesn't involve aliens and that there are people around that wouldn't hesitate from discouraging your friend from seeking that info.

Yes, Sleep Paralysis is a real thing and there is no doubt that it is linked to the abduction phenomenon. There is plenty to support it. It definitely doesn't explain everything and it most certainly is not an "excuse" to misinform gullible people! That is just stupid.

That being said it is probably an overused explanation that could be used to dismiss peoples experiences.

originally posted by: Scdfa

originally posted by: Harte
And obviously, none of those could possibly be hoaxed.

Even when they changed their stories a couple of times or failed four or five lie detector examinations.

Harte

You're moving the goalposts. We were discussing sleep paralysis as an explanation for alien abductions, and I gave examples of abduction cases where SP wouldn't work.

If you want to start a conversation on hoaxes, I'll weigh in, most likely.

But I'm curious, you allege someone failed four or five lie detector examinations, care to elaborate on that allegation?

Witnesses were truthful when they admitted they never saw Walton go into the UFO, but in the story, Walton turns to go back to the truck when he was hit. The witnesses were there at the time. According to Walton, he was being lifted into the air, but they didn't see it.

Walton subsequently failed two polygraphs, and managed to convince a team of psychiatrists that he was lying.

The so-called "star map"? Let's see. A billion little lights spread randomly around the sky, and we're supposed to be astonished that a random pattern of dots on paper can be made to (almost) match a random patch of dots in the sky?

Neither the Walton Case nor the Hill case is even slightly convincing, based on the facts.

There are a plethora of other reasons to dismiss both cases.

I think it's reasonable to say that most abduction cases are sleep paralysis cases, and that's probably why you don't see reliable statistics on the phenomena.

Among the cases that aren't obviously sleep paralysis will be found the bulk of the hoaxes. Any others would be mysterious, but I've not been able to read anything about one that is convincing enough to mystify me.

Harte

originally posted by: Harte
The so-called "star map"? Let's see. A billion little lights spread randomly around the sky, and we're supposed to be astonished that a random pattern of dots on paper can be made to (almost) match a random patch of dots in the sky?

And here I thought you had at least some appreciation for the mathematical probabilities involved in the Hill map.

I saw somewhere where someone claimed that one chance in 45 million was "vanishingly small"...the problem there is that a probability of 2e-8 (0.00000002) is bloody commonplace compared to the the probability of random in the Hill map...which is something on the order of 10e-54 ...I won't translate that to a number you can comprehend...takes up a whole line of text...and most of it zeros (0's).

The reality of the Hill map is that it is a very good match where a match shouldn't be...

Nope, sorry man; it's time to take the Hill map out of your "debunker's" or "skeptic's" toolkit...You wouldn't want anything real contaminating what you so fervently believe is pure bunk.

By the way...this is based purely on the mathematical probabilities involved...

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: Harte
The so-called "star map"? Let's see. A billion little lights spread randomly around the sky, and we're supposed to be astonished that a random pattern of dots on paper can be made to (almost) match a random patch of dots in the sky?

And here I thought you had at least some appreciation for the mathematical probabilities involved in the Hill map.

I saw somewhere where someone claimed that one chance in 45 million was "vanishingly small"...the problem there is that a probability of 2e-8 (0.00000002) is bloody commonplace compared to the the probability of random in the Hill map...which is something on the order of 10e-54 ...I won't translate that to a number you can comprehend...takes up a whole line of text...and most of it zeros (0's).

The reality of the Hill map is that it is a very good match where a match shouldn't be...

Nope, sorry man; it's time to take the Hill map out of your "debunker's" or "skeptic's" toolkit...You wouldn't want anything real contaminating what you so fervently believe is pure bunk.

By the way...this is based purely on the mathematical probabilities involved...

No... just, no.
Sorry:

But today the Fish Map is no longer viable whatsoever. In her research beginning in 1966, Fish made the wise choice to use the Gliese Catalogue of Nearby Stars, which was then the most accurate available. But that was over forty years ago, and science never stands still. Astronomical researcher Brett Holman recently checked out what the Fish Map would look like if it were built using the most accurate astronomical data available today. His answer is in his article in the British publication Fortean Times (#242, November 2008): "Goodbye, Zeta Reticuli" (the supposed home solar system of the UFOnauts). Holman writes, “In the early 1990s the Hipparcos satellite measured the positions of nearly 120,000 stars 10 times more accurately than ever before – including all of those that appear in the Fish interpretation. The results of this work, and much else besides, is available online now, and can be easily queried using websites such as SIMBAD at the Strasbourg Astronomical Observatory.”
Fish excluded all variable stars and close binaries to include only supposedly habitable solar systems – but the new data reveals two of her stars as suspected variables, and two more as close binaries. So there go four of her 15 stars. And two more are much further away than earlier believed, removing them completely from the volume of space in question. Six stars of that supposedly exact-matching pattern, definitely gone, excluded by the very criteria that once included them using the forty-year-old data. Goodbye, Zeta Reticuli.

Source

Harte

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: Harte
The so-called "star map"? Let's see. A billion little lights spread randomly around the sky, and we're supposed to be astonished that a random pattern of dots on paper can be made to (almost) match a random patch of dots in the sky?

And here I thought you had at least some appreciation for the mathematical probabilities involved in the Hill map.

I saw somewhere where someone claimed that one chance in 45 million was "vanishingly small"...the problem there is that a probability of 2e-8 (0.00000002) is bloody commonplace compared to the the probability of random in the Hill map...which is something on the order of 10e-54 ...I won't translate that to a number you can comprehend...takes up a whole line of text...and most of it zeros (0's).

The reality of the Hill map is that it is a very good match where a match shouldn't be...

Nope, sorry man; it's time to take the Hill map out of your "debunker's" or "skeptic's" toolkit...You wouldn't want anything real contaminating what you so fervently believe is pure bunk.

By the way...this is based purely on the mathematical probabilities involved...

No... just, no.
Sorry:

But today the Fish Map is no longer viable whatsoever. In her research beginning in 1966, Fish made the wise choice to use the Gliese Catalogue of Nearby Stars, which was then the most accurate available. But that was over forty years ago, and science never stands still. Astronomical researcher Brett Holman recently checked out what the Fish Map would look like if it were built using the most accurate astronomical data available today. His answer is in his article in the British publication Fortean Times (#242, November 2008): "Goodbye, Zeta Reticuli" (the supposed home solar system of the UFOnauts). Holman writes, “In the early 1990s the Hipparcos satellite measured the positions of nearly 120,000 stars 10 times more accurately than ever before – including all of those that appear in the Fish interpretation. The results of this work, and much else besides, is available online now, and can be easily queried using websites such as SIMBAD at the Strasbourg Astronomical Observatory.”
Fish excluded all variable stars and close binaries to include only supposedly habitable solar systems – but the new data reveals two of her stars as suspected variables, and two more as close binaries. So there go four of her 15 stars. And two more are much further away than earlier believed, removing them completely from the volume of space in question. Six stars of that supposedly exact-matching pattern, definitely gone, excluded by the very criteria that once included them using the forty-year-old data. Goodbye, Zeta Reticuli.

Source

Harte

yeah...I've already shown that bit of BS to be BS...do I really have to do it again?

Seriously man...how about we just focus on one little part...the "variable stars". They are not variable. Where anyone ever got the idea that they were is beyond me; NOWHERE in the data is the notion of either of these stars be variable supported!

The idea of some stars being in farther away after better tech is employed is also completely false. Basically the crap you all use to try to debunk the Hill map is wrong, and NOT SUPPORTED by science.

So...got a better source?

By the way; my source is Hipparcos.



Hill map using Hipparcos data

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: Harte
The so-called "star map"? Let's see. A billion little lights spread randomly around the sky, and we're supposed to be astonished that a random pattern of dots on paper can be made to (almost) match a random patch of dots in the sky?

And here I thought you had at least some appreciation for the mathematical probabilities involved in the Hill map.

I saw somewhere where someone claimed that one chance in 45 million was "vanishingly small"...the problem there is that a probability of 2e-8 (0.00000002) is bloody commonplace compared to the the probability of random in the Hill map...which is something on the order of 10e-54 ...I won't translate that to a number you can comprehend...takes up a whole line of text...and most of it zeros (0's).

The reality of the Hill map is that it is a very good match where a match shouldn't be...

Nope, sorry man; it's time to take the Hill map out of your "debunker's" or "skeptic's" toolkit...You wouldn't want anything real contaminating what you so fervently believe is pure bunk.

By the way...this is based purely on the mathematical probabilities involved...

No... just, no.
Sorry:

But today the Fish Map is no longer viable whatsoever. In her research beginning in 1966, Fish made the wise choice to use the Gliese Catalogue of Nearby Stars, which was then the most accurate available. But that was over forty years ago, and science never stands still. Astronomical researcher Brett Holman recently checked out what the Fish Map would look like if it were built using the most accurate astronomical data available today. His answer is in his article in the British publication Fortean Times (#242, November 2008): "Goodbye, Zeta Reticuli" (the supposed home solar system of the UFOnauts). Holman writes, “In the early 1990s the Hipparcos satellite measured the positions of nearly 120,000 stars 10 times more accurately than ever before – including all of those that appear in the Fish interpretation. The results of this work, and much else besides, is available online now, and can be easily queried using websites such as SIMBAD at the Strasbourg Astronomical Observatory.”
Fish excluded all variable stars and close binaries to include only supposedly habitable solar systems – but the new data reveals two of her stars as suspected variables, and two more as close binaries. So there go four of her 15 stars. And two more are much further away than earlier believed, removing them completely from the volume of space in question. Six stars of that supposedly exact-matching pattern, definitely gone, excluded by the very criteria that once included them using the forty-year-old data. Goodbye, Zeta Reticuli.

Source

Harte

yeah...I've already shown that bit of BS to be BS...do I really have to do it again?

I don't know. Did you also debunk the map's creator?

Marjorie Fish renounces her own ZR theory:

Update: Marjorie Fish Obituary says that she renounced her own theory: After newer data was compiled, she determined that the binary stars within the pattern were too close together to support life; so as a true skeptic, she issued a statement saying that now felt that the correlation was unlikely.

Source

More info

Harte

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: Harte
The so-called "star map"? Let's see. A billion little lights spread randomly around the sky, and we're supposed to be astonished that a random pattern of dots on paper can be made to (almost) match a random patch of dots in the sky?

And here I thought you had at least some appreciation for the mathematical probabilities involved in the Hill map.

I saw somewhere where someone claimed that one chance in 45 million was "vanishingly small"...the problem there is that a probability of 2e-8 (0.00000002) is bloody commonplace compared to the the probability of random in the Hill map...which is something on the order of 10e-54 ...I won't translate that to a number you can comprehend...takes up a whole line of text...and most of it zeros (0's).

The reality of the Hill map is that it is a very good match where a match shouldn't be...

Nope, sorry man; it's time to take the Hill map out of your "debunker's" or "skeptic's" toolkit...You wouldn't want anything real contaminating what you so fervently believe is pure bunk.

By the way...this is based purely on the mathematical probabilities involved...

No... just, no.
Sorry:

But today the Fish Map is no longer viable whatsoever. In her research beginning in 1966, Fish made the wise choice to use the Gliese Catalogue of Nearby Stars, which was then the most accurate available. But that was over forty years ago, and science never stands still. Astronomical researcher Brett Holman recently checked out what the Fish Map would look like if it were built using the most accurate astronomical data available today. His answer is in his article in the British publication Fortean Times (#242, November 2008): "Goodbye, Zeta Reticuli" (the supposed home solar system of the UFOnauts). Holman writes, “In the early 1990s the Hipparcos satellite measured the positions of nearly 120,000 stars 10 times more accurately than ever before – including all of those that appear in the Fish interpretation. The results of this work, and much else besides, is available online now, and can be easily queried using websites such as SIMBAD at the Strasbourg Astronomical Observatory.”
Fish excluded all variable stars and close binaries to include only supposedly habitable solar systems – but the new data reveals two of her stars as suspected variables, and two more as close binaries. So there go four of her 15 stars. And two more are much further away than earlier believed, removing them completely from the volume of space in question. Six stars of that supposedly exact-matching pattern, definitely gone, excluded by the very criteria that once included them using the forty-year-old data. Goodbye, Zeta Reticuli.

Source

Harte

yeah...I've already shown that bit of BS to be BS...do I really have to do it again?

I don't know. Did you also debunk the map's creator?

Marjorie Fish renounces her own ZR theory:

Update: Marjorie Fish Obituary says that she renounced her own theory: After newer data was compiled, she determined that the binary stars within the pattern were too close together to support life; so as a true skeptic, she issued a statement saying that now felt that the correlation was unlikely.

Source

More info

Harte

How about we narrow our focus to the map, and leave out the stuff that doesn't enter into the mathematics...

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: Harte
The so-called "star map"? Let's see. A billion little lights spread randomly around the sky, and we're supposed to be astonished that a random pattern of dots on paper can be made to (almost) match a random patch of dots in the sky?

And here I thought you had at least some appreciation for the mathematical probabilities involved in the Hill map.

I saw somewhere where someone claimed that one chance in 45 million was "vanishingly small"...the problem there is that a probability of 2e-8 (0.00000002) is bloody commonplace compared to the the probability of random in the Hill map...which is something on the order of 10e-54 ...I won't translate that to a number you can comprehend...takes up a whole line of text...and most of it zeros (0's).

The reality of the Hill map is that it is a very good match where a match shouldn't be...

Nope, sorry man; it's time to take the Hill map out of your "debunker's" or "skeptic's" toolkit...You wouldn't want anything real contaminating what you so fervently believe is pure bunk.

By the way...this is based purely on the mathematical probabilities involved...

No... just, no.
Sorry:

But today the Fish Map is no longer viable whatsoever. In her research beginning in 1966, Fish made the wise choice to use the Gliese Catalogue of Nearby Stars, which was then the most accurate available. But that was over forty years ago, and science never stands still. Astronomical researcher Brett Holman recently checked out what the Fish Map would look like if it were built using the most accurate astronomical data available today. His answer is in his article in the British publication Fortean Times (#242, November 2008): "Goodbye, Zeta Reticuli" (the supposed home solar system of the UFOnauts). Holman writes, “In the early 1990s the Hipparcos satellite measured the positions of nearly 120,000 stars 10 times more accurately than ever before – including all of those that appear in the Fish interpretation. The results of this work, and much else besides, is available online now, and can be easily queried using websites such as SIMBAD at the Strasbourg Astronomical Observatory.”
Fish excluded all variable stars and close binaries to include only supposedly habitable solar systems – but the new data reveals two of her stars as suspected variables, and two more as close binaries. So there go four of her 15 stars. And two more are much further away than earlier believed, removing them completely from the volume of space in question. Six stars of that supposedly exact-matching pattern, definitely gone, excluded by the very criteria that once included them using the forty-year-old data. Goodbye, Zeta Reticuli.

Source

Harte

yeah...I've already shown that bit of BS to be BS...do I really have to do it again?

I don't know. Did you also debunk the map's creator?

Marjorie Fish renounces her own ZR theory:

Update: Marjorie Fish Obituary says that she renounced her own theory: After newer data was compiled, she determined that the binary stars within the pattern were too close together to support life; so as a true skeptic, she issued a statement saying that now felt that the correlation was unlikely.

Source

More info

Harte

How about we narrow our focus to the map, and leave out the stuff that doesn't enter into the mathematics...

I take it that's a "no"?

Harte

a reply to: Harte

I think it's reasonable to say that most abduction cases are sleep paralysis cases, and that's probably why you don't see reliable statistics on the phenomena.

I think false memory probably has more to do with it. That and suggestibility. An episode of SP could be the trigger but I don't think that alone would be the only cause. I have had many episodes of SP and nothing really resembling an abduction experience. Most likely because I was a psych major when I had my first episode and quickly learned what it was. Interestingly, the first time it happened I thought I was having a seizure because of the loud electrical buzzing sound and being totally paralyzed. Why a seizure? because I was working with populations that had seizures. People I took care of would regularly have seizures right in front of me and there is nothing like watching someone turn blue and thinking they were going to die on weekly basis. So my SP took on that form.

So if I wasn't exposed to such profound events and didn't have access to a plethora of psych text books, I may have come across some abduction accounts and decided that I may have been abducted which would have led to abduction memories forming. If I had decided to go under hypnosis to "recover" memories, there is no doubt that I would be trying to raise awareness of alien reality too! And Jacobs being right down the street from me, could have ended up with my undies. Luckily the denialist elite got to me first.

Memory Distortion in People Reporting Abduction by Aliens

The Construction of Space Alien Abduction Memories

The Ordinary Nature of Abduction Memories

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: Harte
The so-called "star map"? Let's see. A billion little lights spread randomly around the sky, and we're supposed to be astonished that a random pattern of dots on paper can be made to (almost) match a random patch of dots in the sky?

And here I thought you had at least some appreciation for the mathematical probabilities involved in the Hill map.

I saw somewhere where someone claimed that one chance in 45 million was "vanishingly small"...the problem there is that a probability of 2e-8 (0.00000002) is bloody commonplace compared to the the probability of random in the Hill map...which is something on the order of 10e-54 ...I won't translate that to a number you can comprehend...takes up a whole line of text...and most of it zeros (0's).

The reality of the Hill map is that it is a very good match where a match shouldn't be...

Nope, sorry man; it's time to take the Hill map out of your "debunker's" or "skeptic's" toolkit...You wouldn't want anything real contaminating what you so fervently believe is pure bunk.

By the way...this is based purely on the mathematical probabilities involved...

No... just, no.
Sorry:

But today the Fish Map is no longer viable whatsoever. In her research beginning in 1966, Fish made the wise choice to use the Gliese Catalogue of Nearby Stars, which was then the most accurate available. But that was over forty years ago, and science never stands still. Astronomical researcher Brett Holman recently checked out what the Fish Map would look like if it were built using the most accurate astronomical data available today. His answer is in his article in the British publication Fortean Times (#242, November 2008): "Goodbye, Zeta Reticuli" (the supposed home solar system of the UFOnauts). Holman writes, “In the early 1990s the Hipparcos satellite measured the positions of nearly 120,000 stars 10 times more accurately than ever before – including all of those that appear in the Fish interpretation. The results of this work, and much else besides, is available online now, and can be easily queried using websites such as SIMBAD at the Strasbourg Astronomical Observatory.”
Fish excluded all variable stars and close binaries to include only supposedly habitable solar systems – but the new data reveals two of her stars as suspected variables, and two more as close binaries. So there go four of her 15 stars. And two more are much further away than earlier believed, removing them completely from the volume of space in question. Six stars of that supposedly exact-matching pattern, definitely gone, excluded by the very criteria that once included them using the forty-year-old data. Goodbye, Zeta Reticuli.

Source

Harte

yeah...I've already shown that bit of BS to be BS...do I really have to do it again?

I don't know. Did you also debunk the map's creator?

Marjorie Fish renounces her own ZR theory:

Update: Marjorie Fish Obituary says that she renounced her own theory: After newer data was compiled, she determined that the binary stars within the pattern were too close together to support life; so as a true skeptic, she issued a statement saying that now felt that the correlation was unlikely.

Source

More info

Harte

How about we narrow our focus to the map, and leave out the stuff that doesn't enter into the mathematics...

I take it that's a "no"?

Harte

Man this new Common Core math sure is counterintuitive...

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: Harte
The so-called "star map"? Let's see. A billion little lights spread randomly around the sky, and we're supposed to be astonished that a random pattern of dots on paper can be made to (almost) match a random patch of dots in the sky?

And here I thought you had at least some appreciation for the mathematical probabilities involved in the Hill map.

I saw somewhere where someone claimed that one chance in 45 million was "vanishingly small"...the problem there is that a probability of 2e-8 (0.00000002) is bloody commonplace compared to the the probability of random in the Hill map...which is something on the order of 10e-54 ...I won't translate that to a number you can comprehend...takes up a whole line of text...and most of it zeros (0's).

The reality of the Hill map is that it is a very good match where a match shouldn't be...

Nope, sorry man; it's time to take the Hill map out of your "debunker's" or "skeptic's" toolkit...You wouldn't want anything real contaminating what you so fervently believe is pure bunk.

By the way...this is based purely on the mathematical probabilities involved...

No... just, no.
Sorry:

But today the Fish Map is no longer viable whatsoever. In her research beginning in 1966, Fish made the wise choice to use the Gliese Catalogue of Nearby Stars, which was then the most accurate available. But that was over forty years ago, and science never stands still. Astronomical researcher Brett Holman recently checked out what the Fish Map would look like if it were built using the most accurate astronomical data available today. His answer is in his article in the British publication Fortean Times (#242, November 2008): "Goodbye, Zeta Reticuli" (the supposed home solar system of the UFOnauts). Holman writes, “In the early 1990s the Hipparcos satellite measured the positions of nearly 120,000 stars 10 times more accurately than ever before – including all of those that appear in the Fish interpretation. The results of this work, and much else besides, is available online now, and can be easily queried using websites such as SIMBAD at the Strasbourg Astronomical Observatory.”
Fish excluded all variable stars and close binaries to include only supposedly habitable solar systems – but the new data reveals two of her stars as suspected variables, and two more as close binaries. So there go four of her 15 stars. And two more are much further away than earlier believed, removing them completely from the volume of space in question. Six stars of that supposedly exact-matching pattern, definitely gone, excluded by the very criteria that once included them using the forty-year-old data. Goodbye, Zeta Reticuli.

Source

Harte

yeah...I've already shown that bit of BS to be BS...do I really have to do it again?

I don't know. Did you also debunk the map's creator?

Marjorie Fish renounces her own ZR theory:

Update: Marjorie Fish Obituary says that she renounced her own theory: After newer data was compiled, she determined that the binary stars within the pattern were too close together to support life; so as a true skeptic, she issued a statement saying that now felt that the correlation was unlikely.

Source

More info

Harte

How about we narrow our focus to the map, and leave out the stuff that doesn't enter into the mathematics...

I take it that's a "no"?

Harte

Again, how about we confine this to what is relevant in regards the mathematical probabilities, and astronomy.

Also, the maps in the article you linked...the "computer" generated one...how about we replace that with mine.

Unless, of course you can show us how that was made. And, if you would like the code that produced mine; I'll be happy to post it.

There is a simple reality here...that map is genuine...in that it is a set of habitable stars that would also have interest to explorers...all matching the original template.

In the final analysis you do not have any evidence / data that would over turn the probabilities involved...the best you could hope for is to change them...but they will require lots of change...there is something on the order of one chance in 8e53 that map was produced by chance...

The fact that your first article contained such wildly incorrect data does auger well for this later stuff; which by the way seems to show a complete lack of understanding 3D space.

The reality is that the variable stars aren't, the close binaries, even though there are binaries, aren't close. And, of course, the bit about the changes in distance, which are completely over dramatized.

What either MS. Hill or Ms. Fish had to say later, after being brow-beat over the whole affair is completely irrelevant; One can easily "see" that much of the "mind change" was the result of second guessing without sufficient, or correct data.

So anyway...beat the odds.

a reply to: tanka418

Did you just resort to calling Hill and Fish liars to defend your belief that they were telling the truth?

You're a piece of work.

originally posted by: draknoir2
a reply to: tanka418

Did you just resort to calling Hill and Fish liars to defend your belief that they were telling the truth?

You're a piece of work.

No that is not what I said...and you know it!

originally posted by: draknoir2
a reply to: tanka418

Did you just resort to calling Hill and Fish liars to defend your belief that they were telling the truth?

You're a piece of work.

That's what it sounded like to me.

Fish let it go. After that, the idea that others won't says far more about them than it does about this star "map."

Harte

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: draknoir2
a reply to: tanka418

Did you just resort to calling Hill and Fish liars to defend your belief that they were telling the truth?

You're a piece of work.

That's what it sounded like to me.

Fish let it go. After that, the idea that others won't says far more about them than it does about this star "map."

Harte

Fish "let it go" after interpreting data incorrectly...if we are to go by your link.

Is the idea that this "map" might be real so threatening that you have to ignore real data, and grasp at the straws of misinterpretation? Seriously, I'm trying to understand why you refuse to accept real science over the "snake oil" you tout so vehemently.

I truly wish I had time right now to go to the next level...application of computer template matching methods. I have a computer vision library that can do that, but, ya know...I seriously doubt you would accept that either. You would probably reject a "Gray" telling you in person, and leaving you with full memory.

a reply to: ZetaRediculian

Nobody has any more knowledge then anyone else. you are just someone else making claims. get in line

How sad. You can't even admit that someone with decades of alien contact would know more about alien abductions than you do.

I wonder, by your logic, do you also believe that you know as much about war as a combat veteran with four tours of duty?



I'm not sure if that is hubris or delusions of grandeur. Probably a little of both. I've yet to hear you say anything about alien abductions that justified your claim of equivalent knowledge. In fact, I have never even heard you acknowledge that aliens are abducting people, for that matter, so it's hard to take your claim seriously.

The fact that you cant understand that you are just another poster here that is the same as everyone else is very telling.

Actually what is telling is your unfounded belief that we are all the same.

We are not all the same, quite the opposite. None of us are the same. We are all completely different, and each of have very different lives; our parents, our educations, our life experiences, all leave us with vastly different levels of knowledge and understanding of virtually everything.

Some of us have trouble with words, and mathematics, and percentages. Others don't. But none of us are the same, not by a long shot.

a reply to: Scdfa

In fact, I have never even heard you acknowledge that aliens are abducting people, for that matter, so it's hard to take your claim seriously.

You caught me! what claim? never mind. don't answer that. Im not up for another round of you imaging I said something.

We are not all the same, quite the opposite. None of us are the same. We are all completely different, and each of have very different lives; our parents, our educations, our life experiences, all leave us with vastly different levels of knowledge and understanding of virtually everything.

To me you are a just pile of text that is driven by someone who is struggling with comprehension bias. Stop wasting time and go raise awareness. Now be gone!

originally posted by: cuckooold
a reply to: Scdfa

Your pedantry makes you come across as a condescending ass, and your own errors in comprehension (see blinkers/blinders for example), do you no favours either.

Now if I had to judge on forum postings with no prior knowledge of yourself, nor Zeta (FYI, proper nouns should be capitalised), I think Zeta brings a far more open and rounded perspective to this topic than yourself. Your insistence on constantly being correct, calling anything that calls into question your abduction hypothesis 'denialist' (amongst other names), and praising anyone who agrees with you, combined with denigrating anybody who does not, creates the impression of a small minded and intellectually dishonest person, who brings nothing to the table but a series of unprovable tales with no compelling evidence at all.

Thanks for the petty insults. You're entitled to your opinion of me, although I'll simply say my opinion of you is not nearly so flattering.

I do take issue with your charge of intellectual dishonesty.

Quite the opposite is true. Knowing what I know about the reality of alien abductions, it would be intellectually dishonest of me to pretend otherwise. So I don't.

It would be intellectually dishonest of me to pretend that sleep abduction is a legitimate explanation for alien abductions.

It would be intellectually dishonest of me to entertain theories that suggest aliens are not abducting people.

And it would be intellectually dishonest of me to pretend that people who have never stood face to face with an alien know as much about aliens as I do.

My knowledge of alien abductions came with a heavy price, and I'm still paying it, every time I deal with nonsense like this.

Insult me all you like. It won't drag me down, and it won't bring you up.

a reply to: ZetaRediculian

Yes, Sleep Paralysis is a real thing and there is no doubt that it is linked to the abduction phenomenon.

Untrue, there is plenty of doubt to that claim. Outright disbelief, in fact.

There is no evidence linking it to alien abductions. Let's see some evidence linking it to abductions.

originally posted by: Scdfa
a reply to: ZetaRediculian

Yes, Sleep Paralysis is a real thing and there is no doubt that it is linked to the abduction phenomenon.

Untrue, there is plenty of doubt to that claim. Outright disbelief, in fact.

There is no evidence linking it to alien abductions. Let's see some evidence linking it to abductions.

You are correct since there is no evidence for alien abductions. There is also no evidence that distinguishes abductions from ANYTHING psychological. Nothing. Nata. Zilch. but here is a link for you. www.abovetopsecret.com... now go away.