Not made on Earth: The Atomic Structure of UFO Debris Analyzed at Stanford University

originally posted by: Jimy718
a reply to: stealthskater

Here is another link for your "Hill Collection"
wolfmagick.com...

This is to a White Paper that shows the accuracy of Betty's 'map'.

That is completely unscientific, and unbelievably biased, and has been thoroughly debunked here.

That's a long thread, but here's the map that the author claims is Betty's map (see figure 5 in the pdf you posted):

See one big dot on the right? There should be two big dots on the right, but one is missing. See Betty's map here, where she labeled the two big dots as stars Honan (aka Homam) and Baham (aka Biham) in the lower right:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

The star Betty labeled as Baham is completely missing. When I pointed this out to the author, he said it's not a star, it's something like a button on the control panel for the display. But this disregards the source Betty, who obviously didn't think it was a control panel button, she labeled it as a star. So it's a completely irrational force fit by not only ignoring one of the most prominent features on the map using some excuse that doesn't agree with the source, but also because of numerous other problems discussed at length in that thread.

However I have seen one very interesting question. Why do the stars Honan and Baham look so much like the ends of a planetarium projector? They absolutely do!


Compare that projector to the lower right of Betty's map:

Friedman's Frenzy

While we are talking about Zeta Reticuli, one interesting question is: What did Betty Hill intend to represent at the bottom of her "Star Map" where we see two large globes, connected by several parallel lines? The best suggestion I have heard comes from star map researcher Charles Atterberg (more about him is in my book UFO Sightings). He suggested that the two globes represent an old planetarium projector, similar to the one you see here. It makes perfect sense. When Dr. Simon asked Betty to draw, as best she could, the "star map" she claims to have seen, her mind wandered back to a planetarium show she presumably saw years earlier. She drew the stars she saw, and also the projector below them!

That explanation makes more sense than any other explanation I've heard.

originally posted by: stealthskater
How reliable is hypnotism anyway?

Surveys show most people believe the myth that hypnotism can reliably recover memories. Scientific research shows that hypnotism can recover false memories just like other memory recovery techniques and the confidence people have in hypnosis is not justified.

A new study suggests that hypnosis doesn't help people recall events more accurately - but it does tend to make people more confident of their inaccurate memories.

Any kind of technique used to retrieve memories - including the use of diaries or drugs - will produce inaccurate memories. However, the difference is that people tend to have more faith in hypnosis than they do in other memory techniques.

"While it may be true that hypnosis is no worse than other memory retrieval techniques in terms of accuracy, the downfall is that people may be more confident in memories they generate while under hypnosis," Green said. "And that's because of the belief that hypnosis is a magical truth serum."

The bottom line is that memories recovered through hypnosis, or any other technique, need to be corroborated through other means before they are accepted as true, he said.

a reply to: stealthskater

Sometimes it's only 50-50 while other times it's 100%.

originally posted by: Phage

Really? The results are between 50% and 100%? Nothing under 50%?

I think it's hard to say what the results are, because the remote viewing experiments seem to lack scientific rigor and interpretations are way too "mushy" and subject to bias.

I had a Kreskin ESP ket when I was growing up, and wanted to believe in telepathy...it had cards with different shapes on them that you could try to telepathically project to others and test your accuracy.

But even in an experiment where you have a one in four chance of guessing the correct answer, just by random chance, sometimes you will get one in five, and other times you may get one in three. In fact PSI proponents seem to get all excited about one in three right answer results when random chance would be one in four, saying it's nearly impossible. But, one in three correct answers still isn't that great to me. If you really could prove it was statistically impossible as some claim, then someone should have claimed the one million dollar prize from Randi, but nobody ever did. Yes he wanted extremely low odds you could get the results by random chance, maybe something on the order of one in a million or less. But if the people claiming the 33 percent correct results versus 25% expected have odds below one in a million of occurring by random chance, it should have been no problem to claim the million dollars, but nobody ever did.

After looking at psi research critically, I've realized it's a very controversial field and the claimed successes have problems with being replicated consistently.

Why Most Research Findings About Psi Are False

psi effects tend to disappear when the same experiment is replicated, which is described as the elusive nature of psi (Hansen, 2001; Kennedy, 2003)

originally posted by: pteridine

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: pteridine

He said 253 isotopes not elements. What I think he is saying is that the isotopic ratios of the elements in the materials are not as expected.

So, there are only 80 isotopes on our world? So that's how he comes to the conclusion that the samples came from another world? Because the isotopic signature is not "as expected?" Expected by whom?

Given his involvement with TTSA, I would recommend some attempt to filter what he is saying. A published paper would be of more use than a video.

He said 80 elements not 80 isotopes. The video is not clear as to what he is claiming but if I had to guess, I would say that he found no new elements but that the isotopic ratios in the ones he found were not expected. He said that it seemed as though the material was being built at the atomic level.

If he's finding an uncommon mix of isotopes, that could be evidence the material it was made from came from outer space.

Any matter we find in outer space is likely to have an odd mix of isotopes due to having been exposed to cosmic rays for millions of years.

He's jumping ahead of himself if he suggests it as "made from the ground up" at the atomic level. Why would any alien culture bother themselves to do that, rather than just find the elements. It would be massively more expensive to fabricate an element than to just look for it until you find it.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: Jimy718
a reply to: stealthskater

Here is another link for your "Hill Collection"
wolfmagick.com...

This is to a White Paper that shows the accuracy of Betty's 'map'.

That is completely unscientific, and unbelievably biased, and has been thoroughly debunked here.

Yeah, ya know, that "debunk" never sat very well, so I took my paper to other FAR more qualified reviewers. They had other opinions.

You say it is "unscientific"; show me where/how. Show me where it is biased.

The biggest issue was from a PhD Physicist who was upset because I didn't use 62 digits of precision in my calculations, modern computers only use 15. I corrected that by finding a arbitrary precision floating point math library, it confirmed the accuracy of the calculations.

As for any issues brought up in that "debunk", they never were issues in the first place, just the howling's of ATS members who want reality to be different that actually is.

In any case, I have no interest in arguing this with someone I don't know is qualified to argue. And, it is off topic.

There is something about Bob Lazar, IN MY GUT, that tells me he is lying.

There has been a lot to corroborate his story. And I won't call him a liar.

But I have to listen to my gut. Has never failed me.

With that said. There are undoubtedly other worldly ethereal craft visiting/trolling us. But I doubt they are ANYTHING like us. And I agree with Dr. Vallee. They are more akin to angels/demons of myth than a people from millions of light years away.

Something much more sinister is at play. Again, my gut. Hasn't failed me yet.

If you believe in the bible, Jesus Christ, and prophecy? Then you know where I'm coming from on this.
The indescribable prophecies of the bible are slowly setting the stage for Christ's return in a manner described in the bible, with the limited language the prophets had at the time of their writings.

Lazar strikes me as one of those guys with Aspergers' Syndrome, who just doesn't sound/look right when he's trying to be sincere.

The "lying" vibe is so strong, that I'm pretty sure I'm getting a false positive. When it's too strong, there's usually something else in play.

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous
Lazar strikes me as one of those guys with Aspergers' Syndrome, who just doesn't sound/look right when he's trying to be sincere.

The "lying" vibe is so strong, that I'm pretty sure I'm getting a false positive. When it's too strong, there's usually something else in play.

Could be!

He definitely isn't "normal". Interesting dude. But my BS detector goes wild whenever he talks. Other people say he is believable. And I'm like, WTF are you talking about. This guy is VERY obviously fkn lying.
I watched a video where some therapists watched is mannerisms and said, "nope, he ain't lying". The internet brings out this idiots. Dude is lying. Sorry. My gut says so, and I get into all kinds of trouble when I don't listen to it. Has been refined over 50 years of military and being around professional liars.

And when you said he might have Asperger's, I was like wow. You are onto something. Because it is true. He is missing something that normal people have.

And just everything he does/did was to get attention, and say he didn't want attention. Like a woman that says "just leave me alone" and wants anything but that.

Asperberger's combined with conlike lying abilities = fools a lot of people. You nailed it dude!!! Congrats on solving a mystery 30 years in the making. You should make a thread on that.

a reply to: Waterglass

Not made on earth eh? How can they be so sure? I mean even Jacques Vallée is a pretty smart guy, in fact helped create what latter became this thing were communicating on, the internet. Even back when people thought that the beeper and flip phone was as magic as things got.

I mean it could have been manufactured on earth some 10 million years ago, for all anybody knows. And we would never even know the difference, that's the possibility of how blind the human race can be. We can be somebody else's cattle or pets, or experiment.

But if that video is right? Then somebody out there is playing with a very big tool set, in this sandbox known as the universe.

But UFOs, Aliens and all that? Even Jacques Vallée dont know.

a reply to: Waterglass

The difficulty with a lot of these cases is that the material often don't show evidence that they were manufactured at all. We don't see tool marks or mold lines, or evidence that they were part of something else that had a specific purpose.

We're getting chunks of material that look like industrial waste or bits of space rock. We're not getting dials or switches or thinks with corners or screw threads on them. Things that look like they broke off of a spacecraft.

These materials also bear no resemble to recovered debris from events like Roswell, and most of them don't have properties that would be useful in space travel. They are often brittle and heavy and would not make good interior or exterior components. We see a lot of soft magnesiums or impure irons, and absolutely no advanced ceramics or polymeres. Things that are strong and lite and heat resistant.

I'm going to go with space rocks here as they have the same properties, and industrial waste for the rest as we know that a lot of these objects came from places were the old soviet Union dumped contaminated waste from top secret facilities.

a reply to: FingerMan

I don't see why the discovery or revelation of other biological entities would have to involve any planetary system of religion necessarily. It only proves that what we thought we knew was incorrect, that humans know very little and that we should stop listening to other humans who claim they know what is going on (with this or anything)

It is absolute madness to believe this species is the sole species throughout the entire universe

It is worse than claiming the sun revolves around this planet

You had me at Greer
/

originally posted by: Ectoplasm8
I'll play along.... "Waterglass". Do people really have to hold your hand and guide you to reality? I think you've just shed light on who belongs at the Kookoo for Cocoa Puffs Nation. Maybe even a few "DR"s might think the same?

Hey don't be an a$$hole, you may not believe the OP but that doesn't give you the right to insult people here bud. If you don't have anything to add to the subject at hand whether it be positive or negative then hit the door.

a reply to: Alien Abduct

So let me get it straight, the motto of the board is Deny Ignorance. I point out that Waterglass, among others, is commenting on Stephen Greer who has proven himself to be a scammer time and time again. This isn't just throwing out an opinion, it's a fact supported by his own behavior. I don't know what Waterglass' objective is, but his support of this clown is naive, gullible, uninformed, and the definition of ignorance.

Then he calls debunkers the "Kookoo for Cocoa Puffs Nation"? That's a weak and laughable comment, but meant to be insulting nevertheless and you say I'm being insulting? Get your priorities straight and stop contributing to the BS threads lately. There, I just added something constructive to the thread.

originally posted by: Alien Abduct
Hey don't be an a$$hole, you may not believe the OP but that doesn't give you the right to insult people here bud.

As I already pointed out, the site owners moved the obvious hoax stuff from Greer that waterglass was defending like the moth "alien" and the "invisible space ship" to the hoax forum. In effect the ATS site owners are telling everybody by moving the hoaxes to the hoax forum that they are hoaxes. So, what do you call people who believe such obvious hoaxes?

If you don't have anything to add to the subject at hand whether it be positive or negative then hit the door.

I think the suggestion from ATS site owners by moving Greer nonsense to the HOAX forum was that they do not condone hoaxes. Do you condone hoaxes? If so, then you're the one who should hit the door. If not, I don't know why you're defending Greer's hoaxes, which is in effect exactly what you're doing.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

I'm not defending Greer, I'm defending proper decorum. Attack the material not the person.

a reply to: Alien Abduct


Just curious... what do you call Waterglass saying "Kookoo for Cocoa Puffs Nation" to debunkers? He's made other comments as well. That's attacking, isn't it?

Do you want me to sit here and rattle off all the negative facts that make Greer a phony? I don't have the time nor energy. If Waterglass did a little bit of unbiased research for himself, he would have found all those facts backed up with data. But apparently he only wants to see what he wants to see. That's naive, gullible, uninformed, and the definition of ignorance as I said.

originally posted by: Ectoplasm8
a reply to: Alien Abduct


Just curious... what do you call Waterglass saying "Kookoo for Cocoa Puffs Nation" to debunkers? He's made other comments as well. That's attacking, isn't it?

Do you want me to sit here and rattle off all the negative facts that make Greer a phony? I don't have the time nor energy. If Waterglass did a little bit of unbiased research for himself, he would have found all those facts backed up with data. But apparently he only wants to see what he wants to see. That's naive, gullible, uninformed, and the definition of ignorance as I said.

Very well put!

I don't know where how or when I became such a skeptic. Maybe it is the life time of experience in watching people dupe others. And then noticing the pattern.

There is something going on. I'm not skeptical about that. But in my humble opinion, the answer is beyond our comprehension and understanding. To make that point clear - someone could walk up and explain the who what when where why of these sightings and you wouldn't be any closer to understanding the phenomena after they explained it.

Jaques Vallee hit the nail on the head 40 years ago when he compared it to Leprechaun's Demons and Angels. The answer is so deep in our psyche and so entrenched with the nether realm that it is not just out of the reach of our perception and ability to understand, it is designed in such a way that we never will.

That sounds hopeless lol. But it really is in my mind. Still interesting stuff. But calling out a charlatan when you see one is always a good thing. Too many gullible people on this planet.

a reply to: AaarghZombies

Agree. I have found a meteorite in my back yard about 3" in diameter. It was on top of the top soil. It did not come from beneath the soil.

Even with that to prove its a meteorite I have to send it out for testing.

a reply to: galadofwarthethird

I don't think that Vallee would push junk science. That's what makes this so intriguing