It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
That is completely unscientific, and unbelievably biased, and has been thoroughly debunked here.
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'.
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!
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.
originally posted by: stealthskater
How reliable is hypnotism anyway?
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.
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.
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%?
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.
originally posted by: Arbitrageur
That is completely unscientific, and unbelievably biased, and has been thoroughly debunked here.
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'.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
If you don't have anything to add to the subject at hand whether it be positive or negative then hit the door.
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.