It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
As one of her hobbies, Marjorie made an investigation into the Betty Hill map by constructing a 3-D star map in the late 1960's using several databases. She found a pattern that matched Mrs. Hill's drawing well, which generated international interest. Later, after newer data was compiled, she determined that the binary stars within the pattern were too close together to support life; so as a true skeptic, she issued a statement that she now felt that the correlation was unlikely.
in 2011, the Kepler telescope discovered that binary systems can produce planets.
Ms. Fish cannot be faulted for the mistakes in her interpretation. She was using the best available information at the time she developed the model. In the intervening years, science has proven her conclusions wrong. One can no longer argue that her interpretation is valid or holds any value in proving Mrs. Hill's claims.
Science vs. Fish
Originally posted by Irako
reply to post by Gazrok
....if were shown a map of stars, and then asked to recall the map some time later, its highly unlikely I'd recall it correctly. This would be especially true if the 'white space' between dots was used to denote proximity between stars. So I've found the effort of matching Betty Hill's map to real star maps a little dubious.
Originally posted by jonnywhite
For me the whole thing was spurious. I mean, so a lady has a dream or whatever it's and she draws a map. IMHO, given the inaccuracies of it, it was all the result of random coincidence. I remember reading a debunking of the hill map where they determined the odds and it was not 1 in 100 million or whatever was claimed, but something much more likely. Thus, it's probably a random connection. It's like if I claim to be a psychic and I'm doing a session with a group of people and I say something sufficiently general, somebody will stand up and say "You can read my mind!"
If the aliens had given her a high tech souvenir, as she asked for, at least she'd have evidence. But as usual, it's an improvised story or a blurry photograph or a scratch mark on the arm.
I'm not saying people haven't been abducted, I'm just saying there's no proof. And if there's no proof, how is this any better than me claiming there's a spaghetti monster on the moon? Or what of the other gazillions of crazy things people claim with no strong supporting evidence to back it up?
It's a fun story, but only if you half believe it. Otherwise, just get a good fictional story from the bookstore. IMHO, a good work of fiction is always better than the ufo stories. Why? Because the ufo stories depend on the gullible people who half believe them, otherwise they'd not sell.
It's kind of like religion. If most people didn't believe in God and/or most people didn't believe that faith was good then religion wouldn't be popular. Similarly, if there were less gullible people to half believe ufo abduction stories then the stories could not exist on their own merit and would fade away. It's all a precarious balance of standards and likes and dislikes and contradictions.edit on 8-7-2013 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by JimOberg
This is an excellent point. Over the years at UFO conventions and debates, whenever the 'star map' [and Betty never claimed she was even told it WAS a map] came up, I'd always ask for volunteers to verify it was even possible to remember it and recall it accurately. I asked people to step forward THEMSELVES to reproduce the star map under regression -- not a soul volunteered. I asked to conduct a control experiment when a volunteer test subject was shown a similar-structured shape, and then test them under regression a year later to see if they could accurately recall it. nobody dared to even discuss the idea. Maybe in their heart of hearts, THEY didn't believe it either, but they couldn't let on in public.
There's a big difference between being put into an extremely exigent situation where each thing takes on significance because the person's survival instinct kicks in versus being told to remember something for a memory test. That's not really an apple's to apple's experiment.
Originally posted by ATSZOMBIE
So they both lied and came up with a star map randomly that happened to correlate to a real system, before it was even discovered? Wow dude you need to try the lottery then your idea of co-incidence is completely out of whack. I think you need to stop visiting this forum, obviously UFOs are a topic you fail to handle well.
Originally posted by JayinAR
reply to post by Harte
Add hypnosis to the test and results may change quite a bit.
HYPNOSIS, even self-hypnosis, can sometimes result in the creation of false memories -- the belief that something happened even though it never did. A psychologist at Ohio State University in Lima and fellow researchers found that even when people were warned about the possibility of acquiring pseudo-memories under hypnosis, more than a quarter of them did anyway.
Dr. Joseph Green, a professor of psychology at Ohio State and co-author of the study, said, ''There's a cultural expectation that hypnosis will lead to more accurate and earlier memories, but that's not true.''