Why does the U.F.O. skeptic treat all all evidence as equally not evidence?

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: dragonridr
You need to go back and look at the original hill mao but point is no proof of anyrhing other than your bias makes random conections. You presented it as proof it proves nothing as I said in her drawing there isn't 3 main stars only 2. You would think aliens who had lived their would know this. H a d she got that detail right you might have a case. But in 69 they didn't know and oddly neither did her drawing.

Okay, firstly I did not present this as "proof", I've already stated as much.

What "3 main stars" are you referring to? There are, and have always been only 2 main stars Zeta 1 and Zeta 2. In the 1970's, after the existence of the other Zeta, it was remarked and considered a strong point of evidence that the map had predicted 2 main stars (Zetas 1 & 2), and that the other Zeta had been found...just as the map predicted. So it would appear that you are a bit confused on this detail...

Over the past few months I've been researching this map specifically; every single objection that any "skeptic" has ever raised has been the result of either not understanding astronomy, or skewing the data and interpretations to such a degree that it agrees with their rather incorrect, biased interpretations.

Again; all of the data supports my position, there is no viable data to support yours.

You mean besides the women who thought she found a correlation saying she's wrong.and besides the fact the stars in miss fish's map where not where she thought they were. See she showed the positions match the star chart exactly until we updated the information in t he star chart and the correlation dissappeared.

Yet people like you are going to argue with her when she admits she was wrong. And how could there have been a high degree of creation to the 69 gliess star chart and the star positions moved yet you still claim there is a correlation. So apparently the only explination would be betty hills star map has a huge margin for error making it useless.thanks for playing but you proved nothing.

a reply to: dragonridr

You are not paying attention!

The map I use is only based on the initial interpretation. That initial interpretation was corrected using Hipparcos data, very modern stuff!

After that template matching methods were applied and the "match" confirmed. The probability of such a match was computed, and found to be astronomically small.

The arguments you are using have been proven false. Your objection to Gliese 86 is your misinterpretation of the map. Gliese 86 is right where it needs to be, at around 35 ly. The star you are mistaking for Gliese 86 is Gliese 86.1 a totally different star of a different class and as you reported, quite a long way away. However, Gliese 86.1 is not a "template star", and thus is not used except for decoration. Just like in the original.

Other objections like "binary star", or "variable star" are similarly misinterpretations.

You need to remove your colored glasses and view this in the real light of day!

Now then, as with all of the others the reality is that you have nothing but misinterpretation, and can present no real data, only rumor, and hearsay...

By the way...Gliese 3 catalog does not appear to contain any distance data...I haven't check to see what the parallax data is like, but, I did look to "see" if I could find 86.1...that didn't work out so well. But, the dataset is old and not well organized...have you ever seen it?

originally posted by: tanka418
a reply to: dragonridr

You are not paying attention!

The map I use is only based on the initial interpretation. That initial interpretation was corrected using Hipparcos data, very modern stuff!

After that template matching methods were applied and the "match" confirmed. The probability of such a match was computed, and found to be astronomically small.

The arguments you are using have been proven false. Your objection to Gliese 86 is your misinterpretation of the map. Gliese 86 is right where it needs to be, at around 35 ly. The star you are mistaking for Gliese 86 is Gliese 86.1 a totally different star of a different class and as you reported, quite a long way away. However, Gliese 86.1 is not a "template star", and thus is not used except for decoration. Just like in the original.

Other objections like "binary star", or "variable star" are similarly misinterpretations.

You need to remove your colored glasses and view this in the real light of day!

Now then, as with all of the others the reality is that you have nothing but misinterpretation, and can present no real data, only rumor, and hearsay...

By the way...Gliese 3 catalog does not appear to contain any distance data...I haven't check to see what the parallax data is like, but, I did look to "see" if I could find 86.1...that didn't work out so well. But, the dataset is old and not well organized...have you ever seen it?

So you corrected Mrs hills map to get it to match your not helping your case at all.

a reply to: dragonridr
Never mind...your data prejudices are to great for you to interpret this data.

If you ever get any real data to counter my analysis let me know...perhaps we can talk.
So far you have nothing!

So you corrected Mrs hills map to get it to match your not helping your case at all.

This is so damn funny...just how did you manage to misconstrue my words into this? What I said is that I used the original interpretation and corrected that with modern data. That's way different than altering the template.

In next post you say:

Funny I was thinking thea me thing sad really

Shall we just look at who is presenting real scientific data, and who is copying from any old blog that says what he wants?

I have presented you with data derived from Hipparcos, overview results from template matching methods, and mathematical probabilities. All you have are some seriously unfounded words...and absolutely no data to validate them.

originally posted by: tanka418
a reply to: dragonridr
Never mind...your data prejudices are to great for you to interpret this data.

If you ever get any real data to counter my analysis let me know...perhaps we can talk.
So far you have nothing!

Funny I was thinking thea me thing sad really when this were supposed to be routes they used and the routes make no sense now that star locations are diffrent

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: tanka418
a reply to: dragonridr
Never mind...your data prejudices are to great for you to interpret this data.

If you ever get any real data to counter my analysis let me know...perhaps we can talk.
So far you have nothing!

Funny I was thinking thea me thing sad really when this were supposed to be routes they used and the routes make no sense now that star locations are different

What star is different?

Or are you still going on about Gliese 86.1 ... clue: Gliese 86.1 isn't on any route, nor is t associated with one.

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: tanka418
a reply to: dragonridr
Never mind...your data prejudices are to great for you to interpret this data.

If you ever get any real data to counter my analysis let me know...perhaps we can talk.
So far you have nothing!

Funny I was thinking thea me thing sad really when this were supposed to be routes they used and the routes make no sense now that star locations are different

What star is different?

Or are you still going on about Gliese 86.1 ... clue: Gliese 86.1 isn't on any route, nor is t associated with one.

No you made an a sumptuous that's what I was talking about nit what I said however. I pointed out that one of the stars she used to locate the triangle she remebers doesn't make a triangle. But the way there are 3 diffrent explination for hills map did you know that she changed the story 3 times. Betting you didn't know that either huh??

a reply to: dragonridr

You are aware, I would hope, that any "story" has absolutely no effect on the Mathematics right

Ahhh..never mind; you're done. You are only wasting time and bandwidth with your nonsense. Perhaps IF you actually had anything of substance we could discuss it, but you aren't even trying.

Like the others; you have nothing, except your misinterpretations, and willful ignorance. So, please stop, you're embarrassing yourself.

originally posted by: tanka418
a reply to: dragonridr

You are aware, I would hope, that any "story" has absolutely no effect on the Mathematics right

Ahhh..never mind; you're done. You are only wasting time and bandwidth with your nonsense. Perhaps IF you actually had anything of substance we could discuss it, but you aren't even trying.

Like the others; you have nothing, except your misinterpretations, and willful ignorance. So, please stop, you're embarrassing yourself.

So your basically saying her map means nothing well at least we agree on one thing I guess. See if you base it off her map and then it doesn't match 1 of 3 versions that I know of then mathematics doesn't make one bit of diffrence. You just don't want to admit you based your map off fishes and she already altered the original drawing saying hers was a close match. Then later of course admits with newer data it wasnt. So we know Mrs hills map doesn't match fish's somewhat but even she is off on distance and some stars she used aren't even close to their. So in all your proof amounts to lines you drew on a star chart. Since it wasn't you 5 hat claimed you saw this it proves nothing othwr than you wasted your time.

Since you posted this as proof well we are right back art square one aren't we have any other proof??

originally posted by: dragonridr
So we know Mrs hills map doesn't match fish's somewhat but even she is off on distance and some stars she used aren't even close to their. So in all your proof amounts to lines you drew on a star chart.

Since you posted this as proof well we are right back art square one aren't we have any other proof??

Just a couple of things...

It has been rather easily established that this "distance" thing of your is what now appears to be a deliberate insistence on misrepresenting the actual stars used. I mean you are still insisting that Gliese 86 is the wrong distance, when in fact it is not.

And of course 2; As I've said, this is not proof, I told you this...explicitly. Yet you insist on calling it proof.

There is ample evidence that you are not considering the reality and data involved here...and only seeing what you wish.


So...I guess, in as much as you insist on misrepresenting scientific data you are done here.

And as we have seen from the other pseudo scientific skeptics here you are wholly incapable of using science in your investigations of this nature. Your fear and prejudices compel you to the depths of scientific depravity, and wholly invalidate your opinions, Hell man, you can't even provide any linked data...or should I say opinion, because everything you have been using is only opinion, not a shred of science to be found.

Your absolute refusal to look at the data, your refusal to apply science of any kind is bloody typical of the skeptic. And, provides the needed proof that "skeptics" of your ilk will not, do not accept anything as evidence.

Again...you are done here You have no data, no evidence, nothing capable of addressing the science I've provided In this simple case...so... you have nothing left to say! So, please do not.

Stars at the wrong distances; funny, but wholly untrue! roflmao (I should demand "proof")

ETA: I've noticed in these several discussions over this data that the skeptics not only "cherry pick" their data, but they tend to attempt to obfuscate the data and realty. In software we use deliberate obfuscation in an attempt to protect our hard work. This obfuscation works by making the de-compiled code unreadable...that is the purpose of obfuscation...to make it harder to find the truth.

Why does the skeptic do this? Unknown, other than; by refusing to accept data, and obfuscating what can't be cherry picked the skeptic builds a layer of insulation between themselves and reality. This insulation allows them to avoid the painful realities of the world around them; a species of Agoraphobia.

a reply to: tanka418
It appears that it is you that is "done here."

Fish invalidated her own claim - the same invalid claim you insist remains valid.

That's pretty much "done."

Harte

a reply to: Kali74

Eyewitness accounts are not proof because the circumstances that were witnessed haven't ever been reproduced and documented, it doesn't matter how credible the account or the person is.

Truth can be subjective too

originally posted by: Harte
a reply to: tanka418
It appears that it is you that is "done here."

Fish invalidated her own claim - the same invalid claim you insist remains valid.

That's pretty much "done."

Harte

Yes Harte; I do not believe Ms. Fish, and instead rely on the hard realities of advanced computer vision technologies and the template matching methods used in them.

I rely on real world data, as opposed to coerced statements of someone who is not secure in their own data.

Fundamentally; I don't care what so-and-so said after the fact. I do care what the actual data says. And apparently you and some others don't care a whit about the data, only what you can misconstrue it into saying...

You do understand that what you do is logically equivalent to lying...Lying to yourself, and in the process depriving yourself of a vastly richer experience, and lying to others who are only trying to understand...and that sir is evil.

I must admit that I've not read the whole OP. Let me start by saying that I'm not so arrogant as to believe that there is no other life in the universe. However, I have a difficult time with the credible and noncredible sources dealing with UFOs. How can you tell the difference?

There are those who have made a cottage industry out of lectures and book writing. It would seem that every few years they come out with new revelation of UFO visitation or government cover-up to generate new books. New people emerge, time to time, with new information like Robert Corso and those individuals who claim to been on the Roswell recovery. Then, they write books that further corrupt the truth with commercial revelations.

Next, there are those who I call the "Piper Cub" bunch. These are people that call every small airplane a Piper Cub. Cubs are as rare as UFO sightings. My point is, they are not educated observers and can't identify any one of a hundred light aircraft. Then they see an unusual aircraft and it is automatically classified as unidentified.

There are credible observers who see a true UFO and they don't come forth because of all the scorn brought on by the commercial UFO people. The UFO souvignier sellers and authors have destroyed any credibility in UFO research.

originally posted by: buddah6
Let me start by saying that I'm not so arrogant as to believe that there is no other life in the universe.

If I had a nickel for every post that started by saying that...

a reply to: draknoir2

What would you have me say? I think the water has been so muddied on the UFO subject that the truth will never be known. There will always be doubt!

originally posted by: buddah6
a reply to: draknoir2

What would you have me say? I think the water has been so muddied on the UFO subject that the truth will never be known. There will always be doubt!

Actually the waters aren't as "muddied" as it appears, and, in answer to our question: "How can you tell the difference?"

Credible sources use real science, non-credible sources do not. As can be readily seen here.

But, hey, who's to say that wild conjecture, uninformed opinion, and wholesale misinterpretation isn't better than using actual science...it would appear that science isn't actually needed...

originally posted by: draknoir2

originally posted by: buddah6
Let me start by saying that I'm not so arrogant as to believe that there is no other life in the universe.

If I had a nickel for every post that started by saying that...

IF you had that nickel; you'd be able to buy a cup of coffee...

a reply to: neoholographic

A skeptics mind is always on the 'NO' side of the argument that is what makes them a skeptic. That's the sad part. If there were more open minded skeptics in the world then the investigation into things like UFOs and alien abductions wouldn't be so bad and a lot more in depth but that wont really happen.

That's the harder part of the whole debate. When you walk in with a mind already made up it's hard to change it, and yes I'm aware that it's the same on both sides, every time I argue I mean debate things I do my best to be willing to listen to the other persons side and then try to dissuade them.

originally posted by: buddah6
a reply to: draknoir2

What would you have me say? I think the water has been so muddied on the UFO subject that the truth will never be known. There will always be doubt!

How about posting where anyone has said, in all their arrogance, that it is impossible for life to exist anywhere else in the universe?

I would really like to have a go at this mythological poster against whom so many believers rage... using the exact same platitude.