Betty Hill artfully debunked by Dr Simon & skeptics Phil Klass & Robert Sheaffer

originally posted by: frenchfries
a reply to: klassless

Ah.. I see no aliens in your opinion all clear. ? Even in the vastness of space there is no single other intelligent lifeform like human.

So ? what's the point of debunking melee cases ?

You asked me to debunk other case well debunk SETI. Debunk these poor delusional scientists that search for intelligent life.

You got it! Where is or are any other human-like life outside of earth? What is "melee cases"? And who and why debunked. To me SETI is a joke and another worthless effort and just another reason to employ people who do not produce a product and it exists simply to waste money.

originally posted by: TheLaughingGod
We're obviously dealing with intelligently controlled craft.. not hallucinations, not balloons, not Venus.. And we cannot say that they're only ours because this has been going on for far longer than we've had aircraft. So we're dealing with alien intelligences.. they're literally alien to our sensibilities..

That topic would make an interesting thread, so feel free to start a thread on that topic. Pick a case you feel is compelling that occurred before we had aircraft and we can discuss the merits of that case, what was sighted, was it intelligently controlled, was it alien, etc.

But this thread is about the Hill case and the failings of hypnosis, and some of the mis-reportings associated with that case, so it's not really the right place to get into UFO cases that happened before we had aircraft. It sounds like an interesting topic though.

a reply to: Annee

Cool

How long will we have to wait until this reality is openly acknowledged? How long until we can share in the technological wonders the black programs have succeeded in?

Do we have to wait until these flat earthers die out?

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Sure, I hear you..

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: klassless

Ever since the first time I saw Drake's equation I've been laughing seeing it taken seriously when it's a mathematical joke. Drake has no idea of any other lifeforms similar to us so his equation has to start with zero or one for us. When you start with zero the end result is zero.

I agree that the Drake equation is constantly misused and misunderstood.
Your statement above is an example of the latter.
There is no parameter in the equation that corresponds to "lifeforms similar to us," hence your statement is actually meaningless.

Harte

Wikipedia supports you:
"Drake equation
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article is about Frank Drake's equation. For other uses, see Drake equation (disambiguation).

Dr. Frank Drake
The Drake equation is a probabilistic argument used to arrive at an estimate of the number of active, communicative extraterrestrial civilizations in the Milky Way galaxy.[1][2] The number of such civilizations, N, is assumed to be equal to the mathematical product of (i) the average rate of star formation, R*, in our galaxy, (ii) the fraction of formed stars, fp, that have planets, (iii) the average number of planets per star that has planets, ne, that can potentially support life, (iv) the fraction of those planets, fl, that actually develop life, (v) the fraction of planets bearing life on which intelligent, civilized life, fi, has developed, (vi) the fraction of these civilizations that have developed communications, fc, i.e., technologies that release detectable signs into space, and (vii) the length of time, L, over which such civilizations release detectable signals, for a combined expression of:

[displaystyle N=R_[ast ]cdot f_[p]cdot n_[e]cdot f_[ell ]cdot f_[i]cdot f_[c]cdot L] N=R_[ast ]cdot f_[p]cdot n_[e]cdot f_[ell ]cdot f_[i]cdot f_[c]cdot L
The equation was written in 1961 by Frank Drake, not for purposes of quantifying the number of civilizations,[3][better source needed] but as a way to stimulate scientific dialogue at a meeting on the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI). The equation summarizes the main concepts which scientists must contemplate when considering the question of other radio-communicative life.[3] Criticism towards the Drake equation follows from the fact that several of its terms are conjectural, the net result being that the error associated with any derived value is very large such that the equation cannot be used to draw firm conclusions."

But the last sentence is what matters: conjectural: "Opinion or judgment based on inconclusive or incomplete evidence; guesswork." IOW, useless, meaningless, not worthy of consideration. ZERO!

originally posted by: TheLaughingGod
a reply to: ZetaRediculian


This is the important quote right here:

“Although…the scientific community has tended to minimize the significance of the UFO phenomenon, certain individual scientists have argued that the phenomenon is both real and significant… To a scientist, the main source of hard information (other than his own experiments [and] observations) is provided by the scientific journals. With rare exceptions, scientific journals do not publish reports of UFO observations. The decision not to publish is made by the editor acting on the advice of reviewers. This process is self-reinforcing; the apparent lack of data confirms the view that there is nothing to the UFO phenomenon, and this view works against the presentation of relevant data…”

It demonstrates an objective bias in academia. Not that I think that they would ever solve "the problem" by endlessly observing UFO's.. The problem would be solved by open contact or acknowledgement by official institutions that know full well what is going on. Either that or the populace would have to acknowledge what is going on. Which wouldn't really do much if neither the ET's or the government opened themselves up because we lack the intelligence and the capabilities to really get at the truth.

I don't want to derail the thread anymore but

The bigger picture is that ufology is crap science and nobody wants to associate with crap science. What do you want the scientific journals to publish? That anyone who doesn't accept that aliens are here are idiots? Honestly, what kind of objective scientist would want to put up with the nonsense rhetoric you are posting? Straw man arguments, insults and posting debunked cases as evidence is probably not going to attract too many objective people. What you will attract is like minded people who will repeat the same garbage which then (or has) becomes the face of ufology. There is a reason the mainstream wont touch the subject and you have made your contribution to that.

I don't need scientists to confirm anything for me - I reserve that for intellectual cowards like yourself that can't recognise evidence when they see it.

You want me to confirm the existence of aliens for you?

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: TheLaughingGod
We're obviously dealing with intelligently controlled craft.. not hallucinations, not balloons, not Venus.. And we cannot say that they're only ours because this has been going on for far longer than we've had aircraft. So we're dealing with alien intelligences.. they're literally alien to our sensibilities..

That topic would make an interesting thread, so feel free to start a thread on that topic. Pick a case you feel is compelling that occurred before we had aircraft and we can discuss the merits of that case, what was sighted, was it intelligently controlled, was it alien, etc.

But this thread is about the Hill case and the failings of hypnosis, and some of the mis-reportings associated with that case, so it's not really the right place to get into UFO cases that happened before we had aircraft. It sounds like an interesting topic though.

Failings of hypnosis? How would you answer Dr Simon if he were to ask you to be specific? You could rightfully say Dr Simon is dead so you don't have to answer. But I'm alive and I'm curious about what you discovered to led you to your opinion.

Please provide an example of "mis-reportings" so that it can become a subject of consideration and, hopefully, more worthy comments.

The failings of hypnosis that I can think of can be laid at the feet of all of the amateur, unqualified "alien abduction" hypnotists such as Budd Hopkins, David Jacobs, et al.

originally posted by: klassless

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: klassless

I will leave you with the words of the amazing Kreskin

Oh, there’s one more point that is not found in this article, an article which helps to shroud and perpetuate some of the misconceptions, and that is what they should have stated is that there is absolutely no evidence on the face of the earth of a specific state or condition that can be defined as hypnosis, because in order to define such a state or condition, you have to show what can be done with that condition that cannot be done without that condition. I have news for you, folks, there’s nothing, and I repeat nothing. The bottom line is if I had written this article, I would have made it clear that the key to the whole phenomena is pure suggestion, no trance, no deep relaxation, etc. etc., but pure suggestion.

The Fantasy of Hypnosis Continues

Of course it's pure suggestion, that's what's needed to be able to stick a needle on a person's arm without flinching! When your doctor sticks a needle in your arm there might be apprehension accompanied with a flinch as the needle punctures your sensitive skin. You can relax yourself all you want but you'll have to spend a longtime putting aside your constant thought process and drift off to a conscious "nap". You try getting a conscious person to not see what's in front of them or to imagine that they are seeing something that is not really there. A hypnotized person can. A hypnotized person may be told to ignore those around them. It might be difficult to do with an "awake", fully conscious person.

"The Manchurian Candidate".

The point that Kreskin makes is that there is no special state of consciousness where someone is "hypnotized". there is only the belief that there is which is shared by the hypnotizer and the hypnotyzee, AKA, confabulation. he has a $100,000 offer to anyone that can prove such a state exists. He may be right and I think its probably worth exploring his ideas because it may shed some light on cases that involve "memories recovered from hypnosis". There is no evidence that memories can be recovered from hypnosis. however, false memories can be created while under "hypnosis". if there really is no such thing as hypnosis then we are really only talking about "false memories created through confabulation".

here is a classic:

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian

originally posted by: klassless

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: klassless

I will leave you with the words of the amazing Kreskin

Oh, there’s one more point that is not found in this article, an article which helps to shroud and perpetuate some of the misconceptions, and that is what they should have stated is that there is absolutely no evidence on the face of the earth of a specific state or condition that can be defined as hypnosis, because in order to define such a state or condition, you have to show what can be done with that condition that cannot be done without that condition. I have news for you, folks, there’s nothing, and I repeat nothing. The bottom line is if I had written this article, I would have made it clear that the key to the whole phenomena is pure suggestion, no trance, no deep relaxation, etc. etc., but pure suggestion.

The Fantasy of Hypnosis Continues

Of course it's pure suggestion, that's what's needed to be able to stick a needle on a person's arm without flinching! When your doctor sticks a needle in your arm there might be apprehension accompanied with a flinch as the needle punctures your sensitive skin. You can relax yourself all you want but you'll have to spend a longtime putting aside your constant thought process and drift off to a conscious "nap". You try getting a conscious person to not see what's in front of them or to imagine that they are seeing something that is not really there. A hypnotized person can. A hypnotized person may be told to ignore those around them. It might be difficult to do with an "awake", fully conscious person.

"The Manchurian Candidate".

The point that Kreskin makes is that there is no special state of consciousness where someone is "hypnotized". there is only the belief that there is which is shared by the hypnotizer and the hypnotyzee, AKA, confabulation. he has a $100,000 offer to anyone that can prove such a state exists. He may be right and I think its probably worth exploring his ideas because it may shed some light on cases that involve "memories recovered from hypnosis". There is no evidence that memories can be recovered from hypnosis. however, false memories can be created while under "hypnosis". if there really is no such thing as hypnosis then we are really only talking about "false memories created through confabulation".

here is a classic:

Kreskin is allowed his opinion and so is everyone else. When something is important it activates questions and answers. A discussion of whether a hypnotic state exists is not that important, the state of the world does not depend on whether a hypnotic state exists or not.

A hypnotic state is an altered state. Consciousness has been put aside and you have no desire to act conscioussly, you don't want to be bothered. Kreskin called it a "trance" when talking to his subjects. Trance: (Simple Definition of trance
: a state that is like being asleep except that you can move and respond to questions and commands like a person who is awake : a state in which you are not aware of what is happening around you because you are thinking of something else)

You've heard of "road hypnosis" where you traveled a distance and don't remember it yet "someone" was driving. You drive for too many hours and at night you hallucinate positively as you "see" creatures on the road or the shoulders of the road. You are not in control even though you're allegedly conscious. Hypnosis enables an altered state

At 12:48 when Mr Hynek says he would like to start a foundation, Krespin(sic)-Hynek Foundation!

a reply to: klassless

To me SETI is a joke and another worthless effort and just another reason to employ people who do not produce a product and it exists simply to waste money.

Although I disagree , could you make a tread on that ?



Melee cases = 'meaning cases based on individual experiences'

originally posted by: klassless
Failings of hypnosis? How would you answer Dr Simon if he were to ask you to be specific? You could rightfully say Dr Simon is dead so you don't have to answer. But I'm alive and I'm curious about what you discovered to led you to your opinion.

After hypnosis with Simon, the Hills eventually came to believe that the memories "recovered" in hypnosis were real, so they both died in a state that Simon felt was delusional because he's fairly certain there was no abduction. I don't see any way to spin this as a "success" of hypnosis. I think they would have had died with less delusions had they never undergone hypnosis.

Probably not as much money though, Betty did pretty well financially from the book etc.

originally posted by: frenchfries
a reply to: klassless

To me SETI is a joke and another worthless effort and just another reason to employ people who do not produce a product and it exists simply to waste money.

Although I disagree , could you make a tread on that ?



Melee cases = 'meaning cases based on individual experiences'

It seems to me that a positive thread would be preferred to a negative one. How about you start such a thread on the subject and tell us why, after 32 years, no results have been forthcoming yet funding still keeps coming in. Someone should pull the plug and shut up Seth Shostak's mouth. Go ahead, tell us that the money that has been spent on that stupid, worthless project has improved even one person's life, aside from the lucky workers who know they don't have to really work and still enjoy nice lifestyles. Should be a popular thread for the gullible members. I promise I won't reply as I've already stated how I feel.

From the SETI Institute's website. SETI's motto should be "Have we got a bridge to sell you!"
"The SETI Institute is a nonprofit corporation founded in 1984 (California Corporation #1261957). The Institute is a scientific and educational organization. Our mission is to explore, understand, and explain the origin and nature of life in the universe, and to apply the knowledge gained to inspire and guide present and future generations. We have a passion for discovery, and for sharing knowledge as scientific ambassadors to the public, the press, and the government."

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: klassless
Failings of hypnosis? How would you answer Dr Simon if he were to ask you to be specific? You could rightfully say Dr Simon is dead so you don't have to answer. But I'm alive and I'm curious about what you discovered to led you to your opinion.

After hypnosis with Simon, the Hills eventually came to believe that the memories "recovered" in hypnosis were real, so they both died in a state that Simon felt was delusional because he's fairly certain there was no abduction. I don't see any way to spin this as a "success" of hypnosis. I think they would have had died with less delusions had they never undergone hypnosis.

Probably not as much money though, Betty did pretty well financially from the book etc.

The Hill's case is not the type where after their sessions with Dr Simon, who must have shown them the results of the hypnotic sessions and his conclusion, the Hills would have "Too bad that it's not what we thought happened. Thank you for clearing that up". No, Betty, who seems to have been the one wearing the pants, was already sold on the fantasy and probably embraced the publicity that accompanied the publication of the 1966 book "Interrupted Journey" by John G. Fuller.

From Wikipedia:
"Later, Betty claimed to have seen UFOs a number of times after the initial abduction, and she "became a celebrity in the UFO community."

Nothing that Dr Simon could have done would have changed the way things have developed. She was a nut before and after the "abduction". She had set herself up and was a participating "victim".

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian

originally posted by: TheLaughingGod
a reply to: ZetaRediculian


This is the important quote right here:

“Although…the scientific community has tended to minimize the significance of the UFO phenomenon, certain individual scientists have argued that the phenomenon is both real and significant… To a scientist, the main source of hard information (other than his own experiments [and] observations) is provided by the scientific journals. With rare exceptions, scientific journals do not publish reports of UFO observations. The decision not to publish is made by the editor acting on the advice of reviewers. This process is self-reinforcing; the apparent lack of data confirms the view that there is nothing to the UFO phenomenon, and this view works against the presentation of relevant data…”

It demonstrates an objective bias in academia. Not that I think that they would ever solve "the problem" by endlessly observing UFO's.. The problem would be solved by open contact or acknowledgement by official institutions that know full well what is going on. Either that or the populace would have to acknowledge what is going on. Which wouldn't really do much if neither the ET's or the government opened themselves up because we lack the intelligence and the capabilities to really get at the truth.

I don't want to derail the thread anymore but

The bigger picture is that ufology is crap science and nobody wants to associate with crap science. What do you want the scientific journals to publish? That anyone who doesn't accept that aliens are here are idiots? Honestly, what kind of objective scientist would want to put up with the nonsense rhetoric you are posting? Straw man arguments, insults and posting debunked cases as evidence is probably not going to attract too many objective people. What you will attract is like minded people who will repeat the same garbage which then (or has) becomes the face of ufology. There is a reason the mainstream wont touch the subject and you have made your contribution to that.

I don't need scientists to confirm anything for me - I reserve that for intellectual cowards like yourself that can't recognise evidence when they see it.

You want me to confirm the existence of aliens for you?

It's crap scientists, not crap science. The science it potentially dealing with the biggest baddest most hard core truth out there: aliens.
Nothing on earth can trump that. Not even death. These aliens might have sufficient computing and serious enough tools to make other creatures immortal via DNA manipulation.
If they're getting here across the vast distances, or parallel to them, then they've already surpassed us on many topics: collaborating, propulsion, shielding, sensor arrays, known particles, force carriers, super alloys, super conductors, super computing, storage?, etc etc.
Yet the "scientific" clique know better... They prefer to hide their heads in the sand and spend millions researching mosquitoes and penguins mating.

There are a few brave real scientists that don't rely on "scientific journals" to drip feed them and are willing to go on the field and research.

But are the rest of the scientists ready for real research?
Like these guys below ?

www.ufodata.net...

a reply to: IVANV

It's crap scientists, not crap science. The science it potentially dealing with the biggest baddest most hard core truth out there: aliens.
Nothing on earth can trump that. Not even death. These aliens might have sufficient computing and serious enough tools to make other creatures immortal via DNA manipulation.

That's why they need a roll up map to navigate the cosmos, and turn their backs to the windshield so they can work the levers to control their spaceship.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: klassless
Failings of hypnosis? How would you answer Dr Simon if he were to ask you to be specific? You could rightfully say Dr Simon is dead so you don't have to answer. But I'm alive and I'm curious about what you discovered to led you to your opinion.

After hypnosis with Simon, the Hills eventually came to believe that the memories "recovered" in hypnosis were real, so they both died in a state that Simon felt was delusional because he's fairly certain there was no abduction. I don't see any way to spin this as a "success" of hypnosis. I think they would have had died with less delusions had they never undergone hypnosis.

Probably not as much money though, Betty did pretty well financially from the book etc.

Says who? These statements are baseless. Who, when, where, how came to these unquestionable conclusions?
Or is it you pulling them out of thin air?
I do see this as a method of spinning it into an unsuccessful hypnosis by using baseless statements with self imagined authority in your voice... I'm referring to the yellow bits.
So what's your point? Even if they became billionaires from the book and had 50 TV shows it doesn't prove they weren't abducted. I would, as would any sane normal person, write about the event, and if people wanna pay for a book, then book it is.
Clutching at straws much?
Or envious you've never met aliens?

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: IVANV

It's crap scientists, not crap science. The science it potentially dealing with the biggest baddest most hard core truth out there: aliens.
Nothing on earth can trump that. Not even death. These aliens might have sufficient computing and serious enough tools to make other creatures immortal via DNA manipulation.

That's why they need a roll up map to navigate the cosmos, and turn their backs to the windshield so they can work the levers to control their spaceship.

Are you trying to imply that other beings if very evolved wouldn't like tangible objects like a foldable map or levers?
Who are you to say what their cultural background is? Or how the inside of their ship is supposed to look like??

I see you did a good job of dodging the important stuff with a silly statement.

a reply to: IVANV

Are you trying to imply that other beings if very evolved wouldn't like tangible objects like a foldable map or levers?
Who are you to say what their cultural background is? Or how the inside of their ship is supposed to look like??

What kind of culture flies with their back to the windshield?

I see you did a good job of dodging the important stuff with a silly statement.

What do you consider important?

a reply to: IVANV

It's crap scientists, not crap science.

It's crap and ufology is full of it. That's because if you find anything less than aliens, you would become a debunker disinfo agent hired by the government to hide aliens.

But are the rest of the scientists ready for real research?
Like these guys below ?

Thanks for that link. If they are doing "real research" then any scientist would be interested in that especially if there is real data that actually shows something. The real question is, are they ready to have their data analyzed if they even share it? Is ufology prepared to not find aliens? Probably not because non-alien research is not allowed in ufology. Do you know the amount of ridicule a non-alien researcher receives in ufology? You probably don't because they have all been excommunicated and labeled disinfo agents, idiots and morons for suggesting anything other than aliens.

a reply to: IVANV

Says who? These statements are baseless. Who, when, where, how came to these unquestionable conclusions?
Or is it you pulling them out of thin air?

Real research has shown that there is no evidence for "recovered memories" while under hypnosis. It seems like ufology embraced the idea and now refuses to accept "recovered memories" are most likely false memories. Betty Hills recovered memories were most likely false memories because we now know that there is no evidence that hypnosis can be used to recover memories. We now know that false memories can be created and reinforced while under hypnosis. There is also nothing to corroborate her story. Even her own hypnotist said what she recalled was fantasy.

a reply to: klassless

Nothing that Dr Simon could have done would have changed the way things have developed.

Well if you read the study I posted earlier, it was found that hypnosis seems to increase the confidence people have in their false memories. So I guess he could have not put her under hypnosis to recover her memories. He may have also inadvertently spawned the whole "abduction phenomenon".