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

The bias is so evident in the debunk.
This is how all debunking goes, it's such a formula.
They make one doubt everything that happened.
Did the Sun actually rise and set that morning ?
This is one of the first abduction cases, keeping that in mind
the Hills could not have stole the mold
others use to claim alien contact, because there weren't any.

The Hills case is no less mysterious after the PDF.
What is mysterious is Klass's ghost coming back from the dead
and spending time on ATS writing a "Nothing to see here"
OP about the Hills when Phil could be saying
"Look I'm communicating from the beyond,
and don't believe it's possible so debunk me !"

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: continuousThunder

is the implication we are to take from this that because any pattern of co-ordinates can be overlaid in many different ways and places, no map can be true and all direction is unknowable?

No, it simply means that any attempt to "identify" the stars and planets on the drawing is an exercise in futility.

That is wholly untrue...all 25 of the stars in the original template and an additional star have been identified successfully.

An aspect to this that has NEVER been "debunked", or scientifically disproven can be seen by actually using modern "pattern" and "image" recognition methods...kind of like what happens when One tries to "match" finger prints or faces (modern computer bio-metrics / computer vision)

Check out this bit of web data.

I strongly suggest that anyone who wants to "debunk" / disprove actually attempt to understand modern computer vision and pattern / template/ image matching methods...While some of this may escape Tesla Motors, it is a very mature and proven bit of science, and actually proves the Hill case to be real evidence of extraterrestrial existance and visitation.

originally posted by: JimiS

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: continuousThunder

is the implication we are to take from this that because any pattern of co-ordinates can be overlaid in many different ways and places, no map can be true and all direction is unknowable?

No, it simply means that any attempt to "identify" the stars and planets on the drawing is an exercise in futility.

That is wholly untrue...all 25 of the stars in the original template and an additional star have been identified successfully.

Really? Or do you actually mean that the original drawing has been altered to fit some stars?

Also, if the drawing matches 25 stars, the "finding" is false. Why? Because the drawing is of stars AND planets.

originally posted by: JimiS
An aspect to this that has NEVER been "debunked", or scientifically disproven can be seen by actually using modern "pattern" and "image" recognition methods...kind of like what happens when One tries to "match" finger prints or faces (modern computer bio-metrics / computer vision)

Check out this bit of web data.

I strongly suggest that anyone who wants to "debunk" / disprove actually attempt to understand modern computer vision and pattern / template/ image matching methods...While some of this may escape Tesla Motors, it is a very mature and proven bit of science, and actually proves the Hill case to be real evidence of extraterrestrial existance and visitation.

Rubbish. You have to ignore Betty's own testimony that the map shows stars and planets. We have no idea what she "really" saw. Remember? Even if we assume the experience was real, how do we know that the "map" was not some sort of schematic?





There is an entire industry dedicated to "proving" that Betty's experience was real, and conflicting identifications of the "star fields" supposedly represented. If you think you have found a unique solution, feel free to start another thread again.

a reply to: TerryDon79

Go learn about computer vision, and how it works. Learn how it is used to insure that integrated circuits are manufactured correctly. Learn how it improves the security of your computer systems by using facial recognition. Learn how it is used to identify fingerprints.

Basically...go learn something new, than we might talk...

a reply to: DJW001

We all have the advantage of using logic and common sense...provided we are not afraid to do so...

The match between Betty's "map" a a group of stars is not coincidental as can be easily demonstrated by the application of Mathematics, and a little Astronomy.... but, again, we have to not be afraid of the results...

a reply to: JimiS

Instead of countering the points I made, you go on about something else?

Let me address your familiar mapping software. Do you know what it does? It looks for matches based on parameters. Those parameters are set by a person. It also had a margin of error. That margin of error is also set by a person.

Now, back to the mapping software and the star map.

The software can (and most likely has) found matches. Those matches don't prove anything though. Why? Because the matches are just stars. Betty, herself, said star AND planets. If you ignore planets, then I can ignore both. I did on one of those images DJW001 posted. The towns and villages in the UK.

a reply to: JimiS

We all have the advantage of using logic and common sense...provided we are not afraid to do so...

And logic and common sense says that forcing a match on a drawing of random dots is nothing more than confirmation bias.

The match between Betty's "map" a a group of stars is not coincidental as can be easily demonstrated by the application of Mathematics, and a little Astronomy.... but, again, we have to not be afraid of the results...

You are the one who is afraid to admit that mathematics and astronomy are irrelevant. You have forced a pattern onto a starfield... it proves nothing.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: JimiS

You are the one who is afraid to admit that mathematics and astronomy are irrelevant. You have forced a pattern onto a starfield... it proves nothing.

No...actually, I have found a pattern within a star field....and that provides us with a probability of a "random" match (finding that pattern at random within a fixed star field).

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: JimiS

Instead of countering the points I made, you go on about something else?

Let me address your familiar mapping software. Do you know what it does? It looks for matches based on parameters. Those parameters are set by a person. It also had a margin of error. That margin of error is also set by a person.

Now, back to the mapping software and the star map.

The software can (and most likely has) found matches. Those matches don't prove anything though. Why? Because the matches are just stars. Betty, herself, said star AND planets. If you ignore planets, then I can ignore both. I did on one of those images DJW001 posted. The towns and villages in the UK.

Several things...you have no idea what software is being used, if any.

2. Referring to the bolded above...It is true, the match does not "prove" anything. what they do is provide us with other data that establishes a probability of our match being random...in this instance that probability is vanishingly small...

3. The rest of you argument is; Apples and Oranges.

originally posted by: JimiS

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: JimiS

Instead of countering the points I made, you go on about something else?

Let me address your familiar mapping software. Do you know what it does? It looks for matches based on parameters. Those parameters are set by a person. It also had a margin of error. That margin of error is also set by a person.

Now, back to the mapping software and the star map.

The software can (and most likely has) found matches. Those matches don't prove anything though. Why? Because the matches are just stars. Betty, herself, said star AND planets. If you ignore planets, then I can ignore both. I did on one of those images DJW001 posted. The towns and villages in the UK.

Several things...you have no idea what software is being used, if any.

Yeah, I have a pretty good idea of the type of software used.

2. Referring to the bolded above...It is true, the match does not "prove" anything. what they do is provide us with other data that establishes a probability of our match being random...in this instance that probability is vanishingly small...

You mean like my match with towns and villages in the UK?

3. The rest of you argument is; Apples and Oranges.

No, the other points are very relevant. Betty said stars and planets. To not use either means that you don't believe what Betty has said. If you don't believe what Betty has said, how can you be so sure the map is actually a map and not just a random selection of dots, circles and lines?

a reply to: JimiS

No...actually, I have found a pattern within a star field....and that provides us with a probability of a "random" match (finding that pattern at random within a fixed star field).

First, you ignore what Betty, the only witness, says. Then, you ignore the fact that she has clearly depicted two spheres being illuminated from above and to the left and arbitrarily assume that they are stars, not planets as she clearly states. Then, you ignore the fact that she herself made the following identification:



If this identification reflects the actual pattern she saw, this should be the pattern you should be hunting for:



What's more, as has been explained to you many times before, your data set itself is biased; it does not include many fainter stars that might provide a better match to the pattern and this skews it towards the stars that you arbitrarily assume are more likely to harbor life. (Please don't argue that your assumptions are not arbitrary... we have been through all this before.)

I'm glad to see some excellent, well-thought out replies but some of you are arguing about hot air. Arguing about the accuracy of the starmap is an exercise in futility since the Hills never had the alleged experience.

Do research into Bettty's ufo activities which are not a secret, just little known. Read about The Bellero Shield and how it connects to the Hills: www.jasoncolavito.com...

a reply to: DJW001

To the both of you:

The fact, well proven, I might add, remains that there is a "match", a "close" match to the Hill Star Map extant within the Hipparcos dataset. There are rather fixed probabilities to this occurring as a random event. Those probabilities are vanishingly small. As is illustrated at the link I've provided.

All of your arguments, all of you twisting of the facts and details of this ultimately have absolutely no affect on the probabilities involved....Ultimately, your mass of contorted data, illogical development, and misunderstanding of what any of this means, is debunked, by science, mathematics, and technology.

originally posted by: klassless
I'm glad to see some excellent, well-thought out replies but some of you are arguing about hot air. Arguing about the accuracy of the starmap is an exercise in futility since the Hills never had the alleged experience.

Do research into Bettty's ufo activities which are not a secret, just little known. Read about The Bellero Shield and how it connects to the Hills: www.jasoncolavito.com...

Yet, Betty's "map" is a rather precise match to a view on the stars, from a location she could never reach. Care to actually explain that? As I've shown the probability of that event is vanishingly small.

originally posted by: JimiS
a reply to: DJW001

To the both of you:

The fact, well proven, I might add, remains that there is a "match", a "close" match to the Hill Star Map extant within the Hipparcos dataset. There are rather fixed probabilities to this occurring as a random event. Those probabilities are vanishingly small. As is illustrated at the link I've provided.

By ignoring the planets that Betty spoke about. By changing the position of the stars, planets and lines. You know who else did that? Me. With town and cities in the UK

All of your arguments, all of you twisting of the facts and details of this ultimately have absolutely no affect on the probabilities involved....Ultimately, your mass of contorted data, illogical development, and misunderstanding of what any of this means, is debunked, by science, mathematics, and technology.

You literally have to contort the data to get a match! Oh the irony tanka...I mean....JimiS

a reply to: klassless

While that's true, there are still people who like to twist and contort the "evidence" to fit their own theory and it seems to need continually explaining. That's the only reason for me continuing in the thread

originally posted by: TerryDon79

You literally have to contort the data to get a match!

Care to demonstrate the degree of contortion? Or should I say; demonstrate the percentage of distortion...
Either way you will be hard pressed to do so...

a reply to: JimiS

As explained in your other thread, tanka, your image looks nothing like Betty's. Each line and dot is in a completely different place. And it's not just a little bit. Your image COMPLETELY changes the original AND ignores planets.