another old CE3 encounter, amfreville france 1947: humanoid encounters

originally posted by: humanoidlord
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

a random guy in the internet is trying to disprove years of psycological research, how amusing

Show me that research you speak of.. You can't even spell Psychological let alone produce any actual documentation on anything.

Show just one single paper on pareidolia that links that to any explained physiological brain process. Just because an excuse becomes popular and creates a large following of arrogant presumption because of threat to careers doesn't make it a real true thing. Think on your own for a change.

a reply to: humanoidlord

That's a fact.

originally posted by: humanoidlord
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

a random guy in the internet is trying to disprove years of psycological research, how amusing

how can you be so much stubborn?
there are more differences than similarities between the drawings, when you will see the obvious?

You apparently completely misunderstand what I've done. There is NOTHING psychological involved here. Which is also to say that the psychology of either Betty or Barney have no affect of the astrophysics and mathematics. They remain.

And, no of course the drawings are different...seriously man, what did you expect? Betty drew her map (template) on notebook paper because of a post-hypnotic suggestion...the probability of a precise match(which you appear to want), is actually quite small, the probability of a template match (which involves such things as "confidence levels", and other probabilistic constructs) is not quite as small, but, small enough to make a match virtually impossible.

If you fail to see the strong similarities between Betty's drawing and mine, then I fail to understand how you can miss what should be obvious! Seriously man, all of the image elements are present in both images.

Remember, Betty drew her map on notebook paper, I used the precision of relatively modern technology...and information that none of the other analysts had available.

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

i don't have time to look for thousands of scientific journals (some hard to find) just to make someone that i don't even trust in the internet happy
ps: the typos are due to english not being my main language

a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

a reply to: james1947

if we put betty's memory of the drawing in question, then why stop there? what if what she drew was a bad interpretation due to memory and the drawing was completely different? then neither fish's interpretation, neither your's would be valid
anyway i hope you see that we are off topic, lest stop this dumb argument

originally posted by: james1947

originally posted by: humanoidlord
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

a random guy in the internet is trying to disprove years of psycological research, how amusing

how can you be so much stubborn?
there are more differences than similarities between the drawings, when you will see the obvious?

You apparently completely misunderstand what I've done. There is NOTHING psychological involved here. Which is also to say that the psychology of either Betty or Barney have no affect of the astrophysics and mathematics. They remain.

And, no of course the drawings are different...seriously man, what did you expect? Betty drew her map (template) on notebook paper because of a post-hypnotic suggestion...the probability of a precise match(which you appear to want), is actually quite small, the probability of a template match (which involves such things as "confidence levels", and other probabilistic constructs) is not quite as small, but, small enough to make a match virtually impossible.

If you fail to see the strong similarities between Betty's drawing and mine, then I fail to understand how you can miss what should be obvious! Seriously man, all of the image elements are present in both images.

Remember, Betty drew her map on notebook paper, I used the precision of relatively modern technology...and information that none of the other analysts had available.

I know what you said before and agree. All I was trying to convey to the poster ( he doesn't even try to understand simple things) was the fact that pareidolia (which he was inferring to something), is a made up concept with no real link to any real documented mental process in the brain. Because he always throws out those words to either support his own conclusions, or trash someone else's.

I have read books on the Betty and Barney Hill case and some very smart and credible and credentialed people have shown that her star map she drew is totally accurate and a 3D software model showed it according to what I read. It is also spoken about in a documentary done by physicist Stanton Friedman.

originally posted by: humanoidlord
a reply to: james1947

if we put betty's memory of the drawing in question, then why stop there? what if what she drew was a bad interpretation due to memory and the drawing was completely different? then neither fish's interpretation, neither your's would be valid
anyway i hope you see that we are off topic, lest stop this dumb argument

Well, that is exactly what I did; question Betty's drawing. Just as Ms Fish did, and we both found it a highly accurate depiction of near-by stars when NOT viewed from Earth.

And, "what if" Betty's drawing is wrong? It is still an accurate depiction of near by stars, not viewed from Earth, AND, perhaps just as important, the probabilities DO NOT CHANGE...they are still aprox. 4.67836e-87. To call that "vanishingly small" is a very gross understatement.

Further, the interpretation formed by Ms. Fish and myself contains the "stars and planets" of the ET "trade and exploration routes". It is smaller detail such as these that must also be considered in One's interpretation.

And, else where you say; "just to make someone that i don't even trust in the internet happy." Just to be clear, there is no "trust" involved here either...all of the information, and tools needed by you to actually verify everything I've said are freely available, you don't have to trust my interpretation, you can do the work (also called due diligence) and form your own "informed" interpretation.

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

it even has a wikipedia page! what are you talking about?

a reply to: james1947

well you got absolutely whrecked in the abduction thread, the skeptics showed to you in clear images how much your drawing was different from betty's, if you take the lines out, there is absolutely 0 similarity, that is a fact!
i ain't going to continue this argument because it seems you don't know the obvious

originally posted by: humanoidlord
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

it even has a wikipedia page! what are you talking about?

Is that a joke? Wikipedia isn't a place where academic professionals go to share medical research.

Stick to the entertainment angle, and you won't look so silly.

originally posted by: humanoidlord
a reply to: james1947

well you got absolutely whrecked in the abduction thread, the skeptics showed to you in clear images how much your drawing was different from betty's, if you take the lines out, there is absolutely 0 similarity, that is a fact!
i ain't going to continue this argument because it seems you don't know the obvious

LOL!!!
Kindly explain WHY those elements were found then.

Perhaps I could express some feeling of sorrow for you because you can't see these thing because the line aren't there, but that would actually be rather insincere.

The reality here is that the correct configuration of stars is still there, even without the lines. Ms. Fish wouldn't have recognized the elements she found, nor would I, nor indeed anyone else...the stars and elements found are there regardless.

Here is an idea of what that view looks like "naturally"...just pretend the lines aren't there, ans the two Zetas Reticuli are just one star (you cant see two stars there as they are too close).



And, no, nobody "wrecked" me, though several have tried, ALL have failed to disprove my analysis and theory. Usually arguments against my analysis is based on pre-Hipparcos data (before 1992), which is obsolete, some rather inaccurate...anything that might include more modern data is still based on old data and understanding (pre 2000). I have the only modern analysis that I know of. Although, if you look, there is a thread here on ATS, written by an Astronomy student some years ago...it completely supports my analysis...the problem with that thread is the next logical step wasn't taken...adding a proving element (the Mathematics / probability)...

The harsh reality is that Betty's map can be found in the near-by stars, whether some like it or not...it is a stark reality, and, undeniable!

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed
then show me proof that it isn't a real psychologocical phenomena

a reply to: james1947

no there is nothing conclusive about it, and the strange behaviour of betty before and after the encounter invalidates it all

originally posted by: james1947

originally posted by: humanoidlord
a reply to: james1947

ETH partisans, ugh

No, actually, ETT...Extraterrestrial THEORY. You have a hypothesis, in that it is only a "notion", a thought that can not be demonstrated as "real" by any means...mostly because you are; 1. misusing the term "dimension", 2. fail to understand the dimensional nature that actually runs through the reality of this universe, and of course, you have no evidence.

And, that is where the two ideas part ways; You have no evidence to support your hypothesis, and I have very good evidence to support my theory (its the evidence that makes ETH a theory (ETT)). You can see some of my core evidence here

No denial, no faerie folk...just science!

your core evidence is a #ty illustration of a constellation??

originally posted by: humanoidlord
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed
then show me proof that it isn't a real psychologocical phenomena

You do understand, I hope that; that is a faulty argument.

no there is nothing conclusive about it, and the strange behaviour of betty before and after the encounter invalidates it all

So...just HOW does Betty's behavior invalidate Astrophysics, Astronomy, and Mathematics?

I'm guessing that you don't understand that these things; the placement of stars in the Universe, what class those stars are, and, well every other physical property those stars might have, along with the Mathematics, and computer science, are not in ANY way affected by Betty's psychology, nor yours, nor mine...such things are immutable, and are a consequence of the creation of the Universe, and, not Betty's imagination, nor yours, nor mine.

I must say that your reaction is quite typical. Many people don't want there to be any evidence, so they deny the very existence of any form of evidence. And, when such evidence appears they do everything they can thing of to deny that the evidence is what it is...typically by denying that that evidence is anything other that "make believe", even when it is very solid scientific data that, in reality, cannot be denied.

originally posted by: MantheDevilsApe
your core evidence is a #ty illustration of a constellation??

Well actually, that is not a constellation! Just a grouping of stars...

And, what you are looking at on that page isn't my "core evidence", its just an illustration of a GUI. And of course it is also a GUI...try mousing over the various stars, try clicking on them.

Then go the menu at the head of the page and focus on the right most links...they will take you to my "core evidence".

well screw this stupid fight, it is gonna lead nowhere

originally posted by: humanoidlord
well screw this stupid fight, it is gonna lead nowhere

I didn't think this discussion either stupid, or a fight...but, if that is your perception.

And, I am sorry for dragging your thread off topic; although, all I was doing was objecting to the comparison of Extraterrestrials to Fairies. Doing so more than strongly implies that there is no more evidence of ET than for fairies. Which as I tried to point out simply isn't true. While there is no tangible evidence of Fairies, there is such evidence for Extraterrestrials. Perhaps you should ask yourself; "why isn't this evidence acceptable?"