Betty Hill artfully debunked by Dr Simon & skeptics Phil Klass & Robert Sheaffer

a reply to: TerryDon79

You seem a bit confused about some things...

I've seen the images in question sir; you are quite mistaken! The original drawing of Betty's is very much like the precision images posted both in the other thread, and at the web page linked. And, the image at the link shows the planets for all stars known to have planets.

It would also appear that we are talking about two very different things. You are insisting on a 'point-for-point' match, which we both know is quite impossible (due to the nature of Betty's original drawing).

And, I am talking about the ability or level of precision required for recognition. Which is the appropriate "class of match" in this instance due to the nature of Betty's original drawing.

You insist that the data, etc. is "contorted" to achieve a match, yet the degree of distortion is small. AND, most importantly; no contortion or distortion is required to achieve recognition...so...your argument holds no water.

a reply to: JimiS

You seem to be mistaken tanka.

We went through all of this on your thread and you kept up the same argument even after being proved wrong, over and over again. Your map isn't even close to Betty's. The sooner you deal with it, the sooner you can move on.

a reply to: JimiS

Trying to explain to you again why your project was a complete and utter waste of your time would be a complete and utter waste of my time. On the other hand, I might just start another thread specifically discussing Betty's drawing.

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: JimiS

You seem to be mistaken tanka.

We went through all of this on your thread and you kept up the same argument even after being proved wrong, over and over again. Your map isn't even close to Betty's. The sooner you deal with it, the sooner you can move on.

Please "prove" this again...I seem to have missed that in the other thread...I remember you making some noise about that, but, never ever produce anything concrete... How about you show us an image with Betty's drawing overlaid on the precision "map"...

@DJW001...lol!

originally posted by: JimiS

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: JimiS

You seem to be mistaken tanka.

We went through all of this on your thread and you kept up the same argument even after being proved wrong, over and over again. Your map isn't even close to Betty's. The sooner you deal with it, the sooner you can move on.

Please "prove" this again...I seem to have missed that in the other thread...I remember you making some noise about that, but, never ever produce anything concrete... How about you show us an image with Betty's drawing overlaid on the precision "map"...

@DJW001...lol!

How about you go look at everything from your old thread, tanka? I'm not explaining it to you all over again.

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: JimiS

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: JimiS

You seem to be mistaken tanka.

We went through all of this on your thread and you kept up the same argument even after being proved wrong, over and over again. Your map isn't even close to Betty's. The sooner you deal with it, the sooner you can move on.

Please "prove" this again...I seem to have missed that in the other thread...I remember you making some noise about that, but, never ever produce anything concrete... How about you show us an image with Betty's drawing overlaid on the precision "map"...

@DJW001...lol!

How about you go look at everything from your old thread, tanka? I'm not explaining it to you all over again.

I'm sorry man...but in that other thread you never proved, nor provided evidence of anything. You said you could, never did, and now seem to pretend you did...

I guess we're done then...

originally posted by: JimiS

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: JimiS

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: JimiS

You seem to be mistaken tanka.

We went through all of this on your thread and you kept up the same argument even after being proved wrong, over and over again. Your map isn't even close to Betty's. The sooner you deal with it, the sooner you can move on.

Please "prove" this again...I seem to have missed that in the other thread...I remember you making some noise about that, but, never ever produce anything concrete... How about you show us an image with Betty's drawing overlaid on the precision "map"...

@DJW001...lol!

How about you go look at everything from your old thread, tanka? I'm not explaining it to you all over again.

I'm sorry man...but in that other thread you never proved, nor provided evidence of anything. You said you could, never did, and now seem to pretend you did...

I guess we're done then...

In that other thread you ignored EVERYTHING Betty said apart from the word stars and the drawing. You then made a "connection" based on stars alone. That connection wasn't even as accurate as my towns and cities in the UK.

You couldn't even admit that your personal bias was influencing the results.

But we've been all over this, haven't we tanka?

But this thread isn't about your poorly interpreted, faulty map. It's about how the whole thing has been debunked.

a reply to: JimiS

I'm sorry man...but in that other thread you never proved, nor provided evidence of anything. You said you could, never did, and now seem to pretend you did...

Correction: several people critiqued your methodology and showed it to be hopelessly flawed. You simply refused to accept it.

Some members are getting carried away with the infighting over Betty's starmap. Please restrict your replies to the topic which is the Hill's made-up experience. Since it's been proven beyond mondo that the Hill's never had the alleged experience then arguing about the damn starmap is a waste of mind power especially in a thread that disproves all claims associated with the map.

Please contribute to this thread or as someone threatened, start a thread on the starmap and I'm sure it's an old topic here.

Behave. You are all nice people but of differing opinions which are almost at fever pitch. Relax.

a reply to: klassless

It doesn't prove that I was right or that you were wrong about the radiation but I figured you might find this interesting:

During the day after her and her husband’s UFO sightings, Betty became concerned that they might have been exposed to radiation from the UFO. Almost every ufologist from Keyhoe and Lorenzen to Ruppelt and Menzel discussed stories about radiation being detected from UFOs. Atomic engines powered UFOs. That was the speculation. Betty discussed her fear of contamination with her sister and she in turn contacted a physicist. He suggested any ordinary compass might detect radiation by the needle showing disturbance on contact with the car’s surface.

Finding a compass, Betty rushed out into the rain and ran the compass along the wet side of the car. At first there was no effect, but then she saw some shiny circles on the car, each the size of a silver dollar. At that moment, she recalled that the beeping noise they heard the previous night came from the direction of the trunk. When she placed the compass on one of the spots, the needle wavered. “She almost panicked, but got control of herself.” She tried it again and the needle went out of control. She eventually got Barney to do the tests, but he didn’t think anything abnormal was going on and suggested that the compass was just reacting to the metal of the car. The test convinced her, however. This left her haunted by the realisation that she and her husband had been contaminated.

The circles on the trunk echo a UFO case from the 1957 Sputnik UFO flap. Mildred Wenzel at that time was reported to have pockmarks on her car that were tested with a Geiger counter and showed radioactivity. This may be some sort of folkloric cousin to the sociologically notorious Seattle Windshield Pitting Epidemic when people started to connect pits in windshields to fallout from a nuclear test. Commentators dismiss the notion that a compass could detect radioactivity. Barney probably had it right. Normal magnetism in the metal could probably explain a compass needle wavering off magnetic north. A needle out of control might signify other things, but this is of no consequence here. The important point is this. Regardless of the test’s validity, Betty feared she had been exposed to radioactive contamination.

magonia.haaan.com...

originally posted by: TheLaughingGod

I don't doubt that out of the hundreds of thousands of contactees and abductees a fair number of them have had real experiences. When you take both the phenomenon of UFO's, abductions, various types of evidence including trace evidence and radar signals, whistleblowers in intelligence and defence as well as very detailed historical accounts by the ancients I think it paints a pretty clear picture. Rather undeniable I would say.

100,000s really? Do people just throw out big numbers to give something validity?

Some might subscribe to the unscientific axiom that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence - a goalpost that can always be moved if needed.

I agree to a point, but many millions say miracles happen, billions believe in demons, little people, fairies etc so does that make it all factual? It is hard to call something factual when all the evidence is human based. The big question is whether UFOs is actually a social phenomenon or not. Just looking at the progression it started out as a simple state and has progressed over the last 60 years to a huge story line that branches off in countless directions that makes one wonder if we are living a SF story that many continue to write chapters in.

originally posted by: ColdWisdom
a reply to: klassless

It doesn't prove that I was right or that you were wrong about the radiation but I figured you might find this interesting:
snip
magonia.haaan.com...

Thanks for including that which I read decades ago. I didn't put much stock on the tale.

A simple compass is a good detector of DC magnetic fields.

a reply to: klassless

Correct, a compass is not the equivalent of a geiger counter. The point was to compare the similarities of the Hill case with other cases where documented anomalous radioactivity was detected.

I still stand by my posited hypothesis about Psychotronic Devices.

Just for fun though, this is the person we're all talking about in the thread:



There she is in all her glory!

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: TheLaughingGod

I don't doubt that out of the hundreds of thousands of contactees and abductees a fair number of them have had real experiences. When you take both the phenomenon of UFO's, abductions, various types of evidence including trace evidence and radar signals, whistleblowers in intelligence and defence as well as very detailed historical accounts by the ancients I think it paints a pretty clear picture. Rather undeniable I would say.

100,000s really? Do people just throw out big numbers to give something validity?

Some might subscribe to the unscientific axiom that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence - a goalpost that can always be moved if needed.

I agree to a point, but many millions say miracles happen, billions believe in demons, little people, fairies etc so does that make it all factual? It is hard to call something factual when all the evidence is human based. The big question is whether UFOs is actually a social phenomenon or not. Just looking at the progression it started out as a simple state and has progressed over the last 60 years to a huge story line that branches off in countless directions that makes one wonder if we are living a SF story that many continue to write chapters in.

I don't accept tales of "alien abductions" as factual due to the lack of evidence. Why should alleged intelligent "aliens" be interested in a poor, ol' schmuck out in the country when they have their pick of the herd?

UFOs are a real, "nuts and bolts", physical reality. We see them, photograph them, film them and videotape them. The word "social" does not apply. I gotta tell you, while I am a skeptic and an atheist and used to consider "demons, little people, fairies etc" as mental fantasies, there seems to be an overwhelming amount of miscellaneous evidence in the form of photos and videos that are difficult to say are hoaxes. The best examples come from trailcams that show all kinds of normally invisible beings and creatures. It's safe to claim that some are hoaxes but which ones, how many? If you were to stay by a trailcam would you see what it sees, such as the "Rake"? Bring along some waterproof undies!

a reply to: klassless

The best examples come from trailcams that show all kinds of normally invisible beings and creatures.

You mean shadow people?

originally posted by: ColdWisdom
a reply to: klassless

Correct, a compass is not the equivalent of a geiger counter. The point was to compare the similarities of the Hill case with other cases where documented anomalous radioactivity was detected.

I still stand by my posited hypothesis about Psychotronic Devices.

Just for fun though, this is the person we're all talking about in the thread:

There she is in all her glory!

I am not qualified to discuss Psychotronic Devices although I learned about them in the early 1970s. Their use is typically dismissed by psychologists as being a delusional response to auditory hallucinations similar to accounts of alien abductions.

Thanks for posting Betty's photo. I am one of a few, if not the only one, on this forum who lived "near" her when I was stationed at Pease AFB from 1958 until my discharge in 1959.

There are other women in UFOlogy that made names for themselves but are the opposite of Betty Hill. One I met is Ann Druffel who has built a respected reputation. But she shares some traits with Betty. In the 1980s when I lived in Los Angeles and used to attend UFO lectures by Dr. Frank Stranges, founder of The National Investigations Committee on UFOs (NICUFO), and I may have met Ann at one of them. I really don't remember where or when. We became friends and one day she invited me along with her husband or an acquaintance to go up to the mountains to try to see UFOs. The night was perfect with a clear, star-studded sky and we sat down and began to scan the sky. Every once in a while a small plane would become visible and every time you could hear Ann scream "There's one!" Never mind that the planes' navigational lights gave the craft's identity away. What's wrong with some people? Coincidentally, later I was treated at the Glendale Chiropractic Clinic by an intern who turned out to be Ann's daughter!

www.anndruffel.com...

In response to the Psychotronics, check out:

Mind Justice

originally posted by: ColdWisdom
a reply to: klassless

The best examples come from trailcams that show all kinds of normally invisible beings and creatures.

You mean shadow people?

Your label is not accurate as the creatures might also cast a shadow! And it's not only people. I once saw a "shadow person" but I was hallucinating after ingesting Asthmador. I stepped into the apartment's hallway linking various rooms and as soon as I stepped into the hallway I saw a shadow avoid me by dashing into one of the rooms. I went after it but didn't see it! What a foolish person I was, at times.

a reply to: klassless

You may want to keep your personal consumption stories to yourself seeing as they could violate the T&C. Just a friendly suggestion.

originally posted by: stiver
One can always learn something new from a new thread on old topics.

For example, I just learned that Dr. Simon had two experiences with UFOs himself - first letter, second page, third paragraph, the highlighted text. Quote: Having had two experiences with UFOs myself I felt little need to go to someone else who probably had none."

Therefore, it's too much to say Dr. Simon was skeptical, even less a debunker, from the beginning. Maybe because of his personal experiences he was inclined to accept that there was an actual sighting that night. Dr. Simon was a truly professional hypnotist and wouldn't allow his own experiences to influence the subject, but it's still possible. And I also ask the question: Did he actually go to someone with his sightings and to who. Is this how he got recommended to do this job?

I'm also very surprised by the handwriting of Betty Hill. For a mentally unstable person it's extremely organized and well crafted. Did she write these letters herself or she dictated to someone? If dictated - who wrote?

Her handwriting was organized 'cause that was still the early period before she went off her rocker. Remember that before and during this period she was active with UFOlogy, writing to this military brass, or arranging some meeting at which she would talk, etc. If she had gone off her rocker then she would not have been successful with her activities. Still on her rocker!