After watching The Stan Romeneck Story, are there any un-debunkable abduction cases?

a reply to: james1947



You know when you are being trolled when posters ask you this about humans abducting other humans

Yes, yes, terrible Humans...yet, I think you'd be harder pressed to provide actual evidence

This seems clear that you are saying humans don't abduct other humans, you are saying it would hard for me to find evidence.


Then you go ahead and make it clear what kind of person you are when you post this

By the way, I've also been abducted by Humans

you are either a bit not there upstairs or one serious deceitful person doing who knows what on internet boards.


Why ask me for evidence that humans abduct and make it out like you are saying it never happens then only a very small percent to this where you say you yourself have been abducted by humans.



Sorry for your experiences and I guess that explains the way you express yourself.

originally posted by: InhaleExhale
a reply to: james1947

You know when you are being trolled when posters ask you this about humans abducting other humans

Yes, yes, terrible Humans...yet, I think you'd be harder pressed to provide actual evidence

This seems clear that you are saying humans don't abduct other humans, you are saying it would hard for me to find evidence.

Then you go ahead and make it clear what kind of person you are when you post this

By the way, I've also been abducted by Humans

you are either a bit not there upstairs or one serious deceitful person doing who knows what on internet boards.

Why ask me for evidence that humans abduct and make it out like you are saying it never happens then only a very small percent to this where you say you yourself have been abducted by humans.

Sorry for your experiences and I guess that explains the way you express yourself.

Damn son; do you misinterpret much?!!!?

Remember those 4 "debunker's rules" I posted from Dr. Friedman? Yeah...rule 3.

Seriously man; if you can't do anything about the data, don't do anything; it makes you look...less!

I'm sorry if the real world data burst your little fantasy bubble, but, data is what it is. I'm not too sorry though that your numbers turn out to be something less than what you wanted, but, from the very beginning of this discussion, you were working with "BAD DATA" (i.e. it was obsolete). Perhaps IF you updated your personal database from time to time (always a good DBA practice)

Anyway, man, IF all you got are personal attacks, and misinterpretation, then perhaps you should study a bit more, and get your "ducks in a row".

Although, I do kind of wonder if you have even looked at the evidence...it still appears as though you have not!

now, unless it is constructive; can we be done?

a reply to: james1947

Damn son; do you misinterpret much?!!!?

No.

It was quite clear what you were saying.

If you meant otherwise please say so, you made it out that humans don't abduct other humans and said I would be hard pressed to find evidence of humans abducting one another.

Whats to misinterpret?

Remember those 4 "debunker's rules" I posted from Dr. Friedman? Yeah...rule 3.

What rules?

AM I trying to debunk anything?

NO

you keep wanting to make this thread about your theories and wanting others to debunk

so whatever debunking rules you are on about is for yourself.

Seriously man; if you can't do anything about the data, don't do anything; it makes you look...less!

data?

Ah yes, your theories again.

I'm sorry if the real world data burst your little fantasy bubble, but, data is what it is. I'm not too sorry though that your numbers turn out to be something less than what you wanted, but, from the very beginning of this discussion, you were working with "BAD DATA" (i.e. it was obsolete).

I wasn't working with anything.



I simply asked you question about your probability to which you displayed what you know.

then you just cannot stop pestering posters to debunk your data.

Anyway, man, IF all you got are personal attacks, and misinterpretation, then perhaps you should study a bit more, and get your "ducks in a row".

How many times are you going say I misinterpret something yet not clarify?


You think this is genuine behavior?

now, unless it is constructive; can we be done?

That is all on you is it not?


Or does your ego dictate your every action?


Lets see shall we.

a reply to: InhaleExhale

This seems clear that you are saying humans don't abduct other humans, you are saying it would hard for me to find evidence.

Ya know, I really must apologize for that...I was wrong, and misspoke. You are correct in thinking that there would be more/better evidence of Humans abducting Humans.

I'm sorry, I shall try to keep my words in better check in the future.

a reply to: gortex

The Calvin Parker - Charles Hickson abduction in Pascagoula, Miss. (1973) has never been debunked.

a reply to: UnBreakable

Parker was in the news a couple of days ago - Alien abduction: 45 years after alleged UFO encounter, Mississippi man breaks his silence

a reply to: UnBreakable

The Calvin Parker - Charles Hickson abduction in Pascagoula, Miss. (1973) has never been debunked.

Indeed , a truly interesting case.

a reply to: Kandinsky
Thanks for the link mate , good to see he's written a book and will be interested to read it at some point.

a reply to: gortex

It's one of those cases that's hard to pin down and his take in the article doesn't make it any easier. My favourite explanation was 'they were drunk.' There aren't many people who've had that experience off a few beers or some liquor. Might have been sunlight reflecting off a 1970s ringpull that caused a mutual hallucination.

originally posted by: gortex
Indeed , a truly interesting case.

I like it because the description of the occupants is not the old tired large-headed grays that became so popular not long after. I don't like it because of the continued contact stuff that shows up later on.

a reply to: james1947

> This case cannot be "put to rest" until that map is properly explained

Done by Brett Holman in “Goodbye, Zeta Reticuli,” Fortean Times (242, November 2008).

In short: updated star position information invalidated the Zeta Reticuli identification.

originally posted by: terrythecensor
a reply to: james1947

> This case cannot be "put to rest" until that map is properly explained

Done by Brett Holman in “Goodbye, Zeta Reticuli,” Fortean Times (242, November 2008).

In short: updated star position information invalidated the Zeta Reticuli identification.

Doing a search on your title leads to this:

Except that nobody ever checked Fish's model against new astronomical data gathered over the last three decades, in particular the parallax observations made by the Hipparcos satellite in the early 1990s. When you do this, the Fish interpretation falls to pieces! Using her own assumptions and the new data, six of the fifteen stars chosen by Fish must be excluded, which is no match at all. And that's what my article is about. So I think this makes me, officially, a dirty debunker. Or maybe a noisy negativist.

Here is the problem with this notion...Here is a link to part of my analysis. As you will readily see, the Template, even as partially defined my Ms. Fish holds up very well using modern Hipparcos data. In fact the only star that moves very much is Kappa Fornacis (I'm gussing the Gliese catalog was more than a little off on that one Please note: this page is interactive, mouse over stars to see name, click to see more data. All Data is taken from Hipparcos "XHIP" table, Simbad, and ExoplanerEU databases. So...no, no invalidation at all; in fact quite the opposite, it would seem that the whole of Betty's map is indeed validated; by modern data and technology!

In any case the "map" does not ""fall to pieces" at all, in fact its integrity is well demonstrated.

The six (6) stars that some say should be removed, actually shouldn't be removed at all, and the nature and distance is perfectly in line with what the map is "supposed" to be...for instance; 54 Piscis, while a binary star, its companion star is a brown dwarf, about 4 times (if memory serves) the size of Jupiter. And, it is far enough away so that it would not affect "inner planets", which actually also exist.

My analysis has the serious advantage of using much more modern data, technology, technique than virtually ALL others.

That said; IF anyone is interested; I'm trying to find the more negative aspects of the map, and am having trouble. What I'm finding either is overly positive, or contains not specific negative remarks. So, anyway, if y'all could give up a couple of links I'd appreciate it...

a reply to: james1947

> In fact the only star that moves very much is Kappa Fornacis

A lot of them move, significantly.

Have you overlaid Betty's drawing and your map?

> My analysis has the serious advantage of using much more modern data, technology, technique than virtually ALL others.

It's good that you've done such work, but have you tried to publish or promote your analysis so experts can evaluate you methods and findings?

a reply to: james1947

Also, do you have your analysis in a printable format such as PDF? I'll download it and put it with my Hill notes.

originally posted by: terrythecensor
a reply to: james1947

> In fact the only star that moves very much is Kappa Fornacis

A lot of them move, significantly.

Have you overlaid Betty's drawing and your map?

> My analysis has the serious advantage of using much more modern data, technology, technique than virtually ALL others.

It's good that you've done such work, but have you tried to publish or promote your analysis so experts can evaluate you methods and findings?

Actually, they don't move as much as you might think. I haven't overlaid Betty's drawing on my map, but, I have overlaid my map on betty's drawing...



As you can see, the only significant difference is in the Gliese 86, Tau(1) Eridani, Gliese 59 group. I should hasten to add that Betty's drawing in necessarily "off" in some of its detail; after all, it was drawn from memory after hypnosis. Betty's drawing can never be anything more than a "template".

When I said that the only significant movement was Kappa Fornacis, I meant that the location where Ms. Fish originally placed K.F. was entirely "out of place" as it is not a part of the triangular group , but rather a part of the map Ms. Fish didn't even address.

I should also point out that most to all of the previous analyses didn't include all of the stars. Typically they stop at the triangular group when providing support for the main group, however there is also a group I call the "boomerang", which includes Kappa Fornacis, and also the "pentagram". These additional groups are integral to proper identification and matching.

I've sent links to a few individuals, however, I should hasten to add that it's not quite finished, and I'm not sure it is ready for prime time. So...no I haven't rendered it as a PDF yet. But, I'll try to let ya know when I do...

I was kind of hoping that ATS membership could help vet this, but it seems that the skeptics don't want to consider it at all...perhaps they fear that I'm right...But, I still do want to investigate those 6 stars some say shouldn't be considered, but, alas, I can no longer find those references...

originally posted by: james1947
I was kind of hoping that ATS membership could help vet this, but it seems that the skeptics don't want to consider it at all...perhaps they fear that I'm right...But, I still do want to investigate those 6 stars some say shouldn't be considered, but, alas, I can no longer find those references...

Why would the aliens have an old gas station map that shows the Sol / Earth system, when even us lowly humans have maps now that are centered on where we are at the moment? Know what I mean? They definitely need to switch to Google Galactic Navigator.

a reply to: james1947

But to achieve what little overlap you have, Zeta 2 has rotated well out of line and the distance between the Zetas is truncated. Still, the more testing of the map, the better. When your analyis is complete, or at least important parts are complete, I encourage you to let people know. Maybe some astronomy students will get intrigued and have a look at the method and math.

(I wish a PhD would make the map a little project for a research group and get it published. At the very least, the map is a cultural icon of mid-century America -- and one that is amenable to falsifiability.)

originally posted by: Blue Shift

Why would the aliens have an old gas station map that shows the Sol / Earth system, when even us lowly humans have maps now that are centered on where we are at the moment? Know what I mean? They definitely need to switch to Google Galactic Navigator.

They wouldn't! But, that's not how Betty described the the "map"...

Betty described the map as three-dimensional, like looking through a window. The stars were tinted and glowed. The map material was flat and thin (not a model), and there were no noticeable lenticular lines like one of our three- dimensional processes.

-- www.astronomy.com...

Some liked to think she was describing a hologram or holographic display of some sort. However, she just as well could have been describing a modern (2018) LCD display, with a "construct" on it much like my "map" page which is actually a 3D representation, though reduced to 2D.

In any case what Betty saw wasn't a "gas station map", and was far more like that Google Galactic Navigator, but looking at a very specific region.

originally posted by: terrythecensor
a reply to: james1947

But to achieve what little overlap you have, Zeta 2 has rotated well out of line and the distance between the Zetas is truncated. Still, the more testing of the map, the better. When your analyis is complete, or at least important parts are complete, I encourage you to let people know. Maybe some astronomy students will get intrigued and have a look at the method and math.

(I wish a PhD would make the map a little project for a research group and get it published. At the very least, the map is a cultural icon of mid-century America -- and one that is amenable to falsifiability.)

You do understand that there are elements in that map that are purely artistic, right? Like the depiction of Zeta Reticuli. That is seriously..."amplified" so as to show the binary nature of the stars, and the importance of both stars. Further , ALL of the primary stars in both maps (Betty's, and mine) are shown enlarged, to help with visual identification.

So, the rotation, and the truncation are kind of irrelevant since they only serve an artistic / clarifying role.

Well while I would like it IF someone would take a look at the method and math, I kind of think of both of those as kind of simple, and obvious, but then again, I'm a retired Software Engineer, and the use of custom computer code, and any level of Mathematics have become second nature to me over my lifetime. Though this wee project was more interesting than many due to the use of two computer languages and the math (mostly Trigonometry), and of course getting to play with the 3D images generated by the "method and math".

originally posted by: james1947
They wouldn't! But, that's not how Betty described the the "map"...

Betty described the map as three-dimensional, like looking through a window. The stars were tinted and glowed. The map material was flat and thin (not a model), and there were no noticeable lenticular lines like one of our three- dimensional processes.
www.astronomy.com...

Some liked to think she was describing a hologram or holographic display of some sort. However, she just as well could have been describing a modern (2018) LCD display, with a "construct" on it much like my "map" page which is actually a 3D representation, though reduced to 2D.

Nowhere in The Interrupted Journey (1966) does Betty talk about the map in those terms, everything is 2D. I could be wrong of course, so if I am please tell me what page she says "three-dimensional ... it's like looking through a window ... stars were tinted and glowed". The only source I can find for that description is actually Marjorie Fish after her interview with Betty on August 4, 1969. This is what she claimed Betty said 8 years after the "abduction" and 3 years after the book. All conveniently after Fish was only able to get the map to remotely resemble anything using a 3 dimensional model. If Betty saw something as amazing and futuristic as a hologram, she would have mentioned it in 1961, period. The 3D version of the map is only more BS from this tale

I think your obsession with the map comes from your claim of multiple abductions from 1951 to 1994 and the lack of your own evidence. If you can show this map is real, and throw in your "math and science" into it, you think it helps support yours and other claims of abductions. You dismiss the rest of the story because you think the map is all you need. But those skeptical aren't going to believe your map because they're going to approach the case as an entire event (as it should be) they aren't going to cherry pick as you are doing. You look at the case as a whole and you can't deny the horrible inconsistencies throughout.
And to quote Stanton Friedman as you have:

2. Don't bother me with the facts, my mind is made up.

You're dodging the story (the facts) and obsessing on only one part. Friedman has been supporting the entire story for decades and I don't think he'd be happy with you saying her story is irrelevant and agreeing that Betty is a UFO nut .

As the other poster said and I said earlier, you should make your information available to groups that will question your theories. You've been trying to pass off this map on the forum going on 3 years and haven't been successful. Challenge it elsewhere. Stop taking the easy road because it only makes it seem purposeful.

originally posted by: Ectoplasm8

Nowhere in The Interrupted Journey (1966) does Betty talk about the map in those terms, everything is 2D. I could be wrong of course, so if I am please tell me what page she says "three-dimensional ... it's like looking through a window ... stars were tinted and glowed".

Indeed!

IF you have an issue with that quote, you should take it up with Astronomy Magazine, that is where it is from.

I think your obsession with the map comes from your claim of multiple abductions from 1951 to 1994 and the lack of your own evidence.

Well actually there is no obsession, as you probably want. There is however a virtual insistence on the real world data, which you and others like to ignore...probably because it violates your version, sorry, but, REAL DATA can do that when it becomes inconvenient, as this has.

And to quote Stanton Friedman as you have:

2. Don't bother me with the facts, my mind is made up.

You're dodging the story (the facts) and obsessing on only one part. Friedman has been supporting the entire story for decades and I don't think he'd be happy with you saying her story is irrelevant and agreeing that Betty is a UFO nut .

Yes, I do focus on the map, it is the only quantifiable bit of evidence available, on the other hand, you (maybe I should say; "All of y'all") like to focus on the part of the story that can't be verified. AND, low and behold, you have a story you can dismiss easily, but ONLY IF you ignore the map.

Once the map is brought up, your whole notion falls apart, although you do continue to try to dismiss, and ignore the Elephant in the room.

As the other poster said and I said earlier, you should make your information available to groups that will question your theories. You've been trying to pass off this map on the forum going on 3 years and haven't been successful. Challenge it elsewhere. Stop taking the easy road because it only makes it seem purposeful.

Well guess what, all of my work is readily available to whoever wishes to take a look. And yes, I've been trying to poke holes in mt theory for a while, it seems the right thing to do...especially since no one here seems interested in reality.

Yes I've been trying for a while and all I have to show for it is a theory that has NOT been disproven...it seems that y'all can't.

And, Ecto, remember those "debunker's rules" from Stanton Friedman? It seems that all y'all have conform nicely to those rules. You say all sort of things, but none of it is ever relevant.

So...IF YOU WANT FACTS;
1. my version of the map conforms almost perfectly to Betty's drawing, especially in a computer vision sense.
2. I have shown that it is not coincidence.
3. I have shown that the map does in fact contain "stars and planets".
4. I'v shown that the map could easily be a "trade and exploration" map.
5. No one here has ever shown any data to disprove my theory.

So, I'm calling this a nearly PROVEN theory (theories are never 100% proven...they become "LAW" when they are). AND, unless, you (or anyone) has something relevant; I think we are done here...I've had my say, I've proven my theory.

ETA: And as for my personal experiences; I've had adequate proof for over 25 years. Thanks to a Psychologist in Washington State.