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

As far as I know, nobody has ever verified how well a person who sees a pattern of dots and lines for a few seconds can reconstruct that pattern under hypnosis a few months later. Seems like a simple enough experiment to run double blind, you don't need special gear and you CAN do it at home -- but nobody ever has.

On TV many years ago with a famous UFO hypnotic regression practitioner, I raised the question on air -- I said, we've ALL seen the drawing of the Hill map, how's about YOU do a regression on a few of us and see how well we can draw it? Boy! did they ever scatter. I never heard so many slapped-together lame excuses for NEVER, ever doing that.

originally posted by: JimOberg
As far as I know, nobody has ever verified how well a person who sees a pattern of dots and lines for a few seconds can reconstruct that pattern under hypnosis a few months later. Seems like a simple enough experiment to run double blind, you don't need special gear and you CAN do it at home -- but nobody ever has.

On TV many years ago with a famous UFO hypnotic regression practitioner, I raised the question on air -- I said, we've ALL seen the drawing of the Hill map, how's about YOU do a regression on a few of us and see how well we can draw it? Boy! did they ever scatter. I never heard so many slapped-together lame excuses for NEVER, ever doing that.

Lol...

I didn't think of trying that.

My view was: There is a match to a view on the nearby stars. The probability of placing 25 dots on a bit of paper, and have those dots come close to matching anything at all, is small. Having those 25 dots come close to "matching" stars even more so. And, then for there to be both Template, and feature based matching occurring...virtually impossible.

I like the experiment though...

originally posted by: JimiS

originally posted by: IVANV

originally posted by: ColdWisdom
a reply to: Xcathdra

doesn't the star map segment confirm their account of what occurred?

The star map proves nothing.

The star map proves something.

The star map shows an extremely high probability that Betty, and Barney were abducted by ET's. And, shown a "map" of a region of space, that became Betty's drawing.

The thing about the "map" is that it is a "view on space" that can not be "seen" from Earth, and after finding the viewpoint we find that the view point is several light years from Earth. Since the probability of Betty creating her map at random is virtually non-existent. It would indicate that Betty saw it while on board an ET craft.

I know... I envisage the perfect skeptic. And around him a sphere of bricks.
Each brick is a certain attribute of a UFO case:
- radar
-traces
-military observer
-trained military observer
-scientist observer
-air craft pilots
-military pilots
-ship crews
-ship captains
-events with 100s and 1000s of people, many professionals, cops, etc
-ground imprints with military observer
-ground imprints with mil. observer + radar
- video reels from when everything was analog
-ancient oil paintings
-missing time
-missing time off police patrols
-missing time of army patrols
- damage to property
-damage to military property
-judge observers
-cop teams observers
-etc etc
All these items as a single brick, enclosing the "perfect skeptic" inside a sphere out of with he can't get out with "weather balloons, Venus reflection and swamp gas type nonsense.
Let's face the mountain high stack of evidence from military, law, justice, science professionals once and for all.
10.000s of people over the globe, all with PhD, radar equipment, military equipment, law equipment etc etc CAN'T all be wrong.
There's enough evidence to send someone to jail for a 1 million year sentence.

a reply to: JimOberg

On TV many years ago with a famous UFO hypnotic regression practitioner, I raised the question on air -- I said, we've ALL seen the drawing of the Hill map, how's about YOU do a regression on a few of us and see how well we can draw it? Boy! did they ever scatter. I never heard so many slapped-together lame excuses for NEVER, ever doing that.

Is there anywhere we can see that clip for ourselves?

a reply to: JimOberg

Here is an article about a study that was done on hypnosis and memory retrieval.
abcnews.go.com...

The study, by Joseph Green of Ohio State University, questioned 96 college students about the day, month and year of certain historical events. Roughly half the students answered the questions under hypnosis, while the other half performed a muscle relaxation exercise before the questions.

Once finished with the questions, the students rated how confident they were in their answers. Their answers were checked, and all the subjects were told they had at least one wrong answer. They were then given a chance to change their answers, and rank how confident they were in the revised version.

Accuracy Unchanged

The study found there was no difference in the accuracy of the hypnotized vs. the relaxation group. Nor were there differences in the groups' confidence levels, but at the same time the hypnotized group changed fewer responses when given the chance.

"While hypnosis does not enhance the reliability of memory, there is some evidence that hypnosis leads to increased confidence in memories," said Green

The general consensus amongst the memory experts is that there is no evidence that hypnosis enhances memories but there is plenty to suggest that hypnosis aids in the creation of false memories. The whole idea has been shown to be wrong. Memory retrieval under hypnosis was once accepted by main stream psychology but since the 90s has all but gone into the "silly things we once believed" bucket.

a reply to: JimOberg

It'd require a sizeable sample to have any merit. If one person accurately recalled the pattern, we'd rightfully reject it as meaningless. Same for an inaccurate result.

I've read experts saying that every time we revisit a memory, we overwrite it with a context from that moment. Verbally recalling a memory several times over can solidify (telephone numbers, quotations etc) it, but then we're into areas of rehearsal which can also undermine the values of accuracy. By that, I mean there'd be no way to know if the memory we selected to rehearse was accurate in the first place.

Being hypnotised also involves scales of suggestibility. A good sample size would probably require a means of measuring each subject's levels of suggestibility so like was being compared with like.

My first thoughts are that controls would be necessary to ensure the pattern wasn't something that could be rehearsed and not too complex to impede a reasonable chance of recall. A sample also shouldn't be over-represented by particularly suggestive/fantasy-prone subjects or their opposites.

I don't put a great deal of stock in Betty Hill's starmap so these ideas are intended to be neutral.

a reply to: Kandinsky

Being hypnotised also involves scales of suggestibility. A good sample size would probably require a means of measuring each subject's levels of suggestibility so like was being compared with like.

The whole idea of "hypnosis" seems problematic to me. I think what we are really talking about is suggestibility and being "under hypnosis" is just a suggestion. I also think it has to do with the persons belief that such a state exists. Not unlike a placebo effect. Professional psychologists and psychiatrists have no trouble selling it and most people have no problem buying it. That's just my suggestion which makes me un-hypnotizable.

a reply to: ZetaRediculian

We'd have to examine and agree on the terms in a semantic cloud to be able to discuss this.

Luckily for both of us, I've got to leave.

a reply to: Kandinsky Good point on overwriting, there was a marvelous NOVA episode on exactly that process a few months ago.

originally posted by: IVANV

-traces
-military observer
-trained military observer
-scientist observer
-air craft pilots
-military pilots
-ship crews
-ship captains
-events with 100s and 1000s of people, many professionals, cops, etc
-ground imprints with military observer
-ground imprints with mil. observer + radar
- video reels from when everything was analog
-ancient oil paintings
-missing time
-missing time off police patrols
-missing time of army patrols
- damage to property
-damage to military property
-judge observers
-cop teams observers
-etc etc

And so once again nothing actually alien as proof, just man's interpretations that an unknown even is aliens. I would think at some point we would need, dare I say it, something alien in nature as proof.

There's enough evidence to send someone to jail for a 1 million year sentence.

Court of law means little in science and facts. OJ anyone?

a reply to: JimOberg

Yes I made a thread about it here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Now back to my original question. Is there anywhere online where I can see your ideological exchange with the hypnotherapist on TV?

originally posted by: X88B88

originally posted by: klassless

I am a skeptic and a debunker. But an open-minded one.

So what have you debunked? Care to show us any of your research that definitively debunks a particular issue or event?

I'm skeptical that you're a debunker, but I'm open minded about it.

I'm sorry but I cannot give you my skeptical and debunker history and my reasons are solid as I have to protect myself. I'll add just this, I'm a legend in my own time.

Perhaps you have a favorite case that begs to be debunked. Post it and I'll give it a go. I'll be honest enough to admit defeat or I'll crow if successful.

There's enough evidence to send someone to jail for a 1 million year sentence.

The expiration date of this undead zombie fallacy was sometime in the last century.

A trial occurs when there is indisputable physical evidence of a crime [corpus delicti], the jury relies on testimony and other evidence merely to determine if a particular person was responsible, NOT whether the crime even existed.

a reply to: ColdWisdom

THANKS!! highly RECOMMENDED READING!!!

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: IVANV

-traces
-military observer
-trained military observer
-scientist observer
-air craft pilots
-military pilots
-ship crews
-ship captains
-events with 100s and 1000s of people, many professionals, cops, etc
-ground imprints with military observer
-ground imprints with mil. observer + radar
- video reels from when everything was analog
-ancient oil paintings
-missing time
-missing time off police patrols
-missing time of army patrols
- damage to property
-damage to military property
-judge observers
-cop teams observers
-etc etc

And so once again nothing actually alien as proof, just man's interpretations that an unknown even is aliens. I would think at some point we would need, dare I say it, something alien in nature as proof.

There's enough evidence to send someone to jail for a 1 million year sentence.

Court of law means little in science and facts. OJ anyone?

You don't understand the problem.
As an example: when a military radar recon aircraft pilot plus superior on board has radar contact in his cockpit and gets 3000pmh-0-9000pmh+directional changes+sees the craft, with non standard but excessive amounts of strive lights and no noise or sonic boom, with his own eyes+ gets a second pilot+ 2 copilots to visually confirm the crafts maneuvers+ second radar to confirm the object movement and speed. Then I think we can pretty much conclude that they have seen a proper extraterrestrial UFO.
Another example is when one of the top, maybe to 3-5 , scientists in the Western world, a guy working at the cutting edge of military warfare in collaboration with to secret projects and having top secret clearance says he saw objects which were not of this planet, then those objects are not of this planet.
It's time to accept that there are witnesses of such high calibre and qualification that you can't dismiss them. You just can't. Like if a guy says in the 50s that nobody has a craft pulling 300g , changing direction, then 300g on a different plane within seconds, and he's the go to guy when it comes to aerodynamics, then his words is solid gold.

originally posted by: JimOberg

There's enough evidence to send someone to jail for a 1 million year sentence.

The expiration date of this undead zombie fallacy was sometime in the last century.

A trial occurs when there is indisputable physical evidence of a crime [corpus delicti], the jury relies on testimony and other evidence merely to determine if a particular person was responsible, NOT whether the crime even existed.

Well the number of witnesses and evidence is monumental.. It's just that there's no corpse.

Something is breaching earth air space, there's tons of witnesses and tons of radar data, there's just no captured craft, not publicly.

originally posted by: IVANV


You don't understand the problem.
As an example: when a military radar recon aircraft pilot plus superior on board has radar contact in his cockpit and gets 3000pmh-0-9000pmh+directional changes+sees the craft, with non standard but excessive amounts of strive lights and no noise or sonic boom, with his own eyes+ gets a second pilot+ 2 copilots to visually confirm the crafts maneuvers+ second radar to confirm the object movement and speed. Then I think we can pretty much conclude that they have seen a proper extraterrestrial UFO.

You are concluding something that has no proof. I could say it was faeries and have the same proof. You are 100% sure that it could not have been secret human tech or 10 other non-alien hypothesis.

You my friend are a believer with faith in aliens and that about wraps it all up.

a reply to: IVANV

You don't understand the problem.

No, you are the one who does not understand the problem.

As an example: when a military radar recon aircraft pilot plus superior on board has radar contact in his cockpit and gets 3000pmh-0-9000pmh+directional changes+sees the craft, with non standard but excessive amounts of strive lights and no noise or sonic boom, with his own eyes+ gets a second pilot+ 2 copilots to visually confirm the crafts maneuvers+ second radar to confirm the object movement and speed. Then I think we can pretty much conclude that they have seen a proper extraterrestrial UFO.

Why extraterrestrial? All they have is contact with something they cannot identify. It is your bias that interprets it as extraterrestrial.

Another example is when one of the top, maybe to 3-5 , scientists in the Western world, a guy working at the cutting edge of military warfare in collaboration with to secret projects and having top secret clearance says he saw objects which were not of this planet, then those objects are not of this planet.

Can you provide an example of this happening, or is it merely a hypothetical?

It's time to accept that there are witnesses of such high calibre and qualification that you can't dismiss them. You just can't. Like if a guy says in the 50s that nobody has a craft pulling 300g , changing direction, then 300g on a different plane within seconds, and he's the go to guy when it comes to aerodynamics, then his words is solid gold.

Again, this is your fantasy, not an actual incident. If an observer is objective, all they can do isreport what they believe they saw, not interpret it.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: IVANV


You don't understand the problem.
As an example: when a military radar recon aircraft pilot plus superior on board has radar contact in his cockpit and gets 3000pmh-0-9000pmh+directional changes+sees the craft, with non standard but excessive amounts of strive lights and no noise or sonic boom, with his own eyes+ gets a second pilot+ 2 copilots to visually confirm the crafts maneuvers+ second radar to confirm the object movement and speed. Then I think we can pretty much conclude that they have seen a proper extraterrestrial UFO.

You are concluding something that has no proof. I could say it was faeries and have the same proof. You are 100% sure that it could not have been secret human tech or 10 other non-alien hypothesis.

You my friend are a believer with faith in aliens and that about wraps it all up.

The proof is the visual and radar contact. Visual contact is what is used in trials to sentence people. Again radar is used to sentence pilots which break rules over populated areas.
If you accept something being sent to jail for murder cause there are witnesses claim they witnessed a stabbing, then visual proof is good enough.