After watching The Stan Romeneck Story, are there any un-debunkable abduction cases?

originally posted by: The Shrike

We've had some fun trying to make james1947 see the errors of his way and he's really beating a dead horse thanks to your logic.

Lol, y'all are rich, you jump up and down, insisting on something that you can't even back up with any kind of reliable evidence, and you refuse to view the real world. Then you congratulate each other on a job well done?

Dude, do you understand that I put forth a scientifically sound hypothesis, and then provided supporting data / evidence that actually elevates it to a theory, meanwhile you have provided nothing of a reasonable confidence level to either support your position or to disprove mine. You have done nothing but argue against science and mathematics with rhetoric and general BS.

IF you are so sure about what you believe provide some evidence and we can all evaluate it.

Tell ya what; I'll have much of my stuff online by Monday...how about you do the same.

originally posted by: james1947

originally posted by: The Shrike

We've had some fun trying to make james1947 see the errors of his way and he's really beating a dead horse thanks to your logic.

Lol, y'all are rich, you jump up and down, insisting on something that you can't even back up with any kind of reliable evidence, and you refuse to view the real world. Then you congratulate each other on a job well done?

Dude, do you understand that I put forth a scientifically sound hypothesis, and then provided supporting data / evidence that actually elevates it to a theory, meanwhile you have provided nothing of a reasonable confidence level to either support your position or to disprove mine. You have done nothing but argue against science and mathematics with rhetoric and general BS.

IF you are so sure about what you believe provide some evidence and we can all evaluate it.

Tell ya what; I'll have much of my stuff online by Monday...how about you do the same.

I know you mean well and we shouldn't make fun at your expense. But what you're trying to achieve is what Frank Drake did with his "Drake's Equation".

Criticism related to the Drake equation focuses not on the equation itself, but on the fact that the estimated values for several of its factors are highly conjectural, the combined effect being that the uncertainty associated with any derived value is so large that the equation cannot be used to draw firm conclusions.

My criticism is that Frank started with zero (or 1 if you count us) and ended with zero. When you deal with reality, theories go out the window.

originally posted by: james1947

originally posted by: BiffJordan
a reply to: james1947

To me the Betty Hill map is no proof of anything, and is easily debunkable without using science and math,

You do understand that that is all I'm asking y'all to do. Debunk the map. But, you haven't, and it seems that you can't....which make it "un-debunkable"...just what you asked for!

I'll give you your point on this. I don't have the science to debunk the map. It's simply my logical mind that tells me it's rubbish. And it would be an inconvience to spend my time trying to scienfictally and mathematically disprove a map than an old lady made of the cosmos while under hypnosis. Especially after watching the Stan Romeneck Story on Netflix and seeing his hypnosis math on interstellar travel which I've read was debunked as direct copy from someone else's work. So I have a history of not trusting hypnosis because it's not a reliable source of information to me. A person could simply "act" like they are remembering an experience when in actuality they are just reciting memorized plans to credit their story with legitimacy.

therefore I do not consider it even in the conversation of "un-debunkable abduction stories". I don't need to qualify anything to you,

Yet, you asked for proof of an undebunkable abduction event, I provided evidence of just such an event, yet you refuse to accept the obvious...so why ask IF you will not consider ALL data?

Anyway, I'm not asking for you to "qualify" anything, only engage in scientific discussion about evidence I provided.

Abduction stories are no different than the search for Bigfoot. They search in the woods and don't find anything, and UFOlogists search the skies and don't find anything. The Betty Hill story is no different than the Patterson-Gimlin film.

Just because you've not seen a thing doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Have you ever seen the Constitution, or the Bill of Rights? Now I don't mean one of the knock-off copies, but the real deal. If you answer "NO", then One must ask; "How do you know they exist?"

The abduction experience isn't one that comes with an abundance of physical evidence. In fact the most common way for us to know if we've been abducted is the "missing time" property. And, that is difficult to nail down without the aid of technology. Unfortunately (depending on how you look at it) the use of technologies typically leads to cessation of abduction events...nobody wants to be detected and recorded...

Anyway; debunk the map...I dare you!

I don't remember if the Hill's claimed to have been probed with some kind of alien implant as other abductees have, regardless of that if people are probed with implants, why haven't they been removed and examined?

I did see a doc online once claiming to have studied an implant but nothing came of it, they found nothing interesting. Since the implant is something so common in abduction stories, why isn't that something we can cling to for legitimacy?

You say you'll have some work up on Monday, I'll read it and try to understand what you've put together.

originally posted by: wylekat
a reply to: one4all

You've been abducted? I have some questions- I am completely unsure if I have been abducted, but according to someone (I forgot who) on here, I've been going on trips my whole life...

I'm confused. So you've met someone on here who has knowledge of your personal abuductions? Can you explain this? How do they know this and why do you trust they are legit?

Are there encounters where there is no trauma, and one goes home giggling about what they just experienced?

I was visited by a grey 25 years ago. I woke up to his grinning face, and tried to slug him (I missed- he disappeared). Would I still be taken, and likely knocked out to the point I'd never know?

I should have asked this first: What species takes you? I have a rendering I did of an alien my wife saw while a ship hovered 20ish feet away from us- got a really detailed description (this was the non traumatic encounter). I named him Beldar, thanks to his head.. Wife says he was built like a bodybuilder, and had turned on the cabin light, yet. Oddly... I didn't see him- but I was concentrating on the ship, construction- or trying to, while being an absolute fool. I was trying to hitchhike for all I was worth.

So you and your wife have both seen or been abducted by aliens? Do you have any kind of evidence to back this up? I don't think it's fair to expect people to just take you at your word, this is one of the craziest forums on the internet and I've read some of the most outlandish fiction passed off as truth here. It's as if people have dreams and don't realize they are dreams.
This guy look familiar?

I have also (shut up, you bunch. You know who you are) just about run the complete gamut of paranormal, in your face stuff. All I'm missing on my paranormal bingo card is being possessed, and meeting Bigfoot. Is this a normal side effect of being taken?

Do you take mind altering drugs or prescriptions? Have you ever had any mental illness in your life? I have to suspect this because it's so much more likely the case than you being a beacon for esoteric experiences. I mean no offense to you but you should be fair to the rest of us, we cannot simply take your word that you are living a sci-fi novel which the rest of us just live lives where we interact with only human beings, animals and nature.

ATM, It's all I can think of. What I'm going for is information. I've been trying to get all I can for some time now.

originally posted by: [post=23644503]BiffJordan[/st]po
snip
I don't remember if the Hill's claimed to have been probed with some kind of alien implant as other abductees have, regardless of that if people are probed with implants, why haven't they been removed and examined?

I did see a doc online once claiming to have studied an implant but nothing came of it, they found nothing interesting. Since the implant is something so common in abduction stories, why isn't that something we can cling to for legitimacy?

You say you'll have some work up on Monday, I'll read it and try to understand what you've put together.

Not "classical" probing but Betty did claim that a needle was inserted in her navel to test for pregnancy so the aliens must have been pretty stupid since your navel has nothing to do with pregnancy. It's just a remnant of where you were attached to your mother, but it doesn't indicate anything about pregnancy.

"If you stick a needle into a woman's navel, it doesn't go much of anywhere other than into her abdominal muscles and perhaps if you push it deeper in, into the abdominal cavity full of guts, or the diaphragm, but certainly not into her uterus, which is carried much lower in the abdomen. Why would super-powerful, super-intelligent aliens be sticking a needle to test for pregnancy into a basically inactive portion of a female's anatomy? Betty didn't say that the aliens were "experimenting", as in, "poking needles around to see what's in there". She said that it was definitely a "pregnancy test".

originally posted by: BiffJordan

originally posted by: wylekat
a reply to: one4all

You've been abducted? I have some questions- I am completely unsure if I have been abducted, but according to someone (I forgot who) on here, I've been going on trips my whole life...

I'm confused. So you've met someone on here who has knowledge of your personal abuductions? Can you explain this? How do they know this and why do you trust they are legit?

Are there encounters where there is no trauma, and one goes home giggling about what they just experienced?

I was visited by a grey 25 years ago. I woke up to his grinning face, and tried to slug him (I missed- he disappeared). Would I still be taken, and likely knocked out to the point I'd never know?

I should have asked this first: What species takes you? I have a rendering I did of an alien my wife saw while a ship hovered 20ish feet away from us- got a really detailed description (this was the non traumatic encounter). I named him Beldar, thanks to his head.. Wife says he was built like a bodybuilder, and had turned on the cabin light, yet. Oddly... I didn't see him- but I was concentrating on the ship, construction- or trying to, while being an absolute fool. I was trying to hitchhike for all I was worth.

So you and your wife have both seen or been abducted by aliens? Do you have any kind of evidence to back this up? I don't think it's fair to expect people to just take you at your word, this is one of the craziest forums on the internet and I've read some of the most outlandish fiction passed off as truth here. It's as if people have dreams and don't realize they are dreams.
This guy look familiar?

I have also (shut up, you bunch. You know who you are) just about run the complete gamut of paranormal, in your face stuff. All I'm missing on my paranormal bingo card is being possessed, and meeting Bigfoot. Is this a normal side effect of being taken?

Do you take mind altering drugs or prescriptions? Have you ever had any mental illness in your life? I have to suspect this because it's so much more likely the case than you being a beacon for esoteric experiences. I mean no offense to you but you should be fair to the rest of us, we cannot simply take your word that you are living a sci-fi novel which the rest of us just live lives where we interact with only human beings, animals and nature.

ATM, It's all I can think of. What I'm going for is information. I've been trying to get all I can for some time now.

Every time I see these skulls I think that Bigfoot is a NATURAL evolutionary relative of such a human if they exist or existed.

originally posted by: The Shrike

I know you mean well and we shouldn't make fun at your expense. But what you're trying to achieve is what Frank Drake did with his "Drake's Equation".

Criticism related to the Drake equation focuses not on the equation itself, but on the fact that the estimated values for several of its factors are highly conjectural, the combined effect being that the uncertainty associated with any derived value is so large that the equation cannot be used to draw firm conclusions.

My criticism is that Frank started with zero (or 1 if you count us) and ended with zero. When you deal with reality, theories go out the window.

No worries, you are not having fun at MY expense; its all at yours. And any parallels between my theory and Dr. Drake's equation exist only in your imagination. Dr. Drake was on a quest to illustrate what might be, so, there is room for speculation, although, many of the elements of his equation are panning out and becoming scientifically significant.

My theory starts with a simple drawing and attempts to match it to a set of fixed stars within 33 parsecs of Earth. there is NO speculation. the stars that appear in the match are fixed, and have stable properties...no speculation. AND, more importantly, I've done my analysis with modern astrophysics, not something stuck in the early 1970's...which in this instance appears to be sufficient to overturn ALL of the analyses you have read to date on the Hill map.

In any case man, what you are doing, with your refusal to discuss the map is showing yourself to be the fool. Your opinions of the Hill map are scientifically unwarranted, mathematically incorrect, and logically broken.

It almost seems that you and the other skeptics here don't want to discover truth, but rather only want validation of some ill-thought notions that appeal only to One's ego. That is no way to seek truth. It still stands; that IF you can show me where / how I'm wrong, I'll change my mind and drop the whole thing...and, you could at least try.

BTW: If you worked Dr. Drake's equation and got 0 (zero) as a result; you did it wrong!

originally posted by: BiffJordan

I'll give you your point on this. I don't have the science to debunk the map. It's simply my logical mind that tells me it's rubbish. And it would be an inconvience to spend my time trying to scienfictally and mathematically disprove a map than an old lady made of the cosmos while under hypnosis..

Something I'm trying to get across is the glaring fact that it is virtually impossible to put 24 dots on a bit of paper, under ANY circumstance, and have those "dots" match known stars with any sort of precision...as Betty's map has done.

Well, unlike you, I have spent nearly all of my 70+ years not only relying on my logic, but also on a serious science and engineering education and background. I have learned that to simply "jerk my knee" and assume something without enough (understandable) data does not lead to truth, knowledge, or understanding. Unfortunately, one of the problems we have here are the other quite outdated, and/or just plain BS reports on Betty's map...part of the reason that I engaged in my own analysis...

And, ya know what?!?!! Betty's map turns out to be just what she said it was...a map of stars and planets that show trade / exploration routes...of the 5 main "trade" partners on Betty's map, only 1 (one) has no confirmed planets.

a reply to: BiffJordan

we cannot simply take your word

Then, WHY THE HELL ARE YOU REFUTING IT SO DAMN HARD.

Answer me that. If I am simply some schizo nut- why is there a certain # of you who, against all reason, come on here and do your absolute level best to try to publicly humiliate me and accuse me of taking drugs or having mental illness?

Methinks thou all doth protest too much. Personally, I've had a gutfull.

originally posted by: wylekat
a reply to: BiffJordan

we cannot simply take your word

Then, WHY THE HELL ARE YOU REFUTING IT SO DAMN HARD.

Answer me that. If I am simply some schizo nut- why is there a certain # of you who, against all reason, come on here and do your absolute level best to try to publicly humiliate me and accuse me of taking drugs or having mental illness?

Methinks thou all doth protest too much. Personally, I've had a gutfull.

While I wouldn't take your "word" for anything but the obvious; neither would I accuse you of a mental illness, when I had no understanding of such things, nor bring up "drugs" of any kind, which I also have little to no knowledge of... Instead, I would prefer to ask relevant questions, and rely on good old fashion logic, and common sense. Something the skeptics here claim to have, yet don't seem to be able to display...sad.

And, yes, they do seem to want to humiliate, make fun of, those with different experiences...they are a bit more direct in your case, but, let it roll off your back...they are willfully ignorant, and they probably won't accept reality any time soon...regardless of the quantity, and quality of supporting evidence.

Just out of interest... and after having refreshed my knowledge on the Hill case, but it's worth noting that:

(a) Betty was an avid (if not rabid) UFO "enthusiast";
(b) the Hill's hypnotic regression took place circa 2 years after the alleged event;
(c) renowned professional astronomers like Carl Sagan rejected the Fish woman's "star map".

In summary, in this thread James hangs his coat on the star map peg, but we must remember - first and foremost - it's the work of an amateur (school teacher Fish (not an astronomer)), and that amateur's work was heavily and reasonably criticized by actual professionals (Sagan). Ultimately it was debunked to the satisfaction of professional astronomers.

But here and now we have a recent sign-up on ATS (that's you, James), make giddy and bold claims about his/her own professional background, and ultimately attempting to make us believe renowned experts like Sagan were wrong. I know who I believe: James (another random on an internet UFO forum) vs Sagan. It's Sagan.

And just a thought on the 2 years between the alleged abduction incident and the hypnosis sessions. Betty was already mad for UFOs and aliens, so who do you reckon she 'off-loaded' this on to? Yup, Barney. Two years of listening to Betty drone on [and on and on...] about this topic surely influenced Barney. And plenty of time - if she was so minded - to put the various elements of her childish hoax in place.

As a postscript, hypnotic regression is not a science, hell, even polygraphs are more credible. Dredging up all manner of effluent from the sub-conscious and then presenting it as evidence is akin to seeing shapes and faces (and perhaps feces) in the clouds.

And as a final - final - postscript, the Fish 2D-to-3D dot-joining star map was so amateur and slapdash, there were countless other possible celestial matches, and - despite James' dubious statistical claims - the Zeta Reticuli match was unanimously dismissed by actual professional astronomers. Because it didn't actually match.

James, give it up. You won't convince anyone here. If you just want an argument then go down your local bar. Otherwise what's your point?

originally posted by: BenutzerUnbekannt
Just out of interest... and after having refreshed my knowledge on the Hill case, but it's worth noting that:

(a) Betty was an avid (if not rabid) UFO "enthusiast";
(b) the Hill's hypnotic regression took place circa 2 years after the alleged event;
(c) renowned professional astronomers like Carl Sagan rejected the Fish woman's "star map".

In summary, in this thread James hangs his coat on the star map peg, but we must remember - first and foremost - it's the work of an amateur (school teacher Fish (not an astronomer)), and that amateur's work was heavily and reasonably criticized by actual professionals (Sagan). Ultimately it was debunked to the satisfaction of professional astronomers.

But here and now we have a recent sign-up on ATS (that's you, James), make giddy and bold claims about his/her own professional background, and ultimately attempting to make us believe renowned experts like Sagan were wrong. I know who I believe: James (another random on an internet UFO forum) vs Sagan. It's Sagan.

Almost well done, except;
1) you resort to a logical fallacy...appeal to authority...Read Here
2) Good ole Carl was wrong; a) he was using data, astrometrics, that was available in the 70's and 80's, and not the most accurate, b) He never considered the mathematical probabilities involved. So basically he didn't know because he didn't look...sorry.
3) I mentioned several times that I used more modern data, data that ALL of those analyses you have read didn't have available, or didn't use.
4) Ms. Fish did a wonderful job in spite of the primitive methods used. However, her work was sufficiently accurate so as to form a starting point for a search.
5) I used computer vision methods and techniques to validate my match. Something that Carl Sagan, and all the others simply did not have available.

And just a thought on the 2 years between the alleged abduction incident and the hypnosis sessions. Betty was already mad for UFOs and aliens, so who do you reckon she 'off-loaded' this on to? Yup, Barney. Two years of listening to Betty drone on [and on and on...] about this topic surely influenced Barney. And plenty of time - if she was so minded - to put the various elements of her childish hoax in place.

Did you know that one of the more important stars, Kappa Fornacis, was not known when Betty drew her map? Yet that star was subsequently identified as being an integral component of the template. So...how would you explain the presence of something that was not known?

As a postscript, hypnotic regression is not a science, hell, even polygraphs are more credible. Dredging up all manner of effluent from the sub-conscious and then presenting it as evidence is akin to seeing shapes and faces (and perhaps feces) in the clouds.

Completely inaccurate and inappropriate analogy. The hypnotic regression is only the medium used to bring forth a memory. The fact that the memory (Betty's map / our template) has a match in nearby stars is virtually impossible, which is to say; the mathematical probability of Betty's map matching the stars is virtually null.

And as a final - final - postscript, the Fish 2D-to-3D dot-joining star map was so amateur and slapdash, there were countless other possible celestial matches, and - despite James' dubious statistical claims - the Zeta Reticuli match was unanimously dismissed by actual professional astronomers. Because it didn't actually match.

James, give it up. You won't convince anyone here. If you just want an argument then go down your local bar. Otherwise what's your point?

Actually, how would you like to prove your claim that my "statistical claims" are dubious? You are aware that anyone can do the same math and get the same result, right? Try it yourself!

As for all those "other"possible matches; I've seen all the attempts I can find. For the most part they are incomplete, seriously distorted, or not relevant.

Yes, well as far as the argument part goes; I might actually get a more intelligent one down at the bar. I find it incredible that none of you are willing to investigate other idea, and you, debunking is too inconvenient?!?

ETA: Here is Betty's map overlaid on real world stars. This image is a 3D rendering of stars within 33parsec, view from a remote location (HIP 26737)...all position data was taken directly from the Hipparcos "XHIP" database table. A Python script to run on "Poser Pro 11" was created problematically by a C# Windows Form application. The Python script created "bucky balls", colored them according to stellar Classification and placed in 3D space...this drawing is highly accurate.

a reply to: james1947

Wait a second james1947. This is Bettys map as she drew it:


This is an animated gif with yellow dots and red lines replacing her drawn points:


This is a comparison of how your map looks with the background noise removed next to Betty's actual map:


As you can see, this is not an overlay of Betty's actual map onto a 3-D depiction of a real world star map.

a reply to: james1947

My, you would make a fine flat earther, James. There's no point in slapping you down point by point as facts don't seem to penetrate your fanatical B&B dogma.

There's already a thread on B&B Hill's alleged abduction:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Have a good look through there and you'll find all your B&B theories debunked.

Curiously enough one of the main members doggedly pushing the Hill's story is a defunct user called "JimiS" - that's not you is it James1947? Back under a new username to have another go?

Anyways, this thread is about strong cases that are difficult to dubunk; the Hill case has been debunked over and over again. How about you take all your "research" and "scientific expertise" over to that thread. This thread is at risk of being derailed by your repeated assertions.

To get back on topic, other strong cases? It's been mentioned before, but the Travis Walton case seems quite solid -?

a reply to: Ectoplasm8

Yes Ecto, mine "looks" a bit different...

However, in Betty's defense, she was attempting to draw something from a clouded memory, and I had the advantage of seeing what it really looks like...in the real world.

That's the advantage of using real data. and the advantage of using modern technologies, like computer vision, allows us to compare our "template" to the real world without the prejudice of our Human eyes and perceptions.

IF, you were to compare image features of both, you will find they are a very close match. And, you, actually all y'all should remember that Betty's memory cannot be an exact match...

Perhaps IF all of you put down your prejudices for a moment...

ETA: So what is the point of your GIF? Using just the primary stars, and lines don't really show much, and, don't constitute the complete match. In fact the primary stars are a bit less than half, You will need to use the other stars as well. As I suggested, you should compare image features...

I like this comparison better...it seems a bit more accurate.

originally posted by: BenutzerUnbekannt
a reply to: james1947

My, you would make a fine flat earther, James. There's no point in slapping you down point by point as facts don't seem to penetrate your fanatical B&B dogma.

Slapping me down point by point?!!! You haven't, not yet, you haven't even put down a single point...you won't even try!

All you do is bring up old tired analyses that are based on obsolete data, and somehow expect that to actually work...wanna try again?

And the only "flat earther" here is you son, with your insistence of doggedly adhering to the obsolete.

Anyways, this thread is about strong cases that are difficult to dubunk; the Hill case has been debunked over and over again. How about you take all your "research" and "scientific expertise" over to that thread. This thread is at risk of being derailed by your repeated assertions.

Well, in as much as you refuse to actually "debunk" my map analysis, I guess it constitutes that "undebunkable abduction case" you are trying to find.

Your problem is that you are convinced that you are right, you have little to no evidence on your side, and almost all other indications show that you have either refused to look at evidence, or you don't have the skills to recognize valid / viable data when it is presented. You also seem to "jump the gun" (as it were) and find conclusions that are not supported by existing data, and are over turned by new data. Course, you don't accept new data, it contradicts what you "want" so it must not be real.

Finally, IF you no longer wish to discuss reality, simply stop and I will as well.But, don't keep on using the same tired old BS that has either been completely misunderstood (by you and some others), or accepted at face value simply because it agrees with your desire to show something that does not exist. And, please, don't go forward think you have accomplished something here, you haven't!!! All you have managed to do is provide non-expert analyses of both Betty's psychology, and the star map. Neither of which is very accurate, both of which are based on old misunderstood data (or no data at all)

Well I guess "the boss" doesn't want to discuss this anymore, tis a shame as this is the case he's looking for. For some reason you think this case is debunked, but, you have utterly failed to "debunk" the "map". You haven't even tried, and for some reason wish to accept the lack of detailed analysis provided by big names that just happen to agree with your preconceived notions about alien abduction.

Perhaps IF y'all were a bit more open-minded, and could engage a little critical thinking...you might try to employ logic and common sense...oh well; you're on your own.

originally posted by: The Shrike

originally posted by: [post=23644503]BiffJordan[/st]po
snip
I don't remember if the Hill's claimed to have been probed with some kind of alien implant as other abductees have, regardless of that if people are probed with implants, why haven't they been removed and examined?

I did see a doc online once claiming to have studied an implant but nothing came of it, they found nothing interesting. Since the implant is something so common in abduction stories, why isn't that something we can cling to for legitimacy?

You say you'll have some work up on Monday, I'll read it and try to understand what you've put together.

Not "classical" probing but Betty did claim that a needle was inserted in her navel to test for pregnancy so the aliens must have been pretty stupid since your navel has nothing to do with pregnancy. It's just a remnant of where you were attached to your mother, but it doesn't indicate anything about pregnancy.

"If you stick a needle into a woman's navel, it doesn't go much of anywhere other than into her abdominal muscles and perhaps if you push it deeper in, into the abdominal cavity full of guts, or the diaphragm, but certainly not into her uterus, which is carried much lower in the abdomen. Why would super-powerful, super-intelligent aliens be sticking a needle to test for pregnancy into a basically inactive portion of a female's anatomy? Betty didn't say that the aliens were "experimenting", as in, "poking needles around to see what's in there". She said that it was definitely a "pregnancy test".

Wow, you could really use some more research there bud. 10 years after Betty Hill was reportedly abducted. a medical pregnancy test was developed using a long needle inserted into the naval. If you spent more time on research rather than pure debunking you would be better off.
What is really surprising here is that she described that test 10 years before it even existed. It became obsolete soon after with chemical tests being more practical and efficient. amniocentesis first used needles inserted through the navel, then later through the abdomen as the techniques changed

originally posted by: james1947
Well I guess "the boss" doesn't want to discuss this anymore, tis a shame as this is the case he's looking for. For some reason you think this case is debunked, but, you have utterly failed to "debunk" the "map". You haven't even tried, and for some reason wish to accept the lack of detailed analysis provided by big names that just happen to agree with your preconceived notions about alien abduction.

Perhaps IF y'all were a bit more open-minded, and could engage a little critical thinking...you might try to employ logic and common sense...oh well; you're on your own.

He didn't debunk a single thing, including that navel needle pregnancy test thing, and like most debunkers, did zero actual research.

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed

originally posted by: james1947
Well I guess "the boss" doesn't want to discuss this anymore, tis a shame as this is the case he's looking for. For some reason you think this case is debunked, but, you have utterly failed to "debunk" the "map". You haven't even tried, and for some reason wish to accept the lack of detailed analysis provided by big names that just happen to agree with your preconceived notions about alien abduction.

Perhaps IF y'all were a bit more open-minded, and could engage a little critical thinking...you might try to employ logic and common sense...oh well; you're on your own.

He didn't debunk a single thing, including that navel needle pregnancy test thing, and like most debunkers, did zero actual research.

I know...but after a while One get a bit tired of telling them that their data is OLD and OBSOLETE...so, for now anyway, they may think as they will...the reality is they are wrong, and try to lay the blame on our thinking...

Did you know that I'm a "flat earther" because I embrace new knowledge, new ways of thinking, new technologies? (BTW, I'm 71). What I actually do find incredible is the fact that these "debunkers" insist that their obsolete data is better than any new data.

And; old, tired authorities, are just old and tired!