Why does the U.F.O. skeptic treat all all evidence as equally not evidence?

originally posted by: Cyberspy
Hi Tank,

As someone who used to believe as a kid in the 70s. I'm very familiar with the Betty and Barney Hill story. What she said was all while under hypnosis. A very suggestive state. I can randomly through paint on the wall and come up with just as good as star chart.

Let us see...You have seen the probability of random chance...it would be considered "money in the bank" to bet against you in Vegas; so let us see!

You are allowing irrelevant details to distract you and your thinking. But, it is a simple test...

Tank, you have no more proof that aliens from another world have been visiting Earth. Then you do that Santa came down your chimney last Christmas.

originally posted by: Cyberspy
Tank, you have no more proof that aliens from another world have been visiting Earth. Then you do that Santa came down your chimney last Christmas.

So...that would be sour grapes because you realize that you mis-spoke about your ability to produce a map from a collection of dots...And that's after I told you the probability...

When will y'all begin to listen...so then you have to make some seriously lame statement like you did...

Now then, you do realize I never said "proof" that is you unrealistic expectation, and your "disappointment" is all yours, not on me. All I said was that there is indeed evidence, course now, a smart person would be vastly more accepting of data like this, as it really is rather strong. The simple fact that Betty did indeed produce an accurate map of some likely stars, and the probability of random chance being so great, should make this evidence all the more compelling.

But, there is never any guarantee that the "observer" has the sense to understand the significance of what he is observing. Which in this case is a collection of stars with a rather high probability of supporting life like it is found on Earth.

I like your Santa Clause thing, not very accurate, and far, far from a reasonable analogy, but; still a bit of fun.
You might want to actually take the whole subject a bit more seriously in the future.

ETA: It is really vastly better IF one doesn't practice "willful ignorance." Which seem to be running rampant around here!

originally posted by: tanka418
a reply to: Harte

I see what you are trying to do here, but even you know that you are misrepresenting the reality.

I don't see your evidence that disputes what I said.

Hint: Use "science."

Harte

Betty Hill first described her abductors as looking like Jimmy Durante.





Twins.

Harte

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: tanka418
a reply to: Harte

I see what you are trying to do here, but even you know that you are misrepresenting the reality.

I don't see your evidence that disputes what I said.

Hint: Use "science."

Harte

Ahhh...you have difficulty accepting Computer Science, Astronomy, and Mathematics as sciences...I can't help you there, try your local community college...though the "computer" part has "science" in it's name...perhaps a reading issue.

And, your mockery of Betty is irrelevant.

originally posted by: tanka418


And, your mockery of Betty is irrelevant.

Your ignorance of her story is irrelevant.

Most of the (beings) are my height … about five feet to five feet four inches. Their chests are larger than ours; their noses were larger (longer) than the average size although I have seen people with noses like theirs — like Jimmy Durante.

Their complexions were of a gray tone; like a gray paint with a black base; their lips were of a bluish tint. Hair and eyes were very dark, possibly black. The dreams continued for five successive nights.

~ Betty Hill from The Interrupted Journey

originally posted by: draknoir2

originally posted by: tanka418


And, your mockery of Betty is irrelevant.

Your ignorance of her story is irrelevant.

Most of the (beings) are my height … about five feet to five feet four inches. Their chests are larger than ours; their noses were larger (longer) than the average size although I have seen people with noses like theirs — like Jimmy Durante.

Their complexions were of a gray tone; like a gray paint with a black base; their lips were of a bluish tint. Hair and eyes were very dark, possibly black. The dreams continued for five successive nights.

~ Betty Hill from The Interrupted Journey

Is this supposed to mean something? Seriously man please explain how it alters the math involved here!

Of course we both know, along with everyone else that it doesn't change anything. You're grasping at straws and there aren't any!

You are all failing! Failing to make any logical sense in all this because of your refusal to actually look at the science involved. Even after it is pointed out.

Though what I truly do like is the way you ignore the realities involved...it is quite special...And the attempts to change the focus of the "story". Unfortunately we aren't using the "story" as it is not relevant to the Math.

In any case; you still have nothing, and of course "nothing" can't disprove "something" so you are still out in the cold.

So, do everyone favor and just stop. Stop arguing with the math, and other science I've used...

Hell, you even have a "Math teacher" and he can't refute the facts here; though he does try to change the subject and focus...like you.

But you see that's the problem here; You can not address the facts so you try to circumvent them.

So, in the final analysis we find rather compelling evidence that the common pseudo skeptic relies heavily on WILLFUL IGNORANCE of the facts, evidence, and realities involved in any specific instance. The only question left is "why".

All of y'all should shut up now, and go away. Perhaps you might want to attend your local community college or something. Although, IF you ever manage to actually have something relevant; please bring it up for discussion.

But until then...

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: Cyberspy
There is no real evidence that Earth has been visited by beings from another planet. Nothing that you can hold in your hand and show as proof.

Here something you can "hold"...in your hand, or wherever...

This is a modern representation of the Betty Hill map, and the probability of this existing randomly is 2.0910440582983083453568366685486e-161 this is the first 14 terms of 300 billion factorial.

What this means is that Betty did not "make this up randomly", and it represents a relatively accurate memory, and a relatively accurate map of near-by stars that make a trade/exploration route. The stars represented on the map are a good selection of what even Terrestrial science would consider "interesting" (and, in fact, at least One is on a list known as "Habcat").

ETA: It should be understood that the application of computer vision template matching methods will verify the stars in the "view". That however is something that you must do independently.

@harte; did I show enough for you?

All of y'all should understand that I'm not here to teach you mathematics, that is your responsibility. So, IF you don't understand...try your local community college!

You need to go back and look at their map again it's incorrect. When the correlation was made they used a star almanac from 1969 and it's star positions were inaccurate. Using today's star maps her drawings aren't even close but you can use Google stars today and see. So if that's your proof well aparentently are aliens can't chart stars correctly. By the way the odds of finding stars to match any dots is really good we have billions to chose from and multiple angles. If you notice the view she thought she found isn't from earth's perspective. And we'll the locations weren't where we thought they were back then.

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: Cyberspy
There is no real evidence that Earth has been visited by beings from another planet. Nothing that you can hold in your hand and show as proof.

Here something you can "hold"...in your hand, or wherever...

This is a modern representation of the Betty Hill map, and the probability of this existing randomly is 2.0910440582983083453568366685486e-161 this is the first 14 terms of 300 billion factorial.

What this means is that Betty did not "make this up randomly", and it represents a relatively accurate memory, and a relatively accurate map of near-by stars that make a trade/exploration route. The stars represented on the map are a good selection of what even Terrestrial science would consider "interesting" (and, in fact, at least One is on a list known as "Habcat").

ETA: It should be understood that the application of computer vision template matching methods will verify the stars in the "view". That however is something that you must do independently.

@harte; did I show enough for you?

All of y'all should understand that I'm not here to teach you mathematics, that is your responsibility. So, IF you don't understand...try your local community college!

You need to go back and look at their map again it's incorrect. When the correlation was made they used a star almanac from 1969 and it's star positions were inaccurate. Using today's star maps her drawings aren't even close but you can use Google stars today and see. So if that's your proof well aparentently are aliens can't chart stars correctly. By the way the odds of finding stars to match any dots is really good we have billions to chose from and multiple angles. If you notice the view she thought she found isn't from earth's perspective. And we'll the locations weren't where we thought they were back then.

Except...I used Hipparcos to build my representations of the map. so they are highly accurate! And, actually don't get more accurate as there is no data that supersedes Hipparcos...yet.

And, the probability is exactly as I stated: 2.0910440582983083453568366685486e-161...a "practical impossibility"

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: Cyberspy
There is no real evidence that Earth has been visited by beings from another planet. Nothing that you can hold in your hand and show as proof.

Here something you can "hold"...in your hand, or wherever...

This is a modern representation of the Betty Hill map, and the probability of this existing randomly is 2.0910440582983083453568366685486e-161 this is the first 14 terms of 300 billion factorial.

What this means is that Betty did not "make this up randomly", and it represents a relatively accurate memory, and a relatively accurate map of near-by stars that make a trade/exploration route. The stars represented on the map are a good selection of what even Terrestrial science would consider "interesting" (and, in fact, at least One is on a list known as "Habcat").

ETA: It should be understood that the application of computer vision template matching methods will verify the stars in the "view". That however is something that you must do independently.

@harte; did I show enough for you?

All of y'all should understand that I'm not here to teach you mathematics, that is your responsibility. So, IF you don't understand...try your local community college!

You need to go back and look at their map again it's incorrect. When the correlation was made they used a star almanac from 1969 and it's star positions were inaccurate. Using today's star maps her drawings aren't even close but you can use Google stars today and see. So if that's your proof well aparentently are aliens can't chart stars correctly. By the way the odds of finding stars to match any dots is really good we have billions to chose from and multiple angles. If you notice the view she thought she found isn't from earth's perspective. And we'll the locations weren't where we thought they were back then.

Except...I used Hipparcos to build my representations of the map. so they are highly accurate! And, actually don't get more accurate as there is no data that supersedes Hipparcos...yet.

Look again even margarie fish the woman who's map your using said it was wrong. Here's a quote from her abituary.

As one of her hobbies, Marjorie made an investigation into the Betty Hill map by constructing a 3-D star map in the late 1960's using several databases. She found a pattern that matched Mrs. Hill's drawing well, which generated international interest. Later, 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 that she now felt that the correlation was unlikely.
m.legacy.com...

So even the woman who made your map said it's wrong yet you post her work as fact.

originally posted by: dragonridr
Look again even margarie fish the woman who's map your using said it was wrong. Here's a quote from her abituary.

What?!!? lol ... You do know what "Hipparcos" is right? Perhaps you don't...

ESA's Hipparcos was the first space mission dedicated to measuring the positions, distances, motions, brightness and colors of stars - for astrometry, as the experts call it.

Launched in August 1989 by an Ariane-4 rocket, Hipparcos was a pioneering space experiment dedicated to the precise measurement of the positions, parallaxes and proper motions of the stars. The intended goal was to measure the five astrometric parameters of some 120,000 primary program stars to a precision of some 2 to 4 milliarcsec, over a planned mission lifetime of 2.5 years, and the astrometric and two-color photometric properties of some 400,000 additional stars (the Tycho experiment) to a somewhat lower astrometric precision.

-- science.nasa.gov...

Hipparcos is the latest measurement of star position, and is considered highly accurate by Astronomy today...

So...basically...I don't care what catalog was used back in the day...I used current data! So, you can use that "inaccurate" of yours right after you debunk modern astronomy...good luck!

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: dragonridr
Look again even margarie fish the woman who's map your using said it was wrong. Here's a quote from her abituary.

What?!!? lol ... You do know what "Hipparcos" is right? Perhaps you don't...

ESA's Hipparcos was the first space mission dedicated to measuring the positions, distances, motions, brightness and colors of stars - for astrometry, as the experts call it.

Launched in August 1989 by an Ariane-4 rocket, Hipparcos was a pioneering space experiment dedicated to the precise measurement of the positions, parallaxes and proper motions of the stars. The intended goal was to measure the five astrometric parameters of some 120,000 primary program stars to a precision of some 2 to 4 milliarcsec, over a planned mission lifetime of 2.5 years, and the astrometric and two-color photometric properties of some 400,000 additional stars (the Tycho experiment) to a somewhat lower astrometric precision.

-- science.nasa.gov...

Hipparcos is the latest measurement of star position, and is considered highly accurate by Astronomy today...

So...basically...I don't care what catalog was used back in the day...I used current data! So, you can use that "inaccurate" of yours right after you debunk modern astronomy...good luck!

Then her map doesn't match you can draw points on a map all you like using the latest status charts but if her map doesn't line up then your drawings are useless. As we can see the woman that found the correlation said they are wrong and only matched the 1969 gliess star chart which was wrong. But I know I should take your word of the woman that first discovered the correlation. Again check your maps against hers I'm fact things have changed drastically since then and don't line up because she didn't view it from earth to find her match. When the updates came in about star distances no correlations can be made.

It truly amazes me your going to argue against the woman that created the star chart your using that's some serious aragon ce you have there

a reply to: dragonridr

What part of the "template matching" with modern data did you fail to grasp?

I used the original map, which by the way is still highly accurate, corrected it with modern data, and applied advanced computer pattern matching methods...

Somehow you are trying to ignore the realities here.

By the way, the statements ade by Ms. Fish were in accurate, more so than you think. For istance, the "binary star" issue...Gleise 67, specifically; the two stars are separated by much more distance than would be required for each to develop, virtually unaffected by the other. They are in many respects like the Zetas Reticuli...binary but separated by a vast distance...

One of the other issues was the presence of "variable" stars...which as it turns out isn't such a "big deal" in this instance.

You are grasping at the same straws as everyone else...time to stop and accept reality!

It truly amazes me your going to argue against the woman that created the star chart your using that's some serious aragon ce you have there

No, it's not arrogance at all; it is science!!!

ETA:

Here is something you can do, but I seriously doubt you will...
Independently verify my results!

a reply to: tanka418

Then I'll make this quick one of the big stars on Mrs hills map is actually two stars. They didn't know this on 1969 gliess. It's a binary system. Meaning your map can't possibly match because it's missing a star. So that tells me how scientific your research is right there. And just a quick check The distance of Gl 86.1 was previously thought to be 42.359 light years in 1969, and now HIPPARCOS has determined that the correct distance is actually 183.651 light years. You should have caught this don't you think??

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: tanka418

Then I'll make this quick one of the big stars on Mrs hills map is actually two stars. They didn't know this on 1969 gliess. It's a binary system. Meaning your map can't possibly match because it's missing a star. So that tells me how scientific your research is right there. And just a quick check The distance of Gl 86.1 was previously thought to be 42.359 light years in 1969, and now HIPPARCOS has determined that the correct distance is actually 183.651 light years. You should have caught this don't you think??

The star that wasn't known to be a binary is Zeta Reticuli, and it IS shown as a binary in the original Hill map...a rather large deal was made over the accurate prediction.

Gliese 86.1 is not one of the original "template" stars, and is irrelevant to the present query. It was not used in the production of any probabilities, not in the creation of my "map".

You are still grasping at straws!

And at present ALL of the data supports my conclusions.

a reply to: tanka418

The OP's thread title betrays their bias.

The un-spun translation would be:

Why doesn't the U.F.O. skeptic treat all evidence equally?

originally posted by: draknoir2
a reply to: tanka418

The OP's thread title betrays their bias.

The un-spun translation would be:

Why doesn't the U.F.O. skeptic treat all evidence equally?

You do understand; I didn't write that...Though, I will agree that the grammar is a bit awkward...
However, the meaning still comes through just fine...

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: tanka418

Then I'll make this quick one of the big stars on Mrs hills map is actually two stars. They didn't know this on 1969 gliess. It's a binary system. Meaning your map can't possibly match because it's missing a star. So that tells me how scientific your research is right there. And just a quick check The distance of Gl 86.1 was previously thought to be 42.359 light years in 1969, and now HIPPARCOS has determined that the correct distance is actually 183.651 light years. You should have caught this don't you think??

The star that wasn't known to be a binary is Zeta Reticuli, and it IS shown as a binary in the original Hill map...a rather large deal was made over the accurate prediction.

Gliese 86.1 is not one of the original "template" stars, and is irrelevant to the present query. It was not used in the production of any probabilities, not in the creation of my "map".

You are still grasping at straws!

And at present ALL of the data supports my conclusions.

You need to go back and look at the original hill mao but point is no proof of anyrhing other than your bias makes random conections. You presented it as proof it proves nothing as I said in her drawing there isn't 3 main stars only 2. You would think aliens who had lived their would know this. H a d she got that detail right you might have a case. But in 69 they didn't know and oddly neither did her drawing.

Do if that's the only evidence you have of alien visitation than you have your answer why people are skeptical. And the reason only people who want to believe their story do. By the way you do realize barn y hills story it was a plane rigt lol.

originally posted by: dragonridr
You need to go back and look at the original hill mao but point is no proof of anyrhing other than your bias makes random conections. You presented it as proof it proves nothing as I said in her drawing there isn't 3 main stars only 2. You would think aliens who had lived their would know this. H a d she got that detail right you might have a case. But in 69 they didn't know and oddly neither did her drawing.

Okay, firstly I did not present this as "proof", I've already stated as much.

What "3 main stars" are you referring to? There are, and have always been only 2 main stars Zeta 1 and Zeta 2. In the 1970's, after the existence of the other Zeta, it was remarked and considered a strong point of evidence that the map had predicted 2 main stars (Zetas 1 & 2), and that the other Zeta had been found...just as the map predicted. So it would appear that you are a bit confused on this detail...

Over the past few months I've been researching this map specifically; every single objection that any "skeptic" has ever raised has been the result of either not understanding astronomy, or skewing the data and interpretations to such a degree that it agrees with their rather incorrect, biased interpretations.

Again; all of the data supports my position, there is no viable data to support yours.